Discussions
Is there room for God in Evolution?
Posted by iratedog • 10/11/09 • Subscribe to this Discussion [RSS] • Report This Topic
Topics: dawkins, Evolution, God, O'Reilly
Ever seen the O'Reilly show interview with Richard Dawkins on Youtube? Well, there's a new one. On O'Reilly's "Personal Story" segment he interviewed Dawkins for the second time - this time the subject was Dawkins's new book, "The Greatest Show on Earth"
See the video here: theiratedog.blogspot.com/2009/10/bill-oreilly-vs-richard-dawkins.html
Then comment there for come back here and discuss this:
Is there room for God/gods in the theory of evolution? Or is it a fantastic piece of illogic to suggest that just because science can't answer something, it MUST have been God?
User Comments
-
Back in the day, Galileo had some interesting things to say about the relationship between science and religion: www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/galileo-tuscany.html. He was thinking about a different kind of science, but the comments are still relevant, whether or not you accept the notion that God exists.
Of course, later Galileo had to bow to the Church, but that doesn't invalidate his larger point about the relationship between scripture and nature, faith and reason, religion and science. -
yes there is (in answer to the title) -
Meh. -
hmm..they are still figuring it out. -
God is too big for science.-
Science is too small for God!
-
Science encompasses the entire Universe throughout all time, Present, Past and Future. God is relevant only to those who choose to believe without firm evidence.
If someone (a Christian) believes in the Bible metaphorically and not literally, then Evolution could easily be seen as one of God's greatest creations. If, however, one believes literally the Bible's statement that the Universe and all it contains was created in only six days about 6,000 years ago, then obviously Evolution and religion are mutually exclusive. -
That's a good point Savant. I think it depends very much on the open mindedness of both religion and science in order for any relationship to arise. There are those in religion who absolutely will not give science an inch of leeway, but others who actually work in a science field. Likewise there's people in science who are the same in both respects.
Dawkins's point that it's illogical to fill gaps in science with God and the supernatural is, as Becky puts it, like assuming that just because there's a noise outside and you can't see what made it MUST have been a ghost.
But I suppose if some people need a supernatural presence like God to fill gaps then that's alright while science is busy answering the questions. Eventually, and I do mean eventually, we'll have answered everything and there'll be no place for God, or we'll have proved its existence. Either way there'll be no need for "faith". We'll know through evidence. We're no-where near yet of course, but we'll get there in the end. -
@Savant:
"God is relevant only to those who choose to believe without firm evidence."
**Savant gets struck by lightning.** No, but seriously, that's not a rational statement. If an all-powerful God exists, he's, pretty much by definition, all relevant, and you have no way of proving that he doesn't. Even if he decides to take hands off to the world while we're alive, that's a supremely powerful statement about what he holds important.
"If someone (a Christian) believes in the Bible metaphorically and not literally, then Evolution could easily be seen as one of God's greatest creations. If, however, one believes literally the Bible's statement that the Universe and all it contains was created in only six days about 6,000 years ago, then obviously Evolution and religion are mutually exclusive."
Really? How about this: Science is right 99.999999999999999999999...% of the time (which is correct - all scientific "proof" is merely showing that falsehood is improbable) but got really unlucky 6,000 years ago, when God made the universe in 7 days but aged it to look like 15 billion.
I'm not saying that's actually the truth and, in point of fact, if that's all you learn by reading Genesis then you're truly lost. But I would say that if someone doesn't accept that a method that gains its validity from having probable things happen many times (favorable outcome of experiment towards theory) and then multiplying the probabillity of being wrong from each experiment, cannot be wrong exactly once 6000 years ago for 7 days, I'd call that person very closed-minded wouldn't you?
-
-
I like Dawkin's theory that it may have been aliens who seeded our planet. Of course, they would have had to evolve somewhere else....
I hope they come back and squish us like the little ant farm we are!-
I've read a lot of Dawkins and I've never come across that particular idea. Can you point to the reference; either a book he's written or perhaps a talk or interview he's given? I'd like to see it in the original context.
Knowing Dawkins, I seriously doubt that he would have proposed the idea as a theory, certainly not a scientific theory in the formal sense. Dawkins is far too meticulous in his expressions (and has far too great a respect for the processes and nomenclature of science) to toss out an idea as a theory unless it has already been scientifically tested and found to be consistent and capable of prediction. -
I do remember seeing this idea, but I think it was in retort to a question like, "how do you know there isn't a God?"
