Why Evolution is real science - let's settle this "debate"!

[ThisIsMyUserName]

Intro

I have created this thread for the single purpose of settling the long-running discussions about the veracity of evolution in the scientific sense (yeah, very ambitious, I know).

I would like to keep this thread as concise as possible by providing a summary for all the arguments from both sides that I will be keeping up-to-date in the first few posts.


IMPORTANT:
The purpose here is solely to talk about science - not about faith, philosophy, theology or ethics or anything else unrelated.


Any feedback is appreciated and I'll try to adjust accordingly.




Proposition

BIOLOGICAL EVOLUTION is an established scientific fact. It explains every observation concerning biodiversity on our planet and is not contradicted by anything in the natural world.

Acceptance of evolution and belief in God are NOT mutually exclusive!




Definitions

Evolution:
Gradual change over time

Biological evolution:
Evolution of populations of living organisms.
Commonly known as: "descent with modifications"
Formally known as: "changing of allele frequencies across generations"

Scientific method:
The process of systematic investigation of the properties and behaviour of any system by empirical means and inductive inference, which improves its own conclusions by repeated validation of predictions and deductive hypotheses.
a.k.a "methodological naturalism"
Formally: Ask a question --> design experiment/observation --> analyse data and draw tentative conclusion --> critically evaluate the conclusion by asking deeper questions and attempting to falsify the conclusion

Scientific theory:
A comprehensive body of knowledge corresponding to the current consensus about a particular scientific subject. A theory is comprised of all relevant facts, laws and explanations. A scientific theory is the highest degree of confidence available for any field of study.




Rules

• Be polite!
• Stay on point
• Address every argument and explain your position
• Don't assume that others know what you mean - provide references
• Keep an open mind
• Enjoy!

VERY IMPORTANT:
In order to guarantee a fair discussion and that everyone is on the same page here, I'd like to ask all of you to be patient and first let's establish a consensus regarding the format that I have proposed before we delve into the actual conversation.
So please, don't start arguing just yet, I'll announce in due course when the preparations are complete. Right now, I'd like to ask for feedback on what you think about this idea and the current setup.


I propose the following order:

STEP 1: Agree on terms

STEP 2: Agree on initial positions

STEP 3: fight!

 

[ThisIsMyUserName]

The "evolutionist's" position

The "evolutionist's" position

This is the position of accepting the proposition as stated in the initial post.


Why should biological evolution be accepted
(sorted by argument strength)

• Science works!
• Opposition to evolution is generally led and perpetuated dishonestly

What would change your mind

A global century-old conspiracy of fabricating evidence is revealed.



Counter arguments to the opposing position
tbd.

 

[ThisIsMyUserName]

the anti-evolution or "creationist's" position

the anti-evolution or "creationist's" position

This is the position of rejecting the proposition as stated in the initial post.


Why should biological evolution be rejected
(sorted by argument strength)

• Religious conviction
• The science is riddled with errors and everyone's a fraud

What would change your mind

tbd.



Counter arguments to the opposing position
tbd.

 

[6days]

Biological evolution:
Evolution of populations of living organisms.
Commonly known as: "descent with modifications"

This thread / topic uses the fallacy of equivocation. Everyone agrees populations change. (Observational). Not everyone agrees with Darwinian beliefs about descent /common ancestry. (Non-Observational belief about the past)

Acceptance of evolution and belief in God are NOT mutually exclusive!

That is true. However the belief that 'monkeys' evolved into humans contradicts God's Word.

 

[The Barbarian]

This thread / topic uses the fallacy of equivocation. Everyone agrees populations change. (Observational). Not everyone agrees with Darwinian beliefs about descent /common ancestry. (Non-Observational belief about the past)

Perhaps you'd do better to go learn about what Darwin wrote, instead of project your ignorance into the discussion.

However the belief that 'monkeys' evolved into humans contradicts God's Word.

Yeah, like that. You've been corrected time and time again about that, and you're still peddling the same old dishonesties.

As noble as this thread may be, people like you will jump in and start tossing falsehood about to muddy the water.

 

[6days]

Perhaps you'd do better to go learn about what Darwin wrote...

Darwin was wrong about many things, and the thread is not about him (Or his beliefs).


The thread titled 'Why Evolution is real science...' suggests either a) the 'author' does not know what real science is... or b) is equivocating on terminogy. (Real science is not your beliefs about the past, nor mine)

However the belief that 'monkeys' evolved into humans contradicts God's Word.

You've been corrected time and time again about that, and you're still peddling the same old dishonesties.

God's Word tells us He formed man from the dust, and woman from mans rib. (That is not science). You seem to believe 'fish' evolved into philosophers. (That is not science).

As noble as this thread may be, people like you will jump in and start tossing falsehood about to muddy the water

Funny (sort of) that you abject to clarifying terminology before we start the discussion. Also funny (sort of) that you and the thread author only want to discuss "Why Evolution is real science" but don't want to discuss why 'evolution is NOT Real science.

