Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
no, the matter is not clear at all. Evolution can be argued against without any religious overtones.
But not without religious undertones. There's no scientific basis for rejecting evolution. There is only a dogmatic basis, and that is a conservative religious one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowball7
The matter is not settled scientifically.
Not every last detail and specific, but the broader concepts and framework absolutely are settled.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowball7
The theory's proponents want us to believe it is, but
I think you'd be surprised how many people's objections to the theory of evolution have little
or nothing to do with religion.
I think you'd be surprised how little professionals care for the dogmatic and naive opinions of hobbyists. Can you point to a single peer reviewed publication that rejects the theory of evolution and is not easily tied to a religious dogma of some kind?
more often than not, "Occam's Razor" is actually employed to argue for a God than against one.
It is doubtless hijacked by Christian apologists, and used wrongly in that way. But god is an entity, and an elegant theory of anything has a minimum of entities. Everything that we observe is explicable without god -- except of course to those who are accustomed to thinking that nothing is explicable without god.
I can see where someone might think that god pulling the world and life and humanity instantly out of his magic bag seems simpler than the drawn out, arduous and sometimes counterintuitive evolutionary explanations, which involve mind boggling amounts of time, for instance. But the important thing is not who can or can't get their brain around certain concepts, it is that all things being equal, explanations that have a minimum of external actors and follow observable natural processes on their own, are more likely to be correct than any alternatives. And this is doubly true when there is no evidence of such external actors anyway.
I actually love science and love intellectual matters. But whether God exists or not has nothing to do with "anti-intellectualism" but rather has everything to do with the fact that scientists have not right to tell us if God does or does not exist since spiritual matters are not scientific matters.
.
Mmm. So scientists have no right to say that God doesn't exist, but religious leaders have every right to say that evolution is false? If scientists should stick to scientific matters and religion should stick to spritual matters, then please tell religion to quit telling us that the Earth is only 6000 years old and was created in 6 days. They have no right!
Evolution is actually a proven fact. The word theory in the scientific community is not what most people think it is it seems.
But that's just it, scientists have no proven fact God does not exist so they should leave that out of their talks concerning the universe and scientific matters.
Mmm. So scientists have no right to say that God doesn't exist, but religious leaders have every right to say that evolution is false? If scientists should stick to scientific matters and religion should stick to spritual matters, then please tell religion to quit telling us that the Earth is only 6000 years old and was created in 6 days. They have no right!
I actually agree with you.
Religion, please quit telling us that the Earth is only 6000 years old and was created in 6 days.
There, are you happy now?
BTW, I believe the earth is possibly many millions of years old and that God made the earth that was already in existence, that earth became chaos and sterile and then God made the earth habitable again in 6 days roughly 6 or so thousand years ago. Evolution is impossible based on that.
I can see where someone might think that god pulling the world and life and humanity instantly out of his magic bag
I know of no theologian who posits that which you state above.
Quote:
seems simpler than the drawn out, arduous and sometimes counterintuitive evolutionary explanations, which involve mind boggling amounts of time, for instance.
Quote:
But the important thing is not who can or can't get their brain around certain concepts, it is that all things being equal, explanations that have a minimum of external actors and follow observable natural processes on their own, are more likely to be correct than any alternatives. And this is doubly true when there is no evidence of such external actors anyway.
And there is no evidence of no external actors. It is just the say-so of the anti-god theorists.
But that's just it, scientists have no proven fact God does not exist so they should leave that out of their talks concerning the universe and scientific matters.
I may not agree, but I do understand what you are saying, and you do have a point.
I think you'd be surprised how little professionals care for the dogmatic and naive opinions of hobbyists. Can you point to a single peer reviewed publication that rejects the theory of evolution and is not easily tied to a religious dogma of some kind?
Here is a list of peer reviewed publications concerning Intelligent Design:
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