-
-
Evolution vs creation is yet another false debate - you can quite conceivably have creation with evolution.
What should be opposed to evolution is fixism. What should be opposed to creation is primordial chance. -
WHich came first? The egg or the chicken?
-
The duck came first! The proof is here: beingandquirckiness.blogspot.com/2009/01/it-is-not-unusual-to-hear-some-chu...
-
another conspiracy!
-
Truth is stranger than fiction!
-
-
I think it is possible the mystery of god could be endless. I am not a terribly religious person but I think that gods plan may be ongoing and ever elusive. Why should we expect that we will ever find the end of the string which leads to god and why should our faith be firmly grounded in the concept that there is an end to find? I think we are better off widening our field of vision and lowering our expectations when looking for god. I believe there is as much room for god in evolution as anywhere else. -
err... my gray cells came to this conclusion that, GOD created animals..they didnt get a chance to evolve actually cuz he created them in full.[ My theory is based on some hollywood movies I saw, and they are always right.]
Man was created without tail.
So..I think and I conside Mr.Darwin as a serious competitor to God.
He brought a tail which was not there in the first place.
and hence I believe..sincerly believe that God has not any vital roles in the 'theory of manmade evolution.' -
People aren't going to stop believing in God because it's illogical. All these arguments in my opinion are useless. Science isn't any more logical than religion; it's just more factual.-
I think there's room for both. We need to keep an open mind to the possibilities. The Universe is full of more mystery than we can possibly imagine. If we limit ourselves to "God in a Box" as religion dictates we will miss out on much.
Isn't it odd that it is religion that is always seeking to limit God? -
@petchatter: Well I don't think it's necessarily seeking to limit God but it is true that to have a relationship with God certain things do need to be simplified inside our own minds. As St. Paul put it, "now we see through a glass darkly." (1 Corinthians 13: 12)
@NP: The trouble with factuality is it doesn't cover everything. Sort of like MARTA (Atlanta's Subway) what it covers it covers well but most of the city is left out of the picture.
-
-
god doesn't exist, therefore can't be part of evolution.
-
petitio principii
-
What? :S
-
Assumption.
-
-
Since both are theories, I would say yes there is room for interpretation. I actually have a book from the early 1900's that is called "Each and its Kind" which basically combines the two ideas.-
One theory is backed by mountains of empirical evidence, and the other is a mere hypothesis backed by claims made in a dusty book.
-
-
Yes, there is room for God. It's called Deism. God can create the big bang and then let everything run on "auto-pilot" from there. It's not far-fetched to have the belief that God formed all the fundamental laws of physics at that point.-
Or you can accept that all of science is based on probabilities, which is close. Basically, God believes in making his software Open-Source and allowing mankind to play around with it. He only intervenes on extremely rare occasions to bring us closer to him. That's what I believe.
-
So...when was the last time he intervened?
-
Well, the last time listed in the Bible was striking dead Ananias and Sapphira in an exceptionally dramatic way in the book of Acts (Acts 5), but in my own life, I believe I survived a car wreck just a few years ago by intervention of the hand of God:
A friend and I were driving home on I-90. We were riding in an Acura Integra, an uber low-to-the-ground car not capable of flipping at any speed it can manage (a theory we were fond of testing.) It was raining out, just beginning to rain, and we were going 75 MPH, and made a rough lane change, skidding off the road directly towards a cliff. There was a cliff 100 feet off the roadway, but instead of continuing down our scientifically predictable trajectory to our doom, the car not only starts flipping, after already flying well past the shoulder incline, but perfectly straight, parallel to the roadway, and lands on all fours, all of us perfectly fine, as the windshield cascades down like so much rain. We get checked out by doctors, and didn't even have a concussion.
I also posted about it here: www.blogcatalog.com/discuss/entry/do-miracles-happen (30th post down, sorry I don't know how to anchorlink). Even CT admitted it was miraculous.
He doesn't do it often, and for all I know the car wreck was planned for the purpose, but it does occasionally occur. Obviously it's not actually provable for the same reason as why Evolution is not provable (extremely small probabilities cause failure to complete 100% exactly without rounding) but it makes the most sense of anything as far as I'm concerned.
-
-
The trouble with God of the gaps is that when all the gaps are filled, some people are still gonna drill holes to fit God in..-
Now that's the truth...
-
The only people who claim that science has filled in holes are the ones who didn't take this saying of a great ATHEIST mathematician to heart:
"Mathematics can be defined as the science where we don't know what we're saying and we're not entirely sure if it's true." -Bertrand Russel
-
-
I don't see why anyone would need to try to find room for the christian god or any other, but to each his/her own.