 

[Lon]

IMPORTANT:
The purpose here is solely to talk about science - not about faith, philosophy, theology or ethics or anything else unrelated.

In the 'religion' section? :noway:

Acceptance of evolution and belief in God are NOT mutually exclusive!

:doh:

We haven't talked before. My problem with a thread 'without' faith or theology: Colossians 1:17 There is not 'compartmentalized' truth. All truth is God's truth.

Let's look at "Evolution" and then Colossians 1:17 for contrast.

First, definition of Evolution. EVERY definition of Evolution And this is important: INCLUDING YOUR discussion parameters ( :noway: ), removes God from creation. How? Because it is ALL against Colossians 1:17. "Without Him NOTHING exists that exists." That means Evolution is wrong. NO creation just 'does it.' It is EITHER God-did-it OR Evolution-did-it. Every atheist and/or evolutionist I've ever read or talked to has always maintained they have never said "evolution-did-it." Not true. They are saying that every life 'does-it' (evolves).

Second, Colossians 1:17 John 15:5 and Colossians 1:16-20. "...by Him, all things consist..." AND 'without Him, NOTHING exists that exists.'

In a nutshell, evolution not only leaves God out, as you've done, it also goes against God's revelation of Himself. No Christian anywhere who names the name of Christ, can EVER eschew Colossians 1:16-20. Not even for their biology lab. If so? They are accepting some form of the mark of the beast AND denying Christ. This thread? As gently as I know how to say: Is embracing that mark IN the religion section, by eschewing God. Read Colossians 1 a few times. "All things are made FOR Him! "IF" we eschew God from our discussions about all things made FOR God, we are pushing to divorce our conversation FROM Him, the very things made FOR Him! I don't want to be THAT guy!!

Acceptance of evolution and belief in God are NOT mutually exclusive!

On a good note, even you refuse, in a sense, to accept that mark. There is no discussion of creation without God. Romans 1:18-20

 

[meshak]

If monkeys evolved into human why do we still have monkeys?

 

[The Barbarian]

If monkeys evolved into human why do we still have monkeys?

First thing of course, is that evolutionary theory doesn't say humans evolved from monkeys. They are too evolved in different ways to have given rise to humans.

Second, the question assumes the fallacy of imagining that a species must go extinct if it gives rise to another species; it's sometimes called the "if you're alive, your uncle has to be dead" fallacy.

 

[The Barbarian]

In the 'religion' section? :noway:

We haven't talked before. My problem with a thread 'without' faith or theology: Colossians 1:17 There is not 'compartmentalized' truth. All truth is God's truth.

Suppose someone asked if you could discuss plumbing without discussing God. Would you give him the same answer?

Probably not, because plumbing doesn't upset you. Yet plumbing is like science, methodologically naturalistic. It neither endorses nor denies the supernatural. And so one can do plumbing or science while holding all sorts of religious beliefs, or even no religious beliefs at all

And that's the point, isn't it?

 

[meshak]

First thing of course, is that evolutionary theory doesn't say humans evolved from monkeys. They are too evolved in different ways to have given rise to humans.

Second, the question assumes the fallacy of imagining that a species must go extinct if it gives rise to another species; it's sometimes called the "if you're alive, your uncle has to be dead" fallacy.

Your profile says you are a catholic. You know that the Bible does not say anything about human came from other animal.

 

[Lon]

Suppose someone asked if you could discuss plumbing without discussing God. Would you give him the same answer?

No, but totally apples and oranges. Why? Because I DO when someone says "let's discuss evolution." "Plumbing" doesn't imply 'without God.' Evolution does.

Probably not, because plumbing doesn't upset you.

Nor does "evolution." It is just is a lousy word for God's creation.

Plumbing? Nothing to do with Romans 1:19-21. "HIS" handiwork. Hope you can get that.


Yet plumbing is like science, methodologically naturalistic. [/QUOTE]
Er, 'science' is science. We were talking about an 'observation' called 'evolution.' It is a 'supposition' about the 'way biology works when changing (a pretty good definition of it). In and of itself? No problem. A thread like this that says "let's separate 'the way something works, from the way God says something works..." :think: I'd have the same problem, btw, if you said, "Let's talk about 'science' in the 'religion' section without talking about God." :nono:

It neither endorses nor denies the supernatural. And so one can do plumbing or science while holding all sorts of religious beliefs, or even no religious beliefs at all

Worldviews and behaviors affect job performance. I'd suggest, by morality, the plumber 'should' be doing a superior job than the nonChristian. That doesn't mean I haven't been treated badly by Christians or exceptionally well by nonChristians, but generally I have seen this play out more often than not.

And that's the point, isn't it?

No. "Plumbing" IS an accurate name for what one does. "Evolution" is NOT an accurate name for how creation works. Read Colossians 1:16-20. Does 'evolution' come to mind in the description? Nope.

