Why do we say " I believe in evolution"?

by Anti-Christ 89 Replies latest jw friends

Anti-Christ

Where has it been proven? What is it about evolution that is observable, testable, and repeatable? The way evo's talk about the "fact" of evolution reminds me of the way Dubbers try to convince themselves they have the Truth™ by always talking about it as the Truth™.
But this is what you need to prove, and have failed to prove. This inspite of the world wide effort of billions of dollars and countless entire university and government research departments of the past 50 or 60 years.
here are some examples with a link from talkorigins.org
Evolution has never been observed."
Biologists define evolution as a change in the gene pool of a population over time. One example is insects developing a resistance to pesticides over the period of a few years. Even most Creationists recognize that evolution at this level is a fact. What they don't appreciate is that this rate of evolution is all that is required to produce the diversity of all living things from a common ancestor.
The origin of new species by evolution has also been observed, both in the laboratory and in the wild. See, for example, (Weinberg, J.R., V.R. Starczak, and D. Jorg, 1992, "Evidence for rapid speciation following a founder event in the laboratory." Evolution 46: 1214-1220). The "Observed Instances of Speciation" FAQ in the talk.origins archives gives several additional examples.
Even without these direct observations, it would be wrong to say that evolution hasn't been observed. Evidence isn't limited to seeing something happen before your eyes. Evolution makes predictions about what we would expect to see in the fossil record, comparative anatomy, genetic sequences, geographical distribution of species, etc., and these predictions have been verified many times over. The number of observations supporting evolution is overwhelming.
What hasn't been observed is one animal abruptly changing into a radically different one, such as a frog changing into a cow. This is not a problem for evolution because evolution doesn't propose occurrences even remotely like that. In fact, if we ever observed a frog turn into a cow, it would be very strong evidence against evolution.
drwtsn32

To say that evolution is a "fact" is a gross overstatement.
Not any more than saying gravity is a fact.
Whenever I read stuff that promotes evolution, it is always loaded with words like: seems, perhaps, maybe, imagine, and so forth. Hardly the stuff of science.
What are you reading? Check TalkOrigins.org for a great list of evidences/proofs of macroevolution.
Evolution happened -- fact. How evolution works -- theory.
drwtsn32

Science is: observable, testable, and repeatable. Evolution fails on all three.
Evolution is observable. It makes testable predictions. Repeatable? Repeating the exact steps that evolution took in the past would be a challenge, as the "raw materials" evolution works with is somewhat random. But evolution has been "recreated" in the lab. That is a form of repeatable-ness.
drwtsn32

Claiming that natural selection proves the general theory of evolution is like saying that because I jumped across a puddle, I can leap across the Grand Canyon in a single bound.
I agree with the point you're trying to make. Natural selection alone would not sustain the evolutionary theory, as natural selection would not in itself add complexity to a genome, giving a species new traits, etc. No one considers natural selection itself as a proof of evolution, as far as I know. It is merely a component of the evolutionary theory.
jaguarbass

If evolution means change and adaptation, then you can put me down as I believe in it.
If evolution means that life started out from an ameoba and evolved to man with out
any intervention aka designer, I'm not buying it.
I dont think it really matters what I think.
I dont agree with the fundamentalist Christians and I dont agree with-
I dont even know how to describe the antithesis of fundamentalist christian on the issue,
because it is a big, confused camp that changes their position with the wind.
Wich may be good because if your looking for the truth, you have take it where
you find it and not try to pound a square peg into a round hole.
Also I believe there are parties whos interest it is too keep the truth from man.
The simplest of reasons being to divide, confuse and conquer.
And the dissinformation creates two camps for battle, the believers and the unbelievers.
The protaginst and the antagonist.
Cant have a story without the good and the bad.
I suspect a supreme being conciousness, who cant be found in any church or affiliated with any religion
designed various life forms that adapt according to their enviroment.
I dont know if anyone has ever met or talked with this supreme being, and would be
suspicious of anyone who claims they have.
I suspect these seeds of life DNA can be transported through space on commets, and astroids and
other planets and moons.
Chalam

Hi,
A few points so far!
On the subject of Atheism and Evolution, I agree they are two separate things but they are not mutually exclusive, in fact they normally go hand in hand. There are a few Christians who believe God created the universe and everything in it using the big bang and evolution but they are a minority.
Spook, I agree with pretty much all of your post, save I don't personally believe in evolution. I was explaining the theory to my 6 year old the other day. She was asking how old the earth is. I told her no-one knows for sure. I told her about the theory of a big bang, how in that cosmic event a single cell was made by chance and from it, fish came, then the fish came out of the water, then other creatures on the ground, then apes, then everything else. As I did the whole thing seems preposterous! That said, I am sure the opposite is true for evolutionists. Anyhow, that is why I agree with the title of this thread, it is all down to belief.
I found it interesting that you brought up the issue of "truth" in your post. I was going to but decided against it. However, I agree, this question is paramount. Truth is fact for sure. However, what many accept as "facts" I say is about as factual as a flat earth going around the sun.
Of course, science should change in light of new evidence, I agree. Refinement is cool. However, what when that evidence contradicts the old "evidence" and "facts" or "evolves"?! How do we know the new "facts" any more solid than the old ones? I draw parallels to the "new light" which contradicts the "old light" that JWs know so well.
I do not agree with many of the proposed answers to the "big questions" I have posed. Once again, IMHO these are once again beliefs not facts. So we are back to the question "what is truth".
Yes, I believe Jesus is the truth, but then I believe He made the universe and everything in it included you and I. If you want answers, then He has them, just like Peter said, He knows everything John 21:17
All the best,
Stephen
drwtsn32

