Can the theory of early human evolution truly be called a scientific theory?

A Theroy? perhaps, however The evidence for evolution is and has been interpreted from a Philosophical and ideological Bias, The answers given by adherents to Evolution here in R&S is proof of the bias and agenda, Atheism has to have an alternate explanation—other than a Creator—for how the universe and life came into existence.

Darwin once identified himself as a Christian but as a result of some tragedies that took place in his life, he later renounced the Christian faith and the existence of God. Evolution was invented by an atheist.

What is sad is that Christians are falling into this Trap and trying to fit evolution into the Bible (Theistic Evolution) thinking they can make it fit.

Lee Stroble in his video listed below “ The Case for the Creator” stated (5 min. 28 sec into the video) The Case for a Creator

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6881114962...

That “There is no way you can Harmonize Neo Darwinism with Christianity, I could never understand Christians who would say “ Well I believe in God yet I believe in Evolution as well” You see Darwin’s idea about the development of life led to his theory that modern science now generally defines as an undirected process completely devoid of any purpose or plan,”. Now how could God direct an undirected process? How could God have purpose in a plan behind a system that has no plan and no purpose? It just does not make sense.

It didn’t make sense to me in 1966 and it doesn’t make sense to me now.

The Apostle Paul wrote to His Son Timothy stating that “ in 2 Timothy 4:3-4 “For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but according to their own desires, [because] they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; and they will turn [their] ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables.”

Those Christians who believe in evolution have no idea how that effects their theology.

What is theistic evolution?

http://www.gotquestions.org/theistic-evolution.htm...

http://carm.org/secular-movements/evolution/theist...

Eternity is a Long Time to be wrong about this

What Hath Darwin Wrought?

http://www.whathathdarwinwrought.com/

Darwin's Deadly Legacy (1 of 7)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4mxXICZ9mXo

Creation In The 21st Century - Planet Earth Is Special 1 of 3

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uk8xtXRI6OE

Creation in the 21st Century - The Evidence Disputes Darwin 1 of 3

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FaveDbWrQuQ&feature...

Creation in the 21st Century - The Evidence Disputes Darwin 2 of 3

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mZFIe2zk1fw&feature...

Some modern scientists who have accepted the biblical account of creation

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/

More than 600 Scientist with PHD’s who have Signed A SCIENTIFIC DISSENT FROM DARWINISM

“We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life.

Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.”

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-do...

The theory of evolution presents a major point of disagreement with the Bible. What is noteworthy about this theory is how quickly it became popular among scientists after the publication of Darwin’s book The Origin of Species. It was accepted long before there was any time to test the book’s hypotheses or find proofs for them in the fossil record. Why? Evolutionist Hoimar v. Ditfurth makes the candid admission: “Science is by definition the attempt to see how far man and nature can be explained without recourse to miracles.” (The Origins of Life, by H. v. Ditfurth) Is it surprising, then, that scientists have eagerly seized on the evolution theory, spending much time and effort trying to prove it and very little trying to see if it can be disproved? The only alternative, creation, would be a miracle—which to them is unthinkable.

Well, here are some definitions of the word "theory": a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world - Princeton A comprehensive explanation of a given set of data that has been repeatedly confirmed by observation and experimentation - Houghton Mifflin An extremely well-substantiated explanation of some aspects of the natural world that incorporates facts, laws, predictions, and tested hypotheses. (Eg, Einstein's Theory of Gravitation, 1916) - National Science Teachers Association Of course, a Christian would describe a theory as something completely disprovable and disproved so they could debunk evolution. But then Christian held back science for over one and a half thousand years until they failed to silence Galileo by putting him under house arrest.

Which is why it is a scientific theory. Not just a theory, but since there is "evidence" and much of that is testable, it is considered scientific. You look at fossils...those are tangible...creationism is not.

And, evolution is observable. Cornell University School of Veterinary Science just came out with a remarkable study on how cats have significantly evolved over the past fifty years. Obligate carnivores, cats used to have the shortest digestive tracts of all animals, now digestive tracts are elongating in order to digest grains and vegetables.

Can you give me a reason why the thousands of partial or near complete fossils that have been found do not support an hypothesis of human evolution from an ape-like or monkey like ancestor?

