Are some of the asumption to apply Biblical congruence with Evolution Theory a probabilistic One?
597485
I am not quite sure what you are getting at here, you start with one question and end with a second one.  Frankly, I am not sure that I understand the first question.\n\nFirst let me start by saying that when we try to make scientific facts line up with the writings in Genesis, there are discrepancies.\n\nThe nature of time is somewhat poorly understood, to say the least.  The statements made by both Hawkins and Einstein are attempts to explain the nature of time.  Granted that these two men are among the most brilliant men ever, but they are still men.\n\nWe should take each version of the creation of the universe and keep asking "Where did that come from?" or "How?"\n\nWe would eventually ask the creationist: "Where did God come from?"  or, "How did God do that?"  The answer to each of these questions is "We don't know."\n\nSimilarly, we would eventually ask the evolutionist: "Where did the matter for the Big Bang come from?" or "How did matter form into the elements that we know?"  The answer for these questions is "We don't know."\n\nSo both the evolutionist and the creationist are stuck with the answer "We don't know." or even "God (or the matter) just always was there."  Does that mean that neither one is right?  No.  Does it mean that both are right?  No, again.  Each view requires some amount of faith.\n\nNow, about science being wrong.  Yes, Yes, Yes!  Science can afford to be wrong and often is.  The whole premise of science is that we come up with a theory, test it and make adjustments when we are wrong.  We often learn more by being wrong than by being right.
729705
I've read and studied to limited degree some of the standard textbooks on evolution and it has not shaken my faith, but i don't claim to be an expert, but you might want to take a look at the fact that some of the writers of standard text supporting evolution have since begun to question its ability to explain the world around us... see Dean Kenyon, he didn't read the standard graduate level text "Biochemical Evolution", he wrote it, but he has since changed his view to intelligent design.  see also Stanley Salthe he wrote the widely used text "Evolutionary Biology" (1972) as far as I know he's not a christian but he recently signed a list of over 600 scientist expressing their doubts about evolution.Even among staunch evolutionist there is widespread disagreement as to how or if current theories can adequately explain the complexity and diversity of life. Don't let an oversimplified pop culture understanding of evolution mislead you into thinking the universe is understood and God has been somehow disproved/discredited or made irrelevant. Evolutionary theory has in no way proven we are here by chance. see www.wasdarwinwrong   its a good survey of pro-darwin, neo-darwin, alternative and intelligent design literature.  see also  discovery.org and reasonstobelieve.org  don't fail to examine the claims of Christ because a theory of biological origins
69537
Conclusive no, it's still a theory. However, in 2005 probably more than any other year, the theory has received it most compelling validation through DNA analysis.\n\nComparison of DNA between species is mapping out a family tree which matches what the theory of evolution predicts.