If evolution means change and adaptation, then you can put me down as I believe in it.

If evolution means that life started out from an ameoba and evolved to man with out any intervention aka designer, I'm not buying it.
The second is merely the first over very, very, very long time periods.
Spook

The OP said
Okay I get what your saying ( I think ) , evolution as a theory is a very very go explanation of the complexities of life on earth and it is supported by facts, did I get that right?
Yup, you've got it. Misconstruing these leads down a bad path when one starts debating those like Mad Dog
Science is: observable, testable, and repeatable. Evolution fails on all three. The only thing that evolutionists have put forth that is observable, testable, and repeatable is natural selection. Observable natural selection has always resulted in a loss of information in the DNA. It has not been observed to create a new structure by the addition of information to the DNA.
Claiming that natural selection proves the general theory of evolution is like saying that because I jumped across a puddle, I can leap across the Grand Canyon in a single bound.
The last time I debated an ID'er or creationist into the ground it took well over a year of correspondence. These comments betray a clear lack of understanding of most of the points I raised above and sets up a false conflict that is not possible to resolve. I usually start by asking one such as he to define evolution and the key terms involved before even starting. I probably won't be able to resist...
drwtsn32

There are a few Christians who believe God created the universe and everything in it using the big bang and evolution but they are a minority.
I don't know about that. Catholicism is arguably the largest Christian denomination, and they officially accept evolution. They believe it was guided by God, from what I recall, but they accept evolution nonetheless.
As I did the whole thing seems preposterous! That said, I am sure the opposite is true for evolutionists.
I agree with you there. Saying a magical man in the clouds snapped his fingers and everything came into existence is preposterous to me.
How do we know the new "facts" any more solid than the old ones? I draw parallels to the "new light" which contradicts the "old light" that JWs know so well.
Do you see science flip-flopping on issues like the roundness of the earth? The heliocentric nature of the solar system? The JW "new light" system doesn't really compare, although I'm sure they'd like to think it does.
Scientific theories range in the level of certainty associated with them. As more data is gathered that fits the theory, we become more and more confident that the theory is valid. Some theories are very.. theoretical (for example, string theory). They have little facts/evidence to back them up. Others have a mountain of evidence to support them, and have stood the test of time. Evolution is one of those solid theories.
So we are back to the question "what is truth".
"Truth" is usually religious-type thinking. Someone claims to know the "truth" and are closed off to anything else -- they know the "truth"!
Face it... we don't have answers to everything. I know this is hard for some people to handle. As a JW we thought we had answers to everything. Personally I find it refreshing that we don't know the answer to everything.
And lastly, science not knowing the answer to something does not in itself validate a supposed "answer" given by religion.
Spook

Chalam, thanks for the note.
Spook, I agree with pretty much all of your post, save I don't personally believe in evolution. I was explaining the theory to my 6 year old the other day. She was asking how old the earth is. I told her no-one knows for sure. I told her about the theory of a big bang, how in that cosmic event a single cell was made by chance and from it, fish came, then the fish came out of the water, then other creatures on the ground, then apes, then everything else. As I did the whole thing seems preposterous! That said, I am sure the opposite is true for evolutionists. Anyhow, that is why I agree with the title of this thread, it is all down to belief.
I found it interesting that you brought up the issue of "truth" in your post. I was going to but decided against it. However, I agree, this question is paramount. Truth is fact for sure. However, what many accept as "facts" I say is about as factual as a flat earth going around the sun.
I think it is fair to say that most people who accept the evolutionary hypothesis don't fully understand it. I'd add that the vast majority of religious people don't fully understand the theology of their religioius background. Though, Chalam, I think you still are confusing the issue of defining facts and truth. Truth is not facts. Facts are datum, truth is about propositions.
The statement "The earth revolves around the sun" is true, but it is not per say a fact that the earth revolves around the sun. We know the earth revolves around the sun because of many facts. That isn't a great example, but it works well enough.
Most people who reject evolution do not fully understand the standards for evidence involved in that kind of analysis. I would add, not toward Chalam per say, that there is more evidence which supports the hypothesis of common decent than there is for any other similar question of the kind. Similar questions would be questions about the long term development of systems. A great many things are not "truthable" when extended to very large issues.

Why do we say " I believe in evolution"?

Share this