Can you give us a reason why the fine details of the skull anatomy of existing primates do not support this hypothesis?

Can you give us a reason why the biochemistry of existing primates does not support this hypothesis?

Can you give us a reason why the immune systems of existing primates do not support this hypothesis?

Can you give us a reason why the genomes of existing primates do not support this hypothesis?

If humans and apes had a common ancestor as is apparent from the anatomy of EXISTING species, then fossil evidence should show development of existing human anatomy from some earlier form. It does.

If humans and apes had a common ancestor as is apparent from the anatomy of EXISTING species, then genome evidence should show evidence of this. It does.

And here's a surprise. There are many inactivated viruses in the genomes of chimps and humans. As of a few years ago, seven identical ones had been detected in the genomes of chimps and humans in exactly the same places. The chance of one virus infecting two individuals and inserting it's DNA in exactly the same place are tiny, perhaps as little as 1 in 3 billion. Now try it with another six. The only reasonable explanation is that the viruses infected a germ cell of a common ancestor.

Evolution has more facts supporting it than the theory of gravity. Evolution has been proven in virtually all aspects. That humans create new variables is what science is all about. If you read he text the bible was plagiarized from, the Sumerian tablets, then human evolution makes perfect sense. The biblical version is a fantasy and explains nothing.

IT MIGHT BE SAID , that evolution has not got itself out of the starting blocks of hypothesis .THEN it is advanced as evolution as a theory.

*** w81 4/1 p. 15 Insight on the News ***

Scientists and Deception

● In a guest editorial for “American Laboratory” magazine, biochemist Donald F. Calbreath, Ph.D., pointed out three ways in which evolutionists deceive the public. FIRST, the teaching of creationism in school is opposed because it is said to involve religion. “However,” he writes, “the secular humanism prevalent both in the classroom and in the teacher training programs must be considered just as much a religion. . . . Since both deal in some realms that cannot be dealt with completely by scientific experimentation, a certain element of faith is necessary for the acceptance of the tenets of the system.”

--Yet, writes Calbreath: “The [school]child is not presented with evolution as a theory. Subtle statements are made in science texts as early as the second grade (based on my reading of my children’s textbooks). Evolution is presented as reality, not as a concept that can be questioned.”

THIRD, there is the attempt “to portray the battleground as being between scientists who support evolution and believers in creationism who are non scientists.” This, he says, is “invalid.” Why? Because “much of the opposition to evolution comes from scientists, men and women who have achieved academic distinction, who are knowledgeable about research and the scientific method and who reject evolution on the basis of their scientific knowledge. . . . When qualified scientists reject the theory of evolution and provide significant arguments to substantiate their rejection, perhaps there just may be some validity to their arguments.”—November 1980, pp. 8, 10.29

(NOT A CREATIONIST)

Yes

We've observed evolution to the point of speciation dozens of times. We can see that humans continue to change. We are 30 % taller, our jaws smaller, our little toes smaller, in just that last 600 years.

Every fossil has to fit the model, that makes it testable. So far, millions of them all have. It has mose successful predictions that anything in science just on that. But then, throw in the DNA, that shows the same tree with both nuclear and mitochondrial DNA you about triple that.

I am not a scientist but found this explanation for you; I think this is what you need to read:

Evolutionary theory unifies observations from fossils, DNA sequences, systematics, biogeography, and laboratory experiments into a testable explanatory scheme. In this sense, the scientific (as opposed to the vernacular) definition of theory refers to an overarching framework that makes sense of otherwise disconnected observations; this includes, for example, the theory of gravity. Theodosius Dobzhansky, a key contributor to the modern evolutionary synthesis, articulated the unifying power of evolutionary theory in a famous paper entitled: "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution".[4]

Evolution is testable. Every new find could potentially falsify it. If we found Haldane's rabbit in Cambrian rock then it would be falsified. If we found no biochemical and morphological similarity between us other primates then it would be falsified. As it is, the theory of evolution has withstood the test of time.

It is a scientific theory.

Our genetic link to the great apes and chimpanzees has been observed and demonstrated. "Generation and annotation of human chromosomes 2 & 4". Note we did not come from them, rather we share a common ancestor.

Common ancestry between two differing species is only possible through evolution.