Originally posted by ahosyney
[b]-it is only people that are unwilling to adapt their beliefs to the known scientific facts that have a problem with evolution (and a number of other scientific theories).

I think you are wrong here, Is the evolution theory a scientific fact?[/b]

yes.

Originally posted by jaywill
[qs]===================================
Are you aware that Darwin was a theist?
====================================

I am aware that he was a theological student at one time, I recall.

But you have to understand me. He could still be a theist and do a great favor for the atheists.

======================================
Are you a ruth will eventually prevail. God created life and designed life, however God did or does it.

…I was just commenting on what I think future historians will eventually say about Darwinism. That is his most powerful impact was the alternate plausible idea he furnished to atheists to dispute arguments for the existence of God by design, like what Paley offered. …

Why would they usually mention “God” or “Paley” when talking about any scientific hypothesis when “God” or “Paley” are irrelevant to any scientific hypothesis including evolution?

… I could be wrong. I am not too worried about it because "No lie can live forever." .…

How do you know that your particular brand creationist belief is not a “lie”?

… For such an atheist to declare, even rightly, there are theists who believe in Evolution does lend the sound of objectivity to their belief..…

Not really -I only mentioned that to emphasis the fact that the theory of evolution is not particularly “for” atheists -you can be a theists and still believe evolution (and many do).

… But I think their real ATTRACTION to the theory is that plausibly it may do away with the NECESSITY of a creating God..… (my emphasises)

There are two things wrong with that statement:

Firstly, evolution, just like most scientific hypothesises, was not deliberately made to be “attractive“ to atheists -it was made purely to explain the creation of diversity of life and is based on the evidence. Whether or not it is “attractive“ to atheists is, of course, irrelevant to the issue of whether or not it is true -you can only rationally judge the probability of a hypothesis from reason and the evidence alone -what people are likely to find it “attractive” is irrelevant to that probability.

Secondly, it has never been a “NECESSITY” of a creating God; just trying to explain away something you simply don’t understand by saying “God did it” doesn’t ever explain anything for it just answers one question only for it to be replaced with others (providing you are allowed to think of other questions without being burned alive for blasphemy)

…That is why they come to the Spirituality Forum to talk about it. ….

No. The reason why they come to the Spirituality Forum to talk about it is because the conversation always results in it becoming a “creationism verses evolution” debate and it is inappropriate to put such a debate in the science forum because the science forum is for science and not religion.

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
yes.

No, it is not a scientific fact, it is a theory to explain scientific facts. There is a big difference.

To make what I mean more clearer I refer to the following site:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_theory_and_fact

"The statement that "evolution is both a theory and a fact" is frequently seen in biological literature.[1][2][3][4][5][4][6][7] The point of this statement is to differentiate the "fact of evolution", namely the observed changes in populations of organisms over time, from the "theory of evolution", namely the modern evolutionary synthesis, which is the current scientific explanation for why these changes occur."

Originally posted by ahosyney
No, it is not a scientific fact, it is a theory to explain scientific facts. There is a big difference.

To make what I mean more clearer I refer to the following site:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_theory_and_fact

"The statement that "evolution is both a theory and a fact" is frequently seen in biological literature.[1][2][3][4][5][4][6 ary synthesis, which is the current scientific explanation for why these changes occur."

Wrong.

Like all scientific facts, it is both a scientific theory and a scientific fact.

The only distinction between scientific theories and scientific facts is that all scientific facts are proven scientific theories but not all scientific theories are proven scientific facts.

The set of all scientific facts is a subset of the set of all scientific theories.

Originally posted by jaywill
I noticed the way the Media hype tried to portray Dr. Behe as slinking away from the court case in weary humiliation.

Some of these Media types [b]love to convince the masses that every one whose not a Darwinist is a fool.

You guys have a tremendous propoganda machine going.[/b]

you make it sound like there is a conspiracy going on. that someone is trying to make money by making everyone believe in evolution (or satan is out to get us)

Originally posted by jaywill
I noticed the way