522543
There is an enormous amount of evidence supporting evolution, and none I have seen disputing it at all- There are gaps in the evidence, but there is no evidence directly *against* the theory.  Originally it was thought that evolution happened in a slow, steady, manner-but fossil evidence mounted that disputed that view, and thus the theory was refined, so that now we know it generally occurs more rapidly when there is major climactic change, leaving different environments, creating new ones, killing off of existing species which creates empty niches for new animals to fill.  Most arguments against evolution depend on areas where there is lack of evidence, not on evidence that disputes the theory.  \nThe first evidence was Darwin's observations that birds adapted genetically to different environments, a process that is, in fact, slow and steady.\nThen the geological and physical evidence that the Earth was actually billions, not thousands, of years old meant that there was plenty of time for evolution.\nThen the morphilogical evidence of relatedness.\nThis theory also explained the many vestigial structures found in animals, such as the tiny hipbones in snakes\nIt was well documented and accepted by the early 1900's-THis theory predicted that there would be a close correlation of genetic patterns with morphology, and predicted that there would be vestigial genes in animals.  It also predicted that all forms of life would share certain genes, and that closely related species would have closely related, but slightly different, genes.  All of these predictions were shown to be true.\nEvolution also predicted that structure such as wings would have evolved at some point with a different function, since evolutionary mutations that are beneficial (less than 1 in 100,000) would tend to make small changes, and one could not expect a lizard to bear baby lizards with full-blown wings.  THus, the structures that become wings would be expected to have had some other function, and eventually evolved into wings.  For many structures, such as wings and eyes, these early purposes have been determined.\nRapid evolution, especially under conditions of stress, is seen in bacteria and other one-celled animals.  Because the theory states that it would require thousands of generations to observe evolution in action, only bacteria and other very rapidly dividing organisms can be tested for evolutionary changes that we can actually see.\nThus, the theory effectively explains animal and plant diversity, the predictions that the theory made were shown to be true, the fossil, genetic, and morphological data from the past support the theory, and it has been demonstrated to occur in the only animals that it could be demonstrated in, bacteria.\nFor a theory about how things have occurred over the last few billion years, when we cannot actually "see" it occuring, when it has happened over a span of time far beyond our historical records, this is an overwhelming and nearly indisputable amount of evidence.\n\nThe theory does not predict that animals will become "better" over time, just that any genetic mutation which increase the viability and number of offspring will tend to change the species- Remember, the theory of evolution is only one of biochemistry, genetics, and environmental interactions- It is not a philosophy, religion, or value system- Evolution does not make value judgements, does not plan or think or even care- it is merely a physical process like a rock falling down a hill.
269598
you are right.  evolution is a statistical imposibility\n\nthe odds of even one species evolving like the bat for instance.  with allits specialized functions and abilities....   its like a tornado hitting a junkyard and assembling a fully functional Boeing 747.  and thats just one species.  also i like it when you confront athiests and agnostics with hard fact PROOVING evolution CANNOT HAVE HAPPENED.  like this.\n\nthe earths rotation is slowing.  this is a measured, proven, scientific, fact.  If you were to rewind time adding as you go back the ammount of speed lost. you would find that as little as 1 mil years ago. the earth would be spinning so fast that the centripital force would cause everything to be flung off into space.  \n\nthats just one way and there are many other ways to disprove evolution.  oddly enough whenever you tell these things to an evolutionist and or athiest/agnostic.  they just kind of stand there with a not so bright look on thier face...
702239
God is Creator of the Universe (Big Bang). He created not only objects and stuff. He also created the laws the universe would develop. Thus evolution is one of the laws God prescribed to Nature.\nI expect this would not satisfy your parish minister, as all of them are conservative. But here and there the Holy Script is not translated correctly because unlike other dead tongues the ancient Hebrew (not modern) is mostly vague. But Bible is still a very great scientific book. The modern theory of evolution (and Darwin’s as well) is not flawless of course. And there are evident facts!\nThe issue demands more space and time to discuss it here. Sorry!
716247
That is called theistic evolution.
56051
Because of Charles Darwin and his theories on evolution. Personally, I feel that if they can teach Darwin's theory they should be able to teach biblical theory of creation as well.
362940
I have been reading about that as of late and find it interesting.  plausible. The bible has seen a lot gone through a lot in that i mean translations.  It also stands that some books were purposely left out.  With that in mind I don't feel it proves with out a shadow of a doubt that its true.  However it does leave enough room for the thought and probability.
