Okay I am not talking about cosmology and philosophy I am talking biology, evolution is a fact. There are many details we do not know yet and there are many theories but evolution does happen. Viruses and bacteria evolve and adapt to their environment. Do you contest this? Do you accept this as being a fact? We see adaptation in complex life also. This is all evolution and natural selection. We have many many fossils of hominids that were our "cousins" and there is clear proof that they had tools and used fire but now they are extinct. All of this is fact.
There are certainly myriad datum facts about evolution, and I am in complete acceptance that it is a profoundly deep and accurate description of the history of life. The facts you mentioned (variation and selection) are things which can be repeated and confirmed and these serve as evidence for the overall hypothesis of common decent, which we have every reason to believe and I certainly do. When you are dealing with historical events in the distant past you run into some problems. Don't get me wrong, no reasonable person has a rational reason for rejecting evolution.
Again, the facts are evidence for the theory, the theory itself is not a fact...no theories are. In the common way people use "true" and "fact" in every day language, evolution should be considered "true" and a "fact." But in reality, it is not a fact that Washington crossed the Deleware. It's just a very very very well supported hypothesis which is irrational to reject. Facts are datum, theories are explanations. Theories backed by many facts, such as evolution, can rightly be called "true." Truth is a word which refers only to the veracity of propositions in our context (it does not mean straight, pure, honest or good as some other definitions have it). A proposition is true when it has a great correspondence to the real world. But someone not familiar with the details can rightly be said to "believe in it."
Most people can be said to believe in black holes. I might say I understand, know or can prove black holes (which I had to do in my college astral physics courses).
Why do we say " I believe in evolution"?
by Anti-Christ 89 Replies latest jw friends
-
Spook
-
Anti-Christ
There are certainly myriad datum facts about evolution, and I am in complete acceptance that it is a profoundly deep and accurate description of the history of life. The facts you mentioned (variation and selection) are things which can be repeated and confirmed and these serve as evidence for the overall hypothesis of common decent, which we have every reason to believe and I certainly do. When you are dealing with historical events in the distant past you run into some problems. Don't get me wrong, no reasonable person has a rational reason for rejecting evolution.
Again, the facts are evidence for the theory, the theory itself is not a fact...no theories are. In the common way people use "true" and "fact" in every day language, evolution should be considered "true" and a "fact." But in reality, it is not a fact that Washington crossed the Deleware. It's just a very very very well supported hypothesis which is irrational to reject. Facts are datum, theories are explanations. Theories backed by many facts, such as evolution, can rightly be called "true." Truth is a word which refers only to the veracity of propositions in our context (it does not mean straight, pure, honest or good as some other definitions have it). A proposition is true when it has a great correspondence to the real world. But someone not familiar with the details can rightly be said to "believe in it."
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?
-
drwtsn32
Sorry for going a bit off topic, Anti-Christ. I was just replying to Chalam's post. :)
To answer YOUR question... I don't know why some people say they 'believe in evolution.' It is certainly a fact that evolution has occurred. Perhaps they use that language because those that do not accept the fact of evolution often say they do not 'believe' in it.
-
villabolo
"I generally keep out of the atheism threads so go easy on me!"
Not so easy chalam, evolution comes in different flavors including Deistic and Theistic evolution you should know that by now. As to "believe" it is a matter of semantics. People can believe in facts or non-facts. Here is one fact that your creationist belief has to address, Whales have vestigial hip bones which implies that they were either terrestrial creatures at one time or that Yahweh was drunk when he created them.
-
drew sagan
I tend to say "i accept the theory of evolution" or something like that
-
Mad Dawg
To say that evolution is a "fact" is a gross overstatement. 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.
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.
BTW: To say that a Creator would not have created something a particular way is a theological question, not a scientific one. Just because we don't understand the purpose of some design does not mean that it is poorly designed.
For the record: the whale's hips provide anchor points for muscles that are required for reproducing.
-
villabolo
"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"
Actually Mad-Dawg, that is the language of science. It has to be very tentative until they've proven all the details several times over. The fact of evolution in general is proven but the details such as how creature X evolved into creature Y may still be hazy. And it will remain so because it takes a long time for the few scientists that dedicate themselves to these tasks to finish.
-
Mad Dawg
Villabolo said:
Actually Mad-Dawg, that is the language of science.
Only when they don't know what they are talking about. I hold an engineering degree. My chemistry, math, and other science professors were very definite when they were talking about "facts."
It has to be very tentative until they've proven all the details several times over.
Exactly my point! Their use of these words is an admission that it is not proven.
The fact of evolution in general is proven...
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 the details such as how creature X evolved into creature Y may still be hazy. And it will remain so because it takes a long time for the few scientists that dedicate themselves to these tasks to finish.
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.
-
Robert7
First this has nothing to do with atheism it's about evolution.
Exactly. Atheism and Evolution are two separate things. There are Christians who believe in Evolution. I am an Atheist, but I'm not 100% sold on Evolution either...
-
villabolo
You cannot prove evolution in a few lines but I was making the distinction between evolution in general and what you called "stuff that promotes evolution" which I assume are articles dealing with specific aspects or examples of evolution. If you want to bring up engineering why would our skeletons look like a compromise in design. Our feet could have been completely re-engineered into something like a hoof to be less fragile and more efficient but instead it bears an uncanny resemblance to a chimpanzees' foot-hand. Where is the "Intelligence" in making a foot with five shriveled up finger like appendages and useless fingernails(excuse me toenails) at that which bear a resemblance to a now dysfunctional/vestigial claw? I could go on and on but this is my last post allowable.