Faith In Evolution?

[Athanasius]

Zakath
"Truth does not demand belief. Scientists do not join hands every Sunday, singing, "yes, gravity is real! I will have faith!" - Dan Barker

Many scientists who are naturalistic evolutionists do join hands saying things that demand belief in hard-to-swallow and unproven notions. Believing that this universe sprang into being and generated complex, highly ordered biological systems entirely due to blind chance takes a lot of faith.

[Tycho]

Today @ 01:16 AM post located here
Athanasius:
Evolutionists do join hands saying things that demand belief in hard-to-swallow and unproven notions. Believing that this universe sprang into being and generated complex, highly ordered biological systems entirely due to blind chance takes a lot of faith.

Please note the following basic facts:
Abiogenesis is not evolution.
Cosmology is not evolution.
Evolution is not blind chance.
Chemistry is not blind chance.
Gravity is not blind chance.

[Athanasius]

Abiogenesis is not evolution.

True. I made my post around 3:00 AM in the morning (the post time is wrong), and normally try to avoid making such sweeping statements, but was groggy. Therefore, I changed my thread starter to say "Many scientists who are naturalistic evolutionists" rather than "evolutionists". I think that the comparison between science and metaphysical beliefs in the quote is hardly fair, and wanted to point out that most scientists who reject theism also have their own metaphysical beliefs.

Evolution is not blind chance.

It depends on blind chance (mutations, random variations). There is certainly no conscious intelligence behind natural selection. It does involve a "Blind Watchmaker," chance channeled along the constraints of survival/reproductive benefits. And those who reject ID must fall back upon abiogenesis, a "blind chance" concept, to explain the ultimate origin of reproductive life, and upon naturalistic cosmology to explain the origin of the conditions necessary to make that possible. There is indeed a long string of highly improbable blind chance events involved in this belief system.

Chemistry is not blind chance. Gravity is not blind chance.

I did not say that belief in chemistry or gravity amounted to belief in blind chance, although gravity certainly is involved in the roll of a dice. Those who have faith in God believe in gravity and chemistry too, including scientists who believe in God.

[Socratism]

It depends on blind chance (mutations, random variations). There is certainly no conscious intelligence behind natural selection. It does involve a "Blind Watchmaker,"

Some have pointed out that the "watchmaker" is not only blind but unconscious

[Socratism]

Today @ 03:30 AM post located here
Tycho:


Please note the following basic facts:
Abiogenesis is not evolution.
Cosmology is not evolution.
Evolution is not blind chance.
Chemistry is not blind chance.
Gravity is not blind chance.

This reminds me of the "bait and switch" tactics of many salepeople. The first three items are not "facts".

If you read much on cosmology they talk about evolution all the time.

Many evolutionists use the term evolution several different ways, sometimes in the same paragraph.

Abiogenesis is frequently defined as not part of evolution but this is disingenupous because the vast majority (95%) of leading biologists have to believe it is true because they do not believe in God. Thus, defining the controversy away is merely a ruse to deceive those who do believe in God into believing that there is no conflict with their religious beliefs: Stalin's "useful idiots" comment.

In is quite common in sales to mix things that are obviously true, "facts", in with some that are in dispute or outright false.

[RufusAtticus]

Today @ 11:31 AM post located here
Socratism:

If you read much on cosmology they talk about evolution all the time.

Stellar evolution is not biological evolution, which is what "evolution" defaults to in scientific usage without any other declators or context.

Many evolutionists use the term evolution several different ways, sometimes in the same paragraph.

Got an example of that.

Abiogenesis is frequently defined as not part of evolution but this is disingenupous because the vast majority (95%) of leading biologists have to believe it is true because they do not believe in God.

How does not believing in a god neccitate that abiogenisis is part of evolution?

Thus, defining the controversy away is merely a ruse to deceive those who do believe in God into believing that there is no conflict with their religious beliefs: Stalin's "useful idiots" comment.

What controvercy? Abiogenesis is not part of evolution. Evolution can only occur after life originates. Thus anything leading up to the first imperfect replcator is not evolution. Find a biological source that states otherwise.

[Jimmy Higgins]

Today @ 11:31 AM post located here
Socratism:
Abiogenesis is frequently defined as not part of evolution but this is disingenupous because the vast majority (95%) of leading biologists have to believe it is true because they do not believe in God.

You did it again. Where is this 95% number coming from? The vast majority of scientists both believe in God, (your god to boot!), and in evolution.