33692
Beatz, Beatz, Beatz.  What were you thinking?  You should have known that there would be nothing but appeals to ignorance poffered as evidence as answers to your question.  What's worse is that, even though people like Behe make those continual suggestions that a lack of evidence for evolution is evidence for creation, so much of what creationists claim has not been explained has been.  From immune systems to eyeballs, it's all been done in the journals.\n\nI'm not sure which is more pathetic... the fact that the creationist position is based off of a logical fallacy, or that they aren't even right when they keep chanting their "Science hasn't explained this" mantra.  I used to be a Christian, and from that I can say, absolutely, that the kind of lazyness and willful dishonesty displayed by people of this sort is NOT a good way of emulating Christ.\n\nAnyway, I've seen some of your posts, and I like them a lot.  Keep up the good work.\n\n[EDIT]: Jesus Christ Rob... before you open your mouth to talk about thermodynamics again, you might want to, you know, actually learn something about thermodynamics.  You have completely botched both the first and second laws of thermodynamics.  You cannot draw conclusions from flimsy, qualitative, and innacurate paraphrasings of precise quantitative laws.  I'm getting tired of putting this old chesnut back down every time one of Hovind's lackeys digs it up again, so I'm going to send you here:\nhttp://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo/probability.html\nand here:\nhttp://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?userid=an6JrBwCTk&isbn=0226075745&itm=1\nand I'll mention these:\n"Considering the earth as a system, any change that is accompanied by an entropy decrease (and hence going back from higher probability to lower probability) is possible as long as sufficient energy is available. The ultimate source of most of that energy, is of course, the sun." (See Rob? That's what happens when you ignore that whole "closed system" part of the Second Law).\nand:\n"Evolution no more breaks the Second Law of Thermodynamics than one breaks the law of gravity by jumping up." -Michael Shermer\n\nAnd one other thing: that "mutations are always fatal and not beneficial" stuff is utter bunk.  Everyone reading this now is carring multiple mutant genes.  Can you taste litmus paper?  Or see the 3-D images in the magic eye pictures?  Congratulations: you're a mutant.  There are many very harmful mutations, yes.  But by admitting that, you are also admitting that natural selection does indeed happen.  As for beneficial mutations, those happen also, and have been exhaustively documented:\nhttp://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoMutations.html\nhttp://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoHumBenMutations.html\nhttp://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB101.html\nAnd I'd also like you to ask yourself what makes a mutation beneficial.  And then think about your answer.  And then realize that that is ALSO exactly what is meant by natural selection.
348831
The idea of evolution of ideas fits well in the framework of memetics, the evolutionary model for describing the units of information in the brain (called "memes", as analogous to "genes"): how they spread from one brain to others, how they mutate, and of course, how they evolve in time.\n\nThe answer to your question is yes: there are many examples of evolved ideas, one of the most noticeable, already reported in the original article (see reference) from Richard Dawkins, the biologist who first introduced the concept, is the idea of God.\n\nMemetics provides a convincing explanation for some aspects of cultural evolution, based on a testable mechanism (replication errors and natural selection).\nOn the other hand, as far as I can understand it, invariantology is a fascinating but untestable theory, since every human can build a different, and ultimately arbitrary, classification of invariants.
148849
I do. The Bible says the world was created in seven "days", but it never says how long those "days" lasted, so the possiblity of intelligent evolution is high in my book.
228836
Working on my BSc in Biology\n\nNo, it has had no effect. I neither believed in gods before I had learned about the field of evolution, nor do I believe in gods now.\nHowever, had I believed in some god or gods, I find it highly doubtful that studying evolution would have changed my views in the least. If anything, I would have been impressed that the god/s could create such an elegant and dynamic process to provide life with the means to adapt and diversify over time.\nAs others have mentioned, the only people for whom studying evolution is likely to change their beliefs are those who insist that their chosen religious text (typically, in my experience, the bible) must be interpreted literally, or it is invalid. Of course, such individuals have much bigger challenges to their interpretation than evolution, but they seem to percieve it as a major threat, for some reason.