Do 'pipes' come to mind when plumbing is mentioned? Yep. Pipes 'evolving' under your house? Nope. Someone might argue the science of plumbing has 'evolved.' In a broad sense, I'd say 'okay' yet pipes do not evolve. According to Colossians 1:16-20, nothing does.


Two summary points:

1) "Evolution" generally, but specifically means 'on its own.' :nono:
2) This thread asks for discussion of 'evolution' (on its own) on its own IN the religion section.

If someone wants to move it to a different section beside religion, fine. I've NEVER asked a student to leave his/her religion out the door in my science class and believe it is an atheist request and position. It is rarely-if-ever okay to do that.


I am not belittling or berating this new user. I'm saying that I don't believe one can talk about this discussion, especially in this section of an already religious forum, with an expectation that God is not brought up in the conversation. Further, I don't believe ANY science discussion on TOL ever SHOULD refrain from mentioning the Creator and our place in the world. Science can fulfill our command to subdue the earth. I think it is part of that, but can we do it without acknowledging the Creator who instructed it? :nono: Not unless you are a compartmentalized person. Psalm 24:1 1 Thessalonians 5:16-18 Colossians 3:17 1 Corinthians 10:31 I defy any believer to NOT do just what these scripture say to do.

 

[Lon]

First thing of course, is that evolutionary theory doesn't say humans evolved from monkeys. They are too evolved in different ways to have given rise to humans.

Even as recent as psychology

Spoiler

View attachment 26177

Second, the question assumes the fallacy of imagining that a species must go extinct if it gives rise to another species; it's sometimes called the "if you're alive, your uncle has to be dead" fallacy.

Yeah, but NO original species still exists today? None? It sure makes 'my' questioning scientific mind start working in overdrive. Not yours? :think: Why not?

 

[Jose Fly]

EVERY definition of Evolution And this is important: INCLUDING YOUR discussion parameters ( :noway: ), removes God from creation. How? Because it is ALL against Colossians 1:17. "Without Him NOTHING exists that exists." That means Evolution is wrong. NO creation just 'does it.' It is EITHER God-did-it OR Evolution-did-it.

I'm curious....do you believe that God specifically and deliberately created all the pathogens, parasites, and pests that have haunted humanity and caused untold death and suffering? If not, how did they come to be, in your opinion?

 

[JudgeRightly]

I'm curious....do you believe that God specifically and deliberately created all the pathogens, parasites, and pests that have haunted humanity and caused untold death and suffering? If not, how did they come to be, in your opinion?

The Bible says that God made every creature on earth to be vegetarian (Genesis 1:31). The need to prey on organisms other than plants would have come after the Fall, not before it. Yes, even the mosquito.

 

[Jose Fly]

The need to prey on organisms other than plants would have come after the Fall, not before it. Yes, even the mosquito.

So how did all the biochemical pathways and biological structures that these organisms require to cause all that death and suffering come to be? If it wasn't evolution, what was it?

 

[SUTG]

This debate was over 150 years ago.

 

[Jose Fly]

Let's take an obvious example....the parasite that causes malaria, a disease that has killed millions upon millions upon millions of humans. Here is the life cycle of the parasite:

Pretty complex, right? Now, if we assume the creationists' argument that evolutionary mechanisms cannot generate complexity, and complexity only comes from "intelligence" (which to most creationists means God), what obvious conclusion must we reach under those parameters?

 

[JudgeRightly]

So how did all the biochemical pathways and biological structures that these organisms require to cause all that death and suffering come to be? If it wasn't evolution, what was it?

Breakdown and loss of information. God designed, say, the mosquito, to only feed on plants, but built in a back up code for feeding on blood and meaty creatures in case something were to happen to his creation.

Since the Fall, mosquitos have lost the ability to feed on plants, and has defaulted to only feeding on other creatures.

Let's take an obvious example....the parasite that causes malaria, a disease that has killed millions upon millions upon millions of humans. Here is the life cycle of the parasite:

Pretty complex, right? Now, if we assume the creationists' argument that evolutionary mechanisms cannot generate complexity, and complexity only comes from "intelligence" (which to most creationists means God), what obvious conclusion must we reach under those parameters?

That God built redundancy into His creation, and that the original genes would have coded for something beneficial, but that information has since been lost. Something that was perfect (and therefore would not harm any other part of creation) has broken down, and killed many millions of people. Perfectly in line with what creationists would expect if everything was created.

 

[Jose Fly]

God designed, say, the mosquito, to only feed on plants, but built in a back up code for feeding on blood and meaty creatures in case something were to happen to his creation.

So you believe God specifically and deliberately designed mosquitoes to feed on blood and spread disease...but only as a back-up plan. Thanks for your honesty.

What about the plasmodium parasite that actually causes malaria? Do you believe God specifically and deliberately designed it to infect as well?