Evolution is a fact! It is not the enemy of Christians!
April 5, 2007 2:32am CST
Dr. Francis Collins is the man who lead the team that cracked the human genetic code. He is also an evangelical Christian. Read what he has to say about evolution and stem cell research. Science and religion can coexist and a belief in evolution does not make you an Atheist. http://tinyurl.com/ysowzd
• United States
5 Apr 07
Actually, evolution is a theory. In science, it takes an awful lot to call something "fact". Heck, we still have the theory of gravity labeled as a theory. But, many people misunderstand what a theory actually is. Many people consider it as a "guess", even a wild unsupported guess. In fact, a hypothesis is an educated guess, and a theory is the next logical step. In order for anything to reach the stage of "theory", it must have first been a hypothesis. Then, it has to have data and observation (and, in most cases, even sucessful experimentation) in order to be classified as a theory. Most theorys are well on there way to becoming scientific facts (or laws). I do, however, agree with you that the theory of evolution (and, infact, all science) can coexist with religion. I also whole-heartedly agree that having a belief in evolution does not make one atheistic. Many scientists have strongly held religious beliefs. As Albert Einstein once said, "Religion without science is blind. Science without religion is lame." So, yes, the two can coexist quite nicely, and do not have to be considered enemies of one another.
• United States
6 Apr 07
"The origin of the species" does not have a single mention of evolution. The quote above is taken from an earlier response. This certainly caught my eye! As I have a copy of "The origin of the species" , I pulled it out and checked, just to make sure. Afterall, it has been awhile since I read it. Maybe Charles Darwin refered to a process or something like that, instead of using the exact word evolution? No, that's not what he did. Darwin frequently and often refers to evolution. It is not the case that later scientists named the process evolution. Darwin calls his theory evolution in his book. BTW, the absolute best place to find arguements against evolution is in Charles Darwin's book, "The Origin of the Species." Unfortunately, for those who wish to argue against the theory, he also explains exactly why each of those arguements is not valid.
• United States
7 Apr 07
Having gotten out my old copy of "The Origin of the Species", I have actually started re-reading it. It is an amazing book that could have been written just last week. It is that far ahead of its time. It was written before the US Civil War, yet the language and science seem modern. But, I am digressing from my intent with this comment. I have been trying to figure out how someone could say that evolution is not mentioned in Charles Darwin's famous book. This mystery is now solved. The answer is that Charles Darwin refered to his own theory as the Theory of Natural Selection, not the theory of evolution. He also used the term survival of the fittest quite a bit. When Charles Darwin uses the word evolution in his book, it is in passing as a description of the process of his Theory of Natural Selection. An example of this would be that the word evolution does not appear in any of the chapter titles or synopsis of chapters, yet the words,"Theory of Natural Selection" do appear. No where that I have been able to find does Charles Darwin call his theory the "Theory of evolution." It is perfectly understandable that someone might think Darwin did not refer to his theory as the theory of evolution because he did not. He used the word evolution only to describe the process of his "Theory of Natural Selection". In "The Origin of the Species" the word evolution is only a descriptive term, not a part of any chapter title or used in the name of any theory put forth. Hope this helps.
• United States
10 Apr 07
"Evolution is a fact" only in so far as people say it is. Where is the actual facts/proof? I've yet, after all these years of discussion, to be shown it.. All I've ever been shown is "possibilities".. Which is not interchangeable with the word, "fact", or "proven".
11 Apr 07
Please consider; http://evolution.berkeley.edu/ Evolution is not entirely proven and probably never will be but that is the nature of science. The topic that I started was that evolution is not the enemy of Christianity and it is not. The only people who have trouble with it are those who are under the mistaken impression that the Bible is a science textbook. The Bible is a book full of wonder and beauty but it is not a science textbook.
