Evolution is an interpenetration of the scientific method, not the bible.
Darwin him self, who was a religious man, was deeply conflicted by this.
Science is not , at this point' concerned with religion,
only theory and fact, that can in fact be plausible to our monkey minds.
For me, there is no conflict in science and religion.
Most scientist agree.
"Give me one miracle and I'll explain the rest"
All just words really.
edit on 00000091254912America/Chicago07 by rom12345 because: (no reason given)
And just to add...I don't think scientists propose nothing either.
The debate below concerns a book written by the physicist Lawrence Krauss called "A Universe from Nothing".
Of course, there is a conclusion regarding the origin of the universe that fits the facts perfectly. Accepted as the truth of the matter by
many people across the world, including scientists. Some people not liking that conclusion and unwilling to come to that conclusion themselves, does
not really negate or invalidate that conclusion. Nor does it warrant the statement: "The real answer to that is no one knows at the moment." I
know what caused the universe to come into existence:
“As in Mathematicks, so in Natural Philosophy, the Investigation of difficult Things by the Method of Analysis, ought ever to precede the Method of
Composition. This Analysis consists in making Experiments and Observations, and in drawing general Conclusions from them by Induction, and
admitting of no Objections against the Conclusions, but such as are taken from Experiments, or other certain Truths. For Hypotheses are not to
be regarded in experimental Philosophy.”
- Isaac Newton (from Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica)
"no one knows", is not really a good objection to the general conclusion by induction from the observations discussed in the video about "purposeful
design". It's even more crappy a cop-out to avoid coming to that conclusion than an unverified hypothesis would be (such as Lawrence Krauss' suggested
scenario promoted by Dawkins in the other video). Either way, the conclusion stands unrefuted, unchallenged (by anything serious or rational).
By the way, what Newton is describing above, is a proven effective method to acquire or discover facts/truths/realities/certainties, a proper proven
effective scientific method if you will. Using this method, he discovered the factual/absolute/certain law of gravity, which also stands unrefuted
till this day (no, nothing in quantum mechanics or special relativity disproves or contradicts it). One may even go as far as arguing that all
scientific progress since Newton, i.e. all factual discoveries in the sciences, has or have been made using this methodology which centers around
inductive reasoning (focussing on the correct application of it).
The Encyclopaedia Britannica on inductive reasoning:
"When a person uses a number of established facts to draw a general conclusion, he uses inductive reasoning. THIS IS THE KIND OF LOGIC NORMALLY USED
IN THE SCIENCES. ..."
Of course, that would be in an ideal scenario, many scientists, in particular the philosophical naturalists who happen to be scientists, have ignored
Newton's warning as to what not to do in response to general conclusions from experiments and observations by induction (properly used), in particular
regarding one specific subject. The same subject I've been discussing here and is discussed in the video about purposeful design as the cause for both
the origin of the universe and everything in it, including most notably, life. They more often prefer wishful speculation and tickling people's ears,
intriguing them with fancy ideas/philosophies that often are not just unverified, but actually can't be verified by experimental means or observation;
as is the case with various evolutionary philosophies/ideas and storylines (often described as "models", i.e. scenarios). Thus these philosophies are
not science/knowledge (a familiarity with facts/truths/certainties/realities) or these people are not engaging in scientific endeavors, they are not
utilizing a 'proper' (proven effective) scientific method, despite their posturing that they are following what they call "the scientific method".
Is Evolution a Scientific Theory?
What qualifies a theory as a scientific theory? According to the Encyclopedia of Scientific Principles, Laws, and Theories, a scientific
theory, such as Albert Einstein’s theory of gravity, must
1. Be observable
2. Be reproducible by controlled experiments
3. Make accurate predictions
In that light, where does evolution stand? * [By “evolution,” we mean “macroevolution”—apes turning into humans, for example.
“Microevolution” refers to small changes within a species, perhaps through selective breeding.] Its operation cannot be observed. It cannot be
reproduced. And it cannot make accurate predictions. Can evolution even be considered a scientific hypothesis? The same encyclopedia defines a
hypothesis as “a more tentative observation of facts [than a theory],” yet lends itself “to deductions that can be experimentally
“To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion that
carries the same validity as a bedtime story—amusing, perhaps even instructive, but not scientific.”—In Search of Deep Time—Beyond
the Fossil Record to a New History of Life, by Henry Gee (senior editor of Nature magazine), pp. 116-117
And that's exactly what paleontologists getting their articles published in Nature magazine constantly do. Isn't it a bit questionable
behaviour that Henry Gee puts his stamp of approval on these sort of publications on a regular basis in a magazine that is perceived by many to be
edit on 10-9-2019 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)
Instead of spending what must be hours and days constructing these copious and lengthy posts trying to disprove evolution, natural selection and
ultimately science, why don’t you put this effort into proving creation so that we can all benefit from the wisdom that you have achieved?
I pulled up a comfy chair, I have filled my pipe. My open mind is yours...
That is an incorrect assumption on your part. I have looked at many videos and read many books - including the Old Testament, Quoran, Tanakh and
If your whole argument is based on disbelief (that this random beginning of life couldn’t happen on its own) then we are arguing the same point as
each other, only from different sides of the barricade. Your problem is that you have just one musket, whereas we have thousands.
If a god or your god exists then it would be the creator, according to legend, but where is the proof that this god or set of gods exist? Show me and
I will believe. After all, if there is a heaven I don’t want to miss out, do I?
This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.