-
Why specifically the "Christian god"? -
Because the title of this thread contains "God" with a capital G, which refers to Christian theology.
-
It's no so much a matter of finding room as seeing if it exists, which has great philosophical value regardless of your religious persuasion.
-
Clarify: by "it" I mean room.
-
Perhaps, but I see it as inconsequential.
-
-
I was an aesthetic untill I realized I was God
-
I think the answer to this argument is the simple fact of prehistory, which is often overlooked by both sides of this argument. There really is no way of knowing how our species got here for sure. You can argue science and religion all you want, but we are all dumb.
-
Personally I think God exists. I think his presence is not what most people think it is. I think God is a human consciousness. We believe and so he is. The development of the world, the evolution of plants animals and humans...that's science. However it would be impossible to even spontaniously develop matter without SOMETHING being created. Until science can create something from absolutely NOTHING, i will continue to belive that creation and evolution must have been a mutual craftsman.
-
"God is a human consciousness"
Could you expand? I'd like to understand. -
I interpret this in another way: "my religion is my mind".
-
I think, therefore I am God?
-
More like: I believe God exists, therefore God exists in my belief.
-
Which comes down to equating our intellect with substance (what comes first in the order of Being).
-
Meaning that God is a force that dwells in our own perception of him. Buddha, Allah, Jehovah...whether God is formed by one, 3 or 1000...I think everyone needs to believe there is somthing higher than us all...and therefore there is a God.
-
-
another question; Is there room for evolution in a story of Creation? Of course there is.-
Yes, and that's not really what Genesis is about anyways, but I still disagree with people who say that science has shown Genesis is wrong. I don't think Science has the smallest toehold to make any such assertion! Science is inductive, and being inductive, it's inductive step must work, and that is the trouble because we have no way of knowing not only if there is a God, but if the universe is slowly changing in its most basic properties too slowly for any of us to notice, sort of like a Salvador Dali painting.
-
the language of Genesis is too vague to be considered absolute. For instance the Hebrew word for "day" literally translates as "a period of time"
-
True, but beyond that the book of Genesis isn't really about the Universe anyways it's about humanity, just like the rest of the Bible.
One of the major flaws with biblical inerrancy as well is that it assumes that for something to be valuable enough to be assigned reading for all Christians and Jews, it has to have 0 flaws. A document can be very flawed and still have tremendous value - the Communist Manifesto for instance. -
um... care to ellaborate on that last point (just for the sake of my curiousity)?
-
The Communist Manifesto does a very good job articulating many of the societal and cultural movements caused by commercial success and industrial expansion. Really, were it not for two critical bad assumptons:
+Petty Bourgeois absorbed in to proletariat - actually they grew and absorbed the professional, engineering and managerial classes forming todays' Suburbia.
+Proletariats condition continues to decay - actually the higher prices of labor gradually force an increase in wages while political progress and the political marketplace reforms working conditions. Around the 1940's they actually became quite wealthy here in America.
...Marx would've been right!
-
-
It appears that I can't reply to someone else's reply to my original reply (?) so I'll post my response to jeremyjanson here:
"If an all-powerful God exists, he's, pretty much by definition, all relevant, and you have no way of proving that he doesn't."
That statement is based on the giant supposition that 'God' does exist, which can't be proven. My point was that for God to be relevant to a person's thought, that person must believe in God. Where there is no belief, there is no relevancy. I do not believe that the Universe is a piece of cheese in the mouth of a giant cosmic mouse, therefore such an idea is irrelevant to me, and I suspect it is irrelevant to you as well, assuming you also don't believe in it.
As for proving that God doesn't exist, it is no more my responsibility to do that than it is for me to prove that a giant mouse holds the cheese Universe in its mouth. If you choose to propose the existence of God, you must accept the responsibility of proving the truth of your proposal.
"Really? How about this: Science is right 99.9% of the time... but got really unlucky 6,000 years ago, when God made the universe in 7 days but aged it to look like 15 billion."
The individual pieces of evidence supporting the scientific views of the age of the Universe and the origination and evolution of life on Earth are massive in number and growing at an exponential rate. They fit together like an incredibly complex puzzle and overwhelmingly point to a natural, not a supernatural set of causes. For all this to be 'wrong' as you state would require much more than being unlucky just once, and would certainly violate your own assertion that Science is right 99.9% of the time.
