Homesteading Forum banner

1 - 20 of 42 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,230 Posts
..outside of the lay-public I don't know of anyone who believes, or ever believed, in linear evolution....
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,082 Posts
Actually, this is what the article boils down to.

Overall what it paints for human evolution is a “chaotic kind of looking evolutionary tree rather than this heroic march that you see with the cartoons of an early ancestor evolving into some intermediate and eventually unto us,” Spoor said in a phone interview from a field office of the Koobi Fora Research Project in northern Kenya.
Not the categorical statement made by the OP.
 
A

·
Guest
Joined
·
0 Posts
All the changes to human evolutionary thought should not be considered a weakness in the theory of evolution, Kimbel said. Rather, those are the predictable results of getting more evidence, asking smarter questions and forming better theories, he said.

.....Alan.
 

·
winding down
Joined
·
3,471 Posts
How interesting. I was taught in evolution classes some years ago how the old theories on linear evolution had long been disgarded in favor of a more branched lineage.

Scientific knowledge is, of course, constantly being updated as more information is gathered. The history of the earth is like a quilt being built one square at a time, with each square coming from a different source. We'll have to wait until all the sources have been able to contribute their bit, before we can see the quilt in entirety. And even then, it'll likely look a little moth-eaten, as some information will have been lost to us forever. But, we'll keep looking and gathering, because that's what a curious mind does.

Meg
 

·
Waste of bandwidth
Joined
·
10,618 Posts
Isn't this how science works?

You gather the evidence and come up with a theory that best explains it. If you find new evidence that doesn't clearly fit, you re-evaluate and perhaps modify the theory.

When it comes to theology, it's more an act of faith. You accept any evidence that supports your belief and reject findings that don't.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,082 Posts
Personally, I don't think science and theology are at odds. Science explores the mysteries God set in motion.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,476 Posts
Westwood said:
Personally, I don't think science and theology are at odds. Science explores the mysteries God set in motion.
Yes. I've always thought of religion as the poetic sister of science.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,825 Posts
your title is very misleading. that is not what it is talking about at all, and I'm afraid you simply must not have the background in order to interpret scientific findings clearly. if you had the impression that evolution was a "heroic linear march" you were simply uninformed. that is not new. Its not a tidy line of beings slowly evolving with each step leading to a better body, there are countless dead end branches. I think you have misunderstood what the article is saying. "calling into question the evolution of our ancestors" does not mean calling in to question evolution.this is where you have misunderstood. if you had a brownie sitting in front of you and were asked to decipher the recipe from nothing more than examining the brownie, you would likely come up with alot of wrong recipes when figuring it out. each time you would call into question the recipe (of course until you figured it out). it doesn't mean that you call into question wether or not it was created through a recipe and assume that it was created out of thin air. and that doesn't mean of course some proposed recipes could be "more/less wrong" than others. for instance starting off with a recipe "guess" for the brownie involving chicken, would be more wrong than starting of a recipe guess for the brownie involving cocoa. just as starting with a "recipe" for evolution involving "deity" is more wrong than starting off a "recipe" for evolution with solid science such as geologic dating. the deity guess starts off saying "I believe, the recipe to create this brownie has chicken in it". the scientific guess starts with "lets look at what we do know or can find out about this brownie so that we can venture an educated guess as to its makeup". I am not trying to be condescending here I truly would like to inform people about this, it is primarily a lack of comprehension of the words, and basic process of science that leads people to question evolutionary theory. the word "theory" is usually the first attacked for instance, due to its equation with, or implication of "guess". a theory is not a guess anymore than recipe is. thanks for reading.
 

·
Broken Dreamer
Joined
·
2,320 Posts
Science explores the mysteries God set in motion
My sentiments exactly. Science does not at all disprove God. To me, how the human body works is miraculous, as is the amazing observations regarding quantum physics.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,106 Posts
Discussion Starter #12
I'm sorry but I learned that evolution is a linear process, and the symbolism of a man progressing from monkey to human is one of the words most famous. A linear progression. Take the Geico commercials.

Science needs to take a stand. Christianity has already taken one it has stood by for years. Any other Christians out there?
 

·
winding down
Joined
·
3,471 Posts
YounGrey said:
I'm sorry but I learned that evolution is a linear process, and the symbolism of a man progressing from monkey to human is one of the words most famous. A linear progression. Take the Geico commercials.
I'm also sorry that you learned the antiquated science of the linear progression of man. I'm assuming that you are many decades old, and remembering childhood teachings from 'back in the day'. New discoveries and information showed that to be incorrect years ago. If there are teachers out there who have not updated their information, and who are still teaching the old theory, then they need to be retaught or replaced!

The 'symbol' of man progressing from a monkey simply doesn't exist in science at all, and never has. That concept is one built by people who found the concept of a common ancestor too difficult or too alien to understand. It has never been used by science. The commercial of an insurance company notwithstanding.

Science does take a stand. The stand is simply one of assembling facts. Science puts together a picture based on the facts as they are understood at that time. If new information is brought in, the picture then changes. We cannot disregard the new information, simply because we had already painted a picture. We have to adjust the picture. If we didn't do that, then we'd still be thinking we lived on a flat world, and the sun revolved around us. And, of course, that women were responsible for producing sons instead of daughters.

Meg
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,476 Posts
YounGrey said:
Take the Geico commercials.
You really don't want to get your science from Geico commercials any more than you'd want to get your religion from, say, Jimmy Swaggart.
 

·
Hello, hello....is there anybody in there.....?
Joined
·
78,699 Posts
YounGrey said:
I'm sorry but I learned that evolution is a linear process, and the symbolism of a man progressing from monkey to human is one of the words most famous. A linear progression. Take the Geico commercials.

Science needs to take a stand. Christianity has already taken one it has stood by for years. Any other Christians out there?
Dont confuse simplistic cartoons and stupid TV commercials with reality
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,585 Posts
If you apply the requirements for something to be considered scientific, then neither creation nor evolution is true science, both are theories. Below is one common definition of science from this web page http://www.journaloftheoretics.com/Editorials/Vol-1/e1-3.htm :

What is Science?

One of the best descriptions and explanations of the current concept of scientific method is interestingly found in the Appendix E of Frank Wolfs' website .3

1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.
2. Formulation of a hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation.
3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.
4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.
End quote

At this time no one has been able to perform repeatable experimental tests to show either creation or evolution, nor has anyone observed either evolution or creation, both considered requirements to call something scientific.

Both creation and evolution are faith based, you either have faith in a creator that created, or faith that matter has always existed and somehow formed the heavens and earth, and faith that somehow life came from inanimate matter.

I have many friends who believe in Intelligent design, but not in God. I believe there are several books available on Intelligent design that are not from a Christian perspective.

Dawn
 

·
Joy
Joined
·
2,569 Posts
YounGrey said:
Science needs to take a stand. Christianity has already taken one it has stood by for years. Any other Christians out there?
It would seem that you believe that Christianity and science are not compatible by insinuating that those in favor of science's evolutionary theory cannot also be Christian. If one is willing to accept that God is outside time, then why could evolution and creation not be the same process? Is God limited to a day? You know, "The day of the Lord" isn't one day either...

I just finished reading Francis Collins' book entitled The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief. It was VERY good, and he makes basically the same point, that is, that science and belief can co-exist peacefully. It doesn't have to be either/or!

-Joy
 
1 - 20 of 42 Posts
Top