The theory of evolution.

Post Reply New Topic

I have no such an opinion. I'm not interested in the subject enough to know who's supposed to be the all-star in their field. But I do know there are those who have been well educated in the theory of evolution who reject it. I interpret ignorance as lack of knowledge, rather than how accepting a person is of what they're knowledgeable of. I didn't say their level of knowledge makes them correct, I just said they are the ones I'd prefer to listen to when it came to perceived flaws in the theory of evolution.

OK.

You have said you listen to "erudite creationists". You have also said you "know there are those who have been well educated in the theory of evolution who reject it".

Let's get away from abstracts. Could you name someone? They don't have to be the best, just an erudite, well-informed creationist who you listen to.

You can't nail Jello down.

Sorry, poor choice of words or a grammar mistake. I would only bother listening to a creationist who displayed being knowledgeable about evolution. The other is a forgone conclusion. People convert. I'm more familiar with those who have a profound knowledge of theology and or bible scholars who became atheists such as Bart Ehrman. In searching for a evolutionist who turned creationist, the first hit yielded Gary Parker, Ed.D. who apparently taught biology. Have no idea how credible he is, but again it's a forgone conclusion that there are former evolutionists who converted to religion and became creationists. Likewise I'm sure there are former creationists who turned evolutionist.

I'll start off with Parker. He appears maybe to fit the bill based on hits I got on him. There seems to be some connection between him and National Geographic for instance. If he's knowledgeable and respectable that's good enough for me. But that doesn't mean I wouldn't disagree with what he has to say.

You know I listened to a flat earther once who impressed me with his presentation. Not that I believed any of it. But I thought he put a lot of work into it and didn't come off nearly as kooky and outlandish as I would have expected.

Aren't you the one who's always complaining about snark?

Such a religious authority as Pope John Paul II (the Pope before Francis) declared evolution to be a "fact."

Ignoring Pope Palpatine ever existed. Good plan.

Of course....Benedict XVI....

According to this site, in his speech, all he said was "it's more than just a hypothesis".
http://www.cuttingedge.org/n1034.html

Which is funny, since it's commonly called a "theory".

When it's "more than a hypothesis," it's quite close to being "fact." He stated there were "strong arguments" for evolution. He stated, in essence, that this is the dawn of the 21st century, and that our conception of things should reflect that.

Evolution does stare us in the face.

Many theologians justify evolution by stating that God jump-started the mechanism (life, evolution), but that the mechanism proceeded on its own accord, without the intercession of God.

In essence, Creation--followed by evolution.

John Paul saw no conflict between evolution and religious belief.

Funny why?

Science continually updates.

Despite a few hundred years of people wrongly believing the "Laws of Motion" were a fact, scientists now think quantum events can disobey the "Laws of Motion".

Evolution is just a theory, not a scientific law, not a fact.

A "theory" is based on a hypothesis.

So, if you a theory, then already have "more than a hypothesis".

Evolution occurs. That is a fact. How it occurs is a theory. Which is why it's called the theory of evolution.

That's your opinion.

Science NEVER labels their discoveries as facts.

It's anti-science to shut-off any further contradictory evidence.

Evolution is not called a theory because it's not known whether or not it occurs. What's not known is exactly how evolution occurs, which is why it's called a theory.