Two points: (1) a scientific theory can indeed be “proved” in the same way a court case can be proved – beyond reasonable doubt. There is more evidence for evolution in one person’s DNA than there is for any court case ever. The only remaining doubt in evolution is unreasonable. (2) If evolution opposes the Biblical account of man’s creation, then plate tectonics oppose the Biblical account of the Earth’s creation. If we’re willing to throw out biology, why not geology? And physics, while we’re at it, since all that radiometric dating must be wrong, no? It’s a slippery slope when we let faith trump facts.
Hey Rick, it’s interesting you pointed out the DNA as your evidence. I’d suggest before you place your faith in that statement you read two books. “Signature in the Cell” (DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design) and “The Language of God” by Francis Collins (head of the Human Genome Project). One is an Intelligent design advocate and the other a “theistic” evolutionist. I hope you don’t flippantly write them off, because they are both brillian men.
Also, as for McLaughlin above I will only address his second point that the “majority” believe it to be so. My reponse: who cares what the majority thinks. Since when does that determine truth? First it’s a logical fallacy, and second, how many times in the worlds history has the majority been wrong.
kmayo, I’ve read both books. While I respect Francis Collins’s right to believe as he wishes, his argument is essentially “I believe, and I will interpret the evidence to fit that belief”. Anyone could do that. The same argument can be used to justify “aliens did it”. And he simply doesn’t make an evidence-based case.
As for “Signature”, it is authored by Stephen Meyer, one of the authors of “The Wedge”. So you must first read his book as an “end justifies the means” attempt to use science-sounding design discussions to sneak fundamentalist beliefs into science. He does this by trying to impress the public rather than publishing actual papers to convince scientists. His book is part of a marketing strategy to support his fundamentalist backers, just like the scientists working for Big Tobacco who gave all sorts of medical evidence that smoking isn’t bad for you.
You can find with a quick google many scientific criticisms of “Signature”. But if you want a thoughtful, education Christian’s takedown of “Signature”, read here. RJS has more room than I to point out the flaws of this book, which ultimately fails what it attempts.
I’ve also read the Bible, read quite a bit of higher criticism on the origins of the Bible, and several popular works like “Evolution of God” and “Case for God”. Now, have you looked as hard at the scientific evidence and mechanisms of evolution as I’ve looked at the religious implications?
And kmayo, you said: “Since when does that determine truth? ” It doesn’t. Truth is determined by what fits the facts.
Let’s look how often evidence has led to a truth that the majority did not at first believe:
The Sun – was a god, now a ball of fusing hydrogen
The Moon – was a god(dess), now a big round dusty rock
The stars – were gods or spirits, more flaming gas balls
The tides – were attributed to gods, now gravity
The seasons – attributed to gods, now Earth’s tilt
Earthquakes – were caused by gods, now plate tectonics
Lightning – was thrown by a god, now static electricity
Rain & drought – was God, now atmospheric moisture
Health & disease – was God, now germs & genetics
Schizophrenia – was demonic possession, now brain chemicals
Epilepsy – was divine possession, now neurology
Origin of species – was God, now science (evolution)
Identity & personality – was the soul, now neuroscience
See how that works?
Given that this is how the world works, if they understand history and are objective and honest, then both Francis Collins and Stephen Meyer should start from the assumption that natural events have natural causes. But they don’t. They both start with the assumption of God (though Meyer says “designer” to avoid trouble with the U.S. Constitution).