Furthermore, to dogmatically ignore the vast body of complementary evidence which favors of the scientific view and instead cling to the idea - pulled without basis from thin air - that 'God' made the Universe look old just to trick us... does that truly seem open-minded to you?-
"That statement is based on the giant supposition that 'God' does exist, which can't be proven. My point was that for God to be relevant to a person's thought, that person must believe in God. Where there is no belief, there is no relevancy. I do not believe that the Universe is a piece of cheese in the mouth of a giant cosmic mouse, therefore such an idea is irrelevant to me, and I suspect it is irrelevant to you as well, assuming you also don't believe in it."
If the universe actually was a piece of cheese in the mouth of a giant cosmic mouse, it really wouldn't matter what I believed. The fact that you cannot disprove either of these claims means that, haplessly, you must admit that if there is no room for them in your thinking, you are philosophically bankrupt. I consider the idea of a perpetual universe that builds itself, I do not see it as any more provable then the idea of a God because, alas, you, without realizing it, are stating the universe IS God.
Indeed, you too are believing something without firm evidence, as we have no evidence that the universe can create itself without resorting to bankrupt mathematical assumptions (like probability in an empty space.)
Further, I have seen a kind of evidence of God in the experiences of my own life, and in the miraculous transformation of the lives of others. It is not scientific evidence - it is too big to be objective and every good mathematician knows that you must cut something down to size before it can be fitted to objectivity. Sadly I cannot. Neither can you.
"The individual pieces of evidence supporting the scientific views of the age of the Universe and the origination and evolution of life on Earth are massive in number and growing at an exponential rate. They fit together like an incredibly complex puzzle and overwhelmingly point to a natural, not a supernatural set of causes. For all this to be 'wrong' as you state would require much more than being unlucky just once, and would certainly violate your own assertion that Science is right 99.9% of the time."
A lot can happen with one word of God, and 7 days is how much out of 6000 years? 7/6000*365 = 7/2.19*10^6 = 3.196 * 10^-6
And even during those 7 days, Science was not completely wrong. If the induction had continued, it would've been created exactly (or close to it) like they said. And small interactions between particles, chemicals et cetera probably did follow that trajectory. So really, science is wrong a smaller percentage then that.
But as for your "incredibly complex puzzle," it's assertions fall apart completely if you assume God wants the universe to be open-source. You are assuming we can compare these likelihoods to the likelihood of special creation when we have no likelihood of special creation to compare it too! -
"Furthermore, to dogmatically ignore the vast body of complementary evidence which favors of the scientific view and instead cling to the idea - pulled without basis from thin air - that 'God' made the Universe look old just to trick us... does that truly seem open-minded to you?"
I'm not ignoring it. I'm showing a basic flaw with the very process that generated the knowledge. It is all based on the idea that the universe does not change in it's most basic properties, an assumption we cannot prove.
In fact, let's just ignore the idea of a god for a minute. Let's say that the universal constants are in a slow drift for unknown reasons. Or let's say that all our forms are slowly blending together. And let's suggest that all this is happening too slowly for anyone to notice. The inductive step of science fails, for it assumes that the variables are not affected outside of the education.
I have no evidence that we love in Daliworld, but let's just speculate for a moment that we do. Could you disprove that?
Besides, I'm not dogmatically holding on to it. I really don't know how the universe was created - in fact, even the Bible effectively states it doesn't know towards the end of the book of Job, "were you there when I parted the seas and made the earth?" (God to Job, one of the last 3 chapters somewhere when God is humbling Job) - but I do know something that nearly everyone ignores about the limitations of science, and that is what I am stating. -
I'm glad I'm the source of such detailed debate.
This is the way I see it.
@JeremyJanson: Evolution is a scientific theory, yes? I think everyone can agree that this is the case. Likewise I think most will agree that the existence of a God or gods is based on Faith. (For the sake of quick typing, permit me to use the Christian spelling of 'God' as opposed to typing 'God or gods' every time.) I therefore see God and Evolution as exclusives due to the nature of the respective theories if nothing else. Evolution is a scientific theory - there is the fossil record which, while not complete (but then, how could it be?), does clearly show a progress from species to species, not 'fixism' if you like.
The existence of God is a faith. There is zero evidence. None. None except for 'feelings' and 'hunches'. The entire theory of God is a left over from a time before science took off as a source of knowledge about the universe. It is a memory of an unhappy dark age in which all we had to explain things - the sun rising, falling, the seasons changing - was our imagination.
