Hypothesis of Evolution? Theory of Natural Selection? Why the arguments?

Ok isaiah0016, I'll take you up on your challenge of being "smited" by a creationist (I am one). However, if I actually answer your question (since no one else has), will you give me BA? I kind of doubt it, but nevertheless, I'll assume your question is sincere anyway. Be prepared, I'm very verbose (I can't help it, I'm passionate about this subject).

I have to say, a couple of positions you take in your question are quite excellent. I like your stance on evolution being a "hypothesis". That is much more accurate than the many evolutionists on this forum who insist that it is a FACT. Probably the greatest science philosopher of all time, Karl Popper (and evolutionist) concluded that evolution was NOT a testable scientific theory but rather a "metaphysical research programme". That is, it is simply a presuppositional framework or unfalsifiable axiom from which to build workable theories. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that, by the way, but it is rarely admitted to be as such by evolutionists who wish to elevate it to something it is not (like a "fact").

In addition, I like your use of the word "cosmogony" when referring to evolution. Certainly, when people use the word evolution, it most commonly refers to biological evolution. However, according to world book encyclopedia, evolution also refers to the entire set of evolutionary theories (ie big bang, abiogenesis, biological, social...) which attempt to explain the origin of the entire universe and everything in it. This is often a sore point with evolutionists on this forum who insist that abiogenesis is not part of evolutionary theory, presumably because they have no explanation for it.

However, I do take exception to a couple of statements you have made and they will form the basis of my answer to your questions - 1) "Why don't I accept evolution as a Christian" and 2) "What makes you claim that yours is better than any other religion's cosmogony?". Those two questions, are in fact closely related.

I agree that in science there is "no absolute truth, there is only probability". I would refer to that concept as simply the "preponderance of the evidence". But then you go on to presumably compare evolution with the "theories of gravitation, plate tectonics, relativity, natural selection". Ahhh, but this is NOT a valid comparison. The theory of gravity and natural selection would fall into what is commonly referred to as "operational science" which has brought us new technology and medical breakthroughs. These theories can be considered "fact" (or as close to fact as possible) because they are subject to the scientific method. That is, the object of the theory under study is observable, repeatable and can be experimentally measured. For example, the effects of gravity can be repeatedly observed, measured and experimentally tested as many times as desired. However, this is NOT true of evolution. That is because the objects of the various evolutionary theories are not observable, repeatable or measurable, the three immutable properties of the scientific method. The big bang and abiogenesis have not and can never be observed or repeated. These events occurred supposedly billions of years ago. No one was there to see it. We have not even been able to repeat these events in the lab. I don't believe abiogenesis will ever be re-created in the lab since it breaks the scientific laws of probability, biogenesis and thermodynamics. Nevertheless, even if scientists were able to accomplish this feat, it would only prove that it takes an intelligence to do so and that it is "possible". It would not prove that it actually occurred billions of years ago since there was no one there to observe it happening at the time.

So now, what have we shown about evolution? Evolution is an unfalsifiable assumption because the events it describes have never been observed and cannot ever be repeated. In addition, evolutionary theory makes the unprovable assumption that everything we observe today came about by PURELY natural means without interference from a god or supernatural cause. I don't think I need to substantiate that point as I could provide literally thousands of quotes and references from evolutionists which state this fact. Evolutionary theories attempt to explain the existence of the universe WITHOUT god. In fact, evolutionist have proposed an eternally oscillating universe. You can choose to believe in god if you'd like but as far as evolution is concerned, NO GOD IS REQUIRED. Perhaps the best demonstration of this fact is surveys which show that a full 87% of leading evolutionist deny the existence of God. 94% of the National Academy of Science is atheist or agnostic. It is clear from these facts that evolutionary theory is based on the RELIGION of atheism. It is a materialistic philosophy.

Therefore, I have the perfect right to ask evolutionist this question - "What makes you claim that your atheistic religion's evolutionary cosmogony is better than any other religion's cosmogony?".

I also disagree with you when you say "Facts are not absolute truths". That is important to realize because whether you are an evolutionist or creationist, we ALL have the SAME facts. If "drinking beer is now good for your bones" is a fact, it was ALWAYS a fact whether we knew it or not. Facts ARE absolute truths. However INTERPRETATIONS of those facts are NOT. This is a critical realization because evolutionist INTERPRET facts based on the assumptions that all things occurred purely by natural means, that the Biblical God does not exist, that the earth is billions of years old and that evolution is true. Creation scientists interpret the facts with the assumption that God gave us an accurate eye-witness account of what actually happened. Therefore, evolutionist will extrapolate existing processes backwards in time past the creation event to propose that a big-bang occurred, whereas creation scientist start at the moment the God created the universe.