* Some 84 percent felt acceptance of the evolution theory was "consistent with believing in God"

Ohio scientists give opinions on intelligent design versus evolution

[Athanasius]

The vast majority of scientists both believe in God, (your god to boot!), and in evolution.

Where are your sources for this?

* Some 84 percent felt acceptance of the evolution theory was "consistent with believing in God

There is a HUGE difference in believing that evolution can be consistent with believing in God, and in believing in both God and evolution.

[HemofHisGarment]

Yesterday @ 08:39 PM post located here
Athanasius:

There is a HUGE difference in believing that evolution can be consistent with believing in God, and in believing in both God and evolution.

And?.................................

[Woman]

Socratism:

Abiogenesis is frequently defined as not part of evolution but this is disingenupous because the vast majority (95%) of leading biologists have to believe it is true because they do not believe in God.

I don't suppose you have a source for that do you?

Ah well, perhaps you might benefit from this site:

Radiometric Dating: A Christian Prospective

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html

Or one of these:

Resources On the Web:

Virtual Dating--a very helpful educational course on half-lives and radioactive decay was put together by Gary Novak at California State University in Los Angeles. This site has several interactive web "workbooks" to help the reader understand various concepts involved with radiometricdating.

http://vcourseware5.calstatela.edu/VirtualDating

Reasons to Believe--a Christian ministry supporting the old-Earth viewpoint. Dr. Hugh Ross, the founder and head of the ministry, holds a PhD in Astronomy. The ministry supports an accurate interpretation of the Bible while also supportive of science as a tool to study God's creation.

www.reasons.org

American Scientific Affiliation (ASA)--an umbrella organization of Christians in many different areas of the sciences. Most of the members hold an old-Earth view, though membership is open to anyone supporting their positional statement. This website has numerous resources on theology and Bible-science issues.

www.asa3.org

Affiliation of Christian Geologists (ACG)--an organization of Geologists who are Christians. The ACG is affiliated with the ASA (above).

www.wheaton.edu/acg

Lord I Believe--a site maintained by Hill Roberts, a self-professed conservative Christian and a Physicist. There is a wealth of information, including presentations on the interpretation of Genesis chapters 1-3, a resource list of apologetics ministries, etc.

http://LordIBelieve.org

A review of Phillip Henry Gosse's Omphalos: An Attempt to Untie the Geological Knot, in which fiat creation with the appearance of age is suggested. Reviewed by Rev. John W. Burgeson.

http://www.burgy.50megs.com/omphalos.htm

Origins--this site is devoted mainly to evidences for intelligent design in nature.

www.origins.com

Talk Origins--an archive dedicated to creation-evolution issues. Originally created by Chris Stassen, this site is supported by the National Center For Science Education.

www.talkorigins.org

A Radiometric Dating Resource List--a very comprehensive resource list for radiometric dating, maintained by Tim Thompson of the NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory. It includes separate resource sections on the reliability of radiometric dating, introductory articles, advanced articles, radiocarbon dating, etc.

http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaver...diometric.html

C-14 Dating--The radiocarbon laboratories at Oxford (England) and Waikato (New Zealand) Universities jointly operate this website which gives very comprehensive information on radiocarbon dating. Portions of it were written specifically for use by K-12 students, so it is easy to understand. The site contains explanations on measurements, applications, calibration, publications, and other areas.

http://www.c14dating.com

Cornell University Geology 656 Lecture Notes--A large number of pdf files of geology lecture notes are available on the web. These are university-level lecture notes describing radiometric dating and related topics.

page 29.

http://www.geo.cornell.edu/geology/c...56notes98.html

http://www.geo.cornell.edu/geology/c...56notes00.html

Not an atheist in the bunch!

[Tycho]

Yesterday @ 09:31 AM post located here
Socratism:
Abiogenesis is frequently defined as not part of evolution but this is disingenupous because the vast majority (95%) of leading biologists have to believe it is true because they do not believe in God. Thus, defining the controversy away is merely a ruse to deceive those who do believe in God into believing that there is no conflict with their religious beliefs: Stalin's "useful idiots" comment.

Before you claimed that you were some sort of ardent evolutionist (despite your current lack of the basic facts regarding evolution) and lost your belief in evolution because of some kind of study of the actual evidence. Yet now you imply that your change of belief had nothing to do with facts, but rather with your religious beliefs. How very interesting.