The religions of Thor, Zeus, Hades, Isis, and Seth have died away and have been lost to human belief - they seem like incredible children's stories now - a useful story to tell in order to teach about ancient Greece, Egypt, etcetera. So too will today's religions be lost - laughed at in centuries to come. -
@iratedog: For starters, your entire argument rests on the assumption that two ideas cannot be composed in to each other. That is nonsense. Most Buddhists are also Confucist. Most Liberals are either Humanist or Socialist - these are not categories of Liberal, these are separate ideas merged in to liberal. Most Conservatives are Individualist or Traditionalist or in some cases both, you get the idea. In fact, there's a word for somebody who looks at only one idea and discards all others: EXTREMIST. Also called, FUNDAMENTALIST
There is evidence for God that goes beyond "hunches" and "feelings." Ressurections, miracles of all sorts, extrahuman ability and extremely odd unnatural behavior all serve as evidence to some degree, but they fit no process and occurred in no laboratory. Nor would one expect an individual with feelings, thoughts, and ambitions of his own to be treated in such a manner. This kind of feeds in to what acousticguitarist said below, and sorcerers witty response.
Further, there is a very important reason, before you bring up the inevitable counterargument, why God demands faith. In a normal human relationship, there are things you take for granted that do not exist between you and something as big, beautiful and powerful as God. First, there are no laws that can restrain him. Second, there are no limitations on his power. Third and finally, there is no private with him, he can read your very thoughts. Being naked before him, just like Adam and Eve before us, we have to trust him. That, my friend, is the meaning of faith. God will make himself clear in your life - faith is about trust, just like having faith in iratedog or faith in jeremyjanson. You have to trust him to keep his word, be benevolent and kind, and be smart as he claims to be, and if you don't, you can't really know him as his mere immense size and power will scare you away or drive you mad, and not knowing what you can only know through knowing your creator, just like the replicants from BladeRunner, as truth is revealed to you in that great enlightenment that happens when we all die is itself Hell.
Hell is a metaphor my friend. God doesn't send anyone to a place called Gehanna. In fact, before the Isrealis piled garbage there, Gehanna was a beautiful desert valley on the Hinnom. Hell is simply the terror of a lost mind and heart, being overtaken by the very darkness inside of you. -
@jeremyjanson
"Most Liberals are either Humanist or Socialist - these are not categories of Liberal, these are separate ideas merged in to liberal. Most Conservatives are Individualist or Traditionalist or in some cases both, you get the idea."
I'm sorry but this is just inaccurate. Socialism is considered a totally different ideology - the equivalent of what Fascism is to Conservatism. I am a Liberal but don't associate myself with Socialism. Socialism and Fascism are the poles. By contrast Liberalism and Conservatism are mild. And as for your description of Conservatives being either individualist or Traditionalist - this too is wrong. Individualist is a term that in fact describes a core part of Liberalism. You're American, yes? Americans, forgive me, don't quite get the difference between Liberalism and Socialism/Communism. Perhaps that's why Obama is being heckled so outrageously over his Health Reform - people screaming at him that he's a communist and so forth. He is in fact a Liberal. Universal healthcare is a "Modern Liberal" idea. But sorry, this is about God not politics.
"There is evidence for God that goes beyond "hunches" and "feelings." Ressurections, miracles of all sorts, extrahuman ability and extremely odd unnatural behavior all serve as evidence to some degree, but they fit no process and occurred in no laboratory."
"...they fit no process and occurred in no laboratory." Thus making them non-scientific evidence. Call it evidence if you will, but don't attach "Science" to it because it simply isn't.
Your next paragraph, which was a little too long to quote again, is the classic argument for believing in God - believe in him, trust him, or you'll go to hell for eternity. If I were to have faith in God, it would not be through that threat. It frankly disgusts me. It disgusts me that my own country took that threat to Africa and converted millions of people with the fear of eternal damnation.
God does not exist my friend, but his power does. He is a tool once used by the controlling powers to control the masses and nothing more. -
"I'm sorry but this is just inaccurate. Socialism is considered a totally different ideology - the equivalent of what Fascism is to Conservatism."
I think you're thinking of communism. Anyways, I think you misunderstood. I'm saying that many liberals associate with Socialism, and those that don't usually associate with Humanism.
"Thus making them non-scientific evidence. Call it evidence if you will, but don't attach "Science" to it because it simply isn't."
