Why do we think evolution can't acknowledge a Creator?

Awww shucks that was nice! Thank you.

I can philosophize about this stuff all day long. It probably should have been my chosen profession because I love thinking about it all so much. Unfortunately, thinking doesn't pay the big bucks.

Originally posted by zenlover28

My point exactly. Their conditioning as far as religion, parents, education plays a factor in it whether you choose to admit it or not. And, hey i'm not pushing 'theory of evolution' as fact. But, evolution is a scientific fact.

Please define what you mean by "evolution"... as in the one that is "scientific fact." Is it: Things change over time? Organisms have the ability to adapt to their environment(s)? All life has a universal common ancestor? None of the above? Not trying to nit-pick, honestly, just curious as to how you define evolution... the "scientific fact" part. If you're saying what I think you're saying, I doubt anybody (including the YECists) would argue with you. But it's also possible that what you're talking about is infact a "theory." So I'd like a clarification here if you've the time or inclination.

To say that evolution isn't a scientific fact is like saying gravity doesn't exist.

How do you mean? So it's scientific fact that things change just as things fall... therefore, skepticism towards universal common ancestry is akin to juming off a building because you doubt that Einstein got it right? Your definition of evolution with probably help to clear up my confusion here also.

It's the process in and of itself that is the theory which is where the 'theory of evolution' or 'theory of gravitation' come into play. Like say for instance I jump out of a plane and I fall to the ground. It's a scientific fact that I am falling to the ground because the force behind it is 'gravity', however why and how that occurs is called the "theory of gravitation". The same goes for 'evolution'. It's a fact that it occurs it just isn't a fact of how it occurs.

I never could see the logic in the whole gravity analogy, but I'll try again. As if, for some reason, I doubted that gravity was caused by mass curving space I would then think it rational to jump off a building cause "it's just a theory." The 'fact' that you will fall to the ground is based on Newton's Laws of motion.... the "theory of gravity" tries to explain why we fall. Whether it's mass curving space (General Relativity) or some force 'leaking' from a neighbor 'brane' (M-theory) or the FSM pushing us all down with his noodley appendage (Intelligent Falling??) regardless I'll still know to wear a parachute when jumping from a plane.... of course some theories are better than others, and there are many. None of which are why I know not to jump off a building; or why I should accept neo-Darwinian evolution, or whatever other idea you're suggesting, as the "scientific fact" of evolution.

If you're not talking about the laws of motion when you say "gravity" is a fact.... then please hip me to your definition here too, thanks. Like I said above I've never understood why the 'gravity issue' always comes up in an ET discussion and no one ever bothers to finish the thought... Is it really just: objects fall = organisms change? *shrug*

That is what i'm speaking about when I say it is a lack of education on the issue as far as our education system is concerned. There is a lack of understanding regarding evolution in general.

Indeed.

Not nitpicking, eh? LOL. I could have just as easily typed 'relativity' or something. I was only attempting to use an analogy to a poster who had me confused by his post, which I quoted. I'll be back to address your post more in depth when I have more time. I'll try to get something more detailed and precise of what i'm talking about typed out for you by then.

BTW..I should add that I am speaking of 'evolution' from a micro standpoint. And 'theory of evolution' from a natural selection, etc. standpoint. I'm not saying we evolved from monkeys, if that helps.

[edit on 11-5-2006 by zenlover28]

Originally posted by zenlover28
Not nitpicking, eh? LOL.

Yeah sorry 'bout that... I realize it sounded like that, it's why I added the "not nit-picking" comment. Guess it didn't work, eh.

I could have just as easily typed 'relativity' or something. I was only attempting to use an analogy to a poster who had me confused by his post, which I quoted.

Not jumping on you, it's (the gravity=evolution) often brought up in these discussions and I never really got how it was relevant... outside of a "what is theory/law/hypothesis" type convo. But you used the law of motion as the theory of gravity and correllated that to an ambiguous version of evolution. Also wasn't sure what the fact of evolution that you spoke of was... hence my confusion.

I'll be back to address your post more in depth when I have more time. I'll try to get something more detailed and precise of what i'm talking about typed out for you by then.

No sweat, take your time.... finally had some time to post today and this was the first thread I clicked on. No offense or Richard Craniumness intended.

Regards,
-Rob

[edit on 11-5-2006 by Rren]

Ahhh I get it. You're confused because you think I was relating gravity and evolution. LOL. I'm sorry, but you really had me bumfuzzled on what exactly you were getting at.

No, I wasn't attempting to relate the two. I was only using that analogy to show that 'theory of evolution' is a 'mechanism' to get to the end result of 'evolution'. My apologies that I lost you in what I was trying to do there.

Best regards!

He wasn't confused ... he was being sarcastic.

I understand what your saying ... yes, evolution does happen and yes, it's just a theory on how.