Another reason why the creationist cosmogony is "better" than any other religions cosmogony is that it is the ONLY one, other than evolution, which has been scientifically examine and which consists of scientific theories. You may not be aware of the tremendous amount of scientific support and research that has been done in support of creation theory. For example, one creationist cosmology theorizes that God stretched out the heavens during the creation event as He described. The earth would have been in the center of an event horizon at the edge of a white hole from which the universe spewed out. In this scenario, theories of relativity tell us that while only a single day passed from the perspective of the earth (as described by God), billions of years passed at the edges of the universe.

Another creationist theory - Biological creation theory - proposes that all the diversity of life we see today arose from an original set of created Kinds. This variation was cause primarily from processes such as mutations, natural selection and genetic programming, but ONLY occurs within the created kinds. Since we have NEVER observed one kind of creature changing into another kind, either in the present or in the fossil record, scientific observations support the creation model, NOT evolution.

So you see that both evolution and creation theory are concerned with past events which are not observable or repeatable and are based on contradictory philosophical assumptions. In addition, both use scientific methods to investigate remnants (such as cosmic background radiation or fossils) of these past events. For example, while evolutionists interpret geological layers as historical (laid down over billions of years), creationist interpret these layers as ecological caused by a catastrophic worldwide flood. The difference is that evolution is based on the fallible imaginations of men (conclusions constantly change), whereas creationist theories are based on accurate eye-witness accounts of what actually happened.

Which brings me to my last point. You say "the truth back then was irrelevant". This could not be further from the truth. The Bible claims to be the one and only Word of God who created the universe and everything in it. The vast majority of secular Bible scholars will tell you that the authors of Genesis intended it as literal history. Christ and all his followers believed and taught a plain reading of Genesis. If you claim Genesis is a myth, you are calling Christ a liar.

To summarize, I do not believe in evolution because:

1) Christ (who claims to have created the universe) did not believe in it

2) It is based on atheist presuppositions

3) The scientific evidence does not support evolutionary claims

4) The eye-witness accounts provided by God of what actually happened are strongly supported by all branches of science.

By the way, truth is NOT based on popular opinion (whether from scientists or otherwise), but surveys show that the majority of Americans do not believe in evolution.

You are right that most Christians perfectly well combine their belief in God with evolution theory.

It doesn't imply that there are no difficulties with that, though. Christianity -like other religions- cannot do without assumptions about some things in nature. F.e. most Christians believe that people are responsible for their deeds (and can control them) and that they have some sort of existence apart from their material existence that doesn't disappear when they are dead. But these assumptions actually can be debated by science. At that point you often get conflicts between religion and science.

Maintaining that religion has only to do with morals doesn't solve the problem. You're not talking about religion then, only about humanism.

We've actually literally witnessed evolution, with our eyes. We have seen a species evolve into another species. So there's that. An iPad is inorganic, and evolution doesn't aim to answer any questions about inorganic materials. What you're saying is not "the key point behind evolution". Read a little bit more on the subject, if you're actually interested in understand the answers to your questions. Or feel free to message me if you have more questions.

I believe the chief difficulty lies in the definitions we use for "evolution." The word itself is thoroughly packed with various and sundry aspects, some of which are scientifically observable, duplicable, and readily acceptable as fact.

However, when many Christians hear the word "evolution," they equate it with the unseating and replacement of God with random happenstance. Many atheists (and anti-Christians) will immediately seize upon this and begin the inevitable conflict without keeping their own assertions in a scientific context.

"Evolution" encapsulates so many mechanisms and theories that it is impossible to express a meaningful summary for use in everyday conversation and debate. That's the heart of the reason for the arguments.

Actually it is "Law of Evolution," [As in alleles change. This is an observed fact. Anyone saying other wise has obviously not seen another living thing, ever] and you have the NS part correct. NS is a driving mechanism of Evolution, just as Artificial selection can be, as well as a few other odd things which are still hypothesis, since we don't know how reliable they are in nature.

Actually it is the Theory of Evolution as it has been proven and Theories never become a Law.

Laws are very narrow and specific things while Theories are general principals made up of facts and laws explaining WHY the laws work as they do

Evolution believes Man sprang from the Apes.

Christians are terrified they didn't spring far enough.

Bada Boom.