That's really not what I'm saying at all. What I'm saying is that science is limited, as are all other approaches to reality including religion ("we see through a glass darkly" -St. Paul), and so it is both reasonable and good to follow many. Just because you value science does not mean that you cannot value any other form of truth, and the fact that such life changing and important evidence cannot be regarded by Science proves nothing but Sciences' own inability.
"Your next paragraph, which was a little too long to quote again, is the classic argument for believing in God - believe in him, trust him, or you'll go to hell for eternity. If I were to have faith in God, it would not be through that threat. It frankly disgusts me. It disgusts me that my own country took that threat to Africa and converted millions of people with the fear of eternal damnation."
I apologize if it seemed that way, but in fact I was actually try to explain why God was important in our lives. My point is not that God will damn you if you don't believe in him; my point is that life without God is itself a form of damnation. A huge portion of the literature ever written is about finding a father, being fatherless, the greatest of human tragedies, and even those who do not believe in God attach themselves to heavenly father's besides God, be it secular religions like extreme political persuasions, an overly idealistic view of Science and man's ability to understand the universe, their own ego and "thingness" (an attempt to survive orphanhood) or "gods of wood and stone." This struggle itself is the sadness and the suffering. God doesn't damn anyone. God alleviates the damnation inherent in the human condition. He reaches out to each and every one of us and touches our heart. -
@JeremyJanson
I'm sorry for my previous comment, it was overly rude I think. But out with the past and in with the future so, back to it.
"my point is that life without God is itself a form of damnation"
I am forced to ask how this is so? I live a perfectly good life without God or gods. I have never been inside a church for any reason other than looking at the art and sculpture, I was never christened or baptised either. I was brought up without religion at home - in fact, the last first-hand contact I had with it was forced prayer at Primary School. Instead of, forgive me, an imaginary friend of sorts to rely on, I have my girlfriend, my family, the people around me.
As for the slightly more political arguement, both Communism and Socialism are separate ideologies to Liberalism. They're maybe not completely different, but as different as Conservatism is to Fascism. I looked the facts up from my old college notes for my previous comment so I'm pretty hopeful that I'm right...if not I'll be suing my old college.
-
-
Without Evolution, God would not exist. -
Haha, nice - by that I assume you mean Humans would not have evolved to a point at which they needed to create a god and so no god would exist? That's very good, mind if I use that one?
-
-
there are plenty of mystifying aspects to science, for instance the endlessness of the universe.
-
exactly, but just because it's mystifying and confusing and seemingly without answer, doesn't justify slapping a God in the gap and claiming the problem solved.
-
-
-
i think that man created God, rather than God created Man, as an excuse for the rest of it.
i kind of have an analogy for that theory:
the scientific facts are the tiling, and the theory of God just a grout filler to fill in the gaps -
a few people are beginning to mention this idea that man created God, not the other way around - I agree totally. At some point in our evolution we started wanted to know answers. With sophisticated equipment to help us, we decided it must have been gods (and later on, God).
-
Actually, the term of first philosophy is the discovery of a First Being - or what religious traditions call "God". It is not because very few have sollicited their neuron to go so far that the rest should feel justified in negating this realization.
-
-
Just a case in point here, the BBC reported today the finding of a new flying reptile: news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8306060.stm
While this doesn't prove God's non-existence, it does bridge a gap in the fossil record. I told you we'd get there eventually, it just takes time. -
Is there room for the evolution of God,.... God is a process.
-
yeah..he outsourced us
-
-
-
I think so. -
Evolution is a scientific fact. The evidence goes well beyond the point of merely supporting a theory. Species do undergo spontaneous genetic mutation, that's a fact. Any mutation which tends to improve survival will be passed on preferentially, that is a fact. Creatures change throughout the centuries, that is a fact borne out beyond question by the amazingly extensive fossil record so far collected.
That species can change due to preferential selection of individuals based on genetic traits is clear from the many varieties of dogs, flower, cattle, chickens, etc. that mankind has created through selective breeding. The only difference between the fact of selective breeding and the fact of evolution is that evolution is the result of a natural selection process, while selective breeding is the result of artificial selection.-
Science doesn't prove "facts." You need to look up the method again.
-
Facts are _exactly_ what science is concerned with. Proving facts whenever possible is _precisely_ the task and achievement of science. It is faith, not science that is totally incapable of encompassing facts, and actively encourages ignorance and denial through self-censoring dogma.
Your assertion that science does not prove facts belies an astonishing ignorance of the discipline. You are phenomenally unqualified to comment on science despite your dogged insistence on doing so.
-
Add Your Comment
Login to leave a message.