785532
No evolution does not disprove god.  But it does pose a very large challenge.  Evolution and Christianity are not as compatible as you may think.  If evolution is the correct theory, then that means that the literalist biblical theory is not right.  Sure you might be able to save it by saying that it is metaphorically true (say, a day to god equals a billion years or whatever).  But if some parts of the bible are not literally true, then why think that any of it is literally true?  Jesus, God, etc. can all be seen as being metaphors for the natural world and the human condition.  With no way to really tell what is literally true and what is metaphorically true, allowing that at least some of it is not literally makes the rest questionable.  If one part is not true, or only becomes true if you take it as a metaphor, what does that say about the rest?  What the bible says then cannot be believed just because it is in the bible anymore, and one of the central justifications of christianity crumbles.  of course god can still exist, but its a major challenge.\n\nOk as for your other question about how can an atheist account for the existence of anything without a God:  all i have to do is ask you where god came from.  Did god come from nothing?  Was he always there?  If you say god came from nothing, then you violate your own rule that nothing can come from nothing.  If you say he was always there, then why can't the atheist just say that the universe was always here?  Why can't the atheist just say that the universe always existed?  Its more likely (by occam's razor http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor ) than the belief that god was always there.  Religion doesn't answer the question of where things came from, it only begs the question of where god came from.  Under the religous explanation nothing is really explained.\n\nI admire your call to tolerance and hope of compatibility, but i'm afraid its nothing more than political correctness.  It would be nice if both sides could be right, but when you think about it there really is a tension.
1116704
A religion involves a commerce of the supernatural.\nThat is, a trade of actions, rituals, or beliefs for supernatural, or supernaturally influenced gains.\n\nEvolution is based on proof, not faith.\n\nFaith is based on nothing but certainty in the absence of proof or in spite of proof to the contrary.\n\nEvolution does not deal with the beginnings of life. That's organic chemistry's bailiwick. Evolution requires genes.\n\nThat the natural world has not always been as it is now is an incontrovertible fact.\n\nEvolution provides an explanation for the mechanisms of change.\n\nThe hereditary mechanism predicted by the theory was unknown at the time of evolutions proposal, it has been proven to exist.\n\nThe hereditary mechanism has been proven to be capable of spontaneous change as the theory predicted.\n\nThat a change in a life form's hereditary makeup can alter it's physical and behavioral traits has also been proven true.\n\nThat a significant change in a life form's body or behavior will effect it's ability to survive and reproduce is simple common sense.\n\nNone of that requires faith, just the ability to reason objectively and honestly from factual truths. No, it is not a faith. \n\nThere is no supernatural gain or influence to be won by accepting the validity of evolutionary theory. No, it is not a religion.
417171
As it seems this question has raised yet another debate, I'd like to add my 2cents. As the father of paleoboy, and a Christian, I believe I have raised my son well. Because I have not fallen into the ignorance, as I will call it, of pre-empting God. Evolution is merely a theory, man should  not be assumed to be included in this factor. In fact, there exists more questions  of man's progress than proof of any evolution. \nThe animals however, and lower life, could have been designed by God in many numerous ways. Who are we to question the means, or claim to know as to how God works? He works, as we know, in mysterious ways! Could he not have in fact, by design, created species that could evolve and adapt to earth changes, if for no other reason, to allow clues behind for the event of man to discover, to weed out those that would choose to use this information, to disprove His existence?\nTo claim we have all the answers to the mysteries of God is to fall into ignorance as Christians. I back up my son's answer, as an open, unquestioning mind as to the works of God. Paleontology is a science, based on evidence, and a great deal of theory, which is always subject to change with newly discovered evidence.
1022720
I agree.  Evolution is the basis of life as we know it?  Where is the evidence?  Even if I wanted to believe that evolution was the method that God used to create our world, where is the evidence of that?  \n\nThe evolutionist isn't looking for a "missing link"...they are looking for countless missing links between EVERY species, and have nothing to show for it.  The fossil record would be rife with evidence if the theory had one ounce of merit.  Rather, it shows the complete opposite.\n\nLikewise, mutations are an extremely implausible vehicle through which upward change can occur.  They put their "faith" in mutated DNA somehow producing new species, I put my faith in a Creator.\n\nWhy do they still believe evolution is plausible?  Because they want to reject God, and evolutionary theory is the best they've got...