13 Apr 07
Evolution by natural selection is a fact in the same sense that gravity is a fact. Before Newton it was believed that objects such as stones fell to earth because they where 'of' the earth and 'sought' to return to it, a theory proposed by Aristotle. Strictly speaking the only facts are observation. i.e. This is. Any reference to cause is theory. What makes a theory good or bad is its falsifiability and being the minimum explanation (Occum's razor) I don't invoke an invisible dwarf wearing boots to explain the creaking of floor boards. For this reason Natural selection qualifies as a scientific theory were ID does not. Since countless examples of the theory of Evolution by Natural Selection are available and a huge amount of evidence it has become the accepted theory and is therefore referred to as a fact. It is quite appalling the number of people that criticise this without providing themselves with even a rudimentary understanding of it. This is intellectually deceitful. all the best urban
• Puerto Rico
15 Apr 07
Natural selection works fine with microevoliton but not macroevolution. These are small-scale horizontal changes that both Biblical creationists and IDers accept. Why? because it's observable. What's not observable is natural selection and macroevolution. Why? natural selection is not a creative force. "Select" is not synonymous with "create". The word "selection" is there for a reason. It "selects" from what is present. That's why many evolutionists have argued that it's not natural selection alone that is responsible but natural selection together with mutation. I find it appalling that you would think natural selection could do the job itself.
• Puerto Rico
19 Apr 07
Darwinian evolution IS the enemy of Christians. Darwin makes his intentions quite clear. He was looking for a naturalistic and undirected means to explain life origins. In no way is that compatible with Christianity. It's illogical to claim that God directs an undirected process. Only some intelligent designers make room for the possibility of inserting God into the evolution equation. However, I believe most do not. The one thing that Intelligent designers do have in common is that they all agree that there is a designer somewhere in the picture. Darwinian evolutionists do not hold this view although some of them do believe in God.
20 Apr 07
The Theory of Natural Selection is not the enemy of Christians. It is the enemy and strangely the uniting factor for Radical Muslims and Radical Christians who insist on a fundamentalists view of the Qur'an and the Bible. Intelligent Design is the Trojan Horse they are trying to use to sneak Creationism back into the schools. It has no scientific basis.
11 Apr 07
I recognize that it is not a fact but used the word in my title of this post to be provocative. Sadly the whole point of the post seems to have gotten lost in the shuffle. The initial point was that being a Christian does not mean that you must reject evolution. One of the greatest dangers to Christianity is people that take the position that a belief in creationism is conditional to being a Christian.
11 Apr 07
After giving this some thought I find I do have to take issue with you. I made no mention of the Theory of Evolution, only of evolution itself. I do not know where the Theory of Evolution came from. In Darwen's "The origin of the species" he makes no mention of it so I don't know when it originated. Perhaps you can tell me? Darwen discussed evolution as a process and I think that process is factual, so, at least in my humble opinion, my title is correct.
14 Apr 07
I agree that creationism and the theory of evolution do not have to be in conflict. I suppose I will have to respectfully disagree and assert again that Darwin's position is a theory. It does not matter if he called it a theory, that is what it is, a scientific theory. Einstein wrote a paper titled "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies" which we know today as the Special Theory of Relativity. I do not believe in absolute fact of any kind, only theories that are so well supported over time by mountains of evidence that in at least one particular frame of reference, human beings refer to them as facts. The great thing about science is that it is capable of proving parts of itself wrong and coming up with better theories that have better explanatory power. Draven the Respectful Atheist http://dravenwriter.blogspot.com
15 Apr 07
"We need science if we're going to survive in a complicated world and if we're going to treat terrible diseases that cry out for some form of alleviation. And we need faith if we're going to keep ourselves in perspective. So we must seek out the ways in which these world views can happily coexist. It's perhaps our strongest mandate right now, if we're really concerned about our own future in this world." this is from the site and I agree with this. Yes we need both and the argument is over or should be over now. Gdo if he is the creator meant us to discover the creation of the world in this way. HE has created doubt and he will clear them too. So why worry. Answers are all in us and nowhere else. I wish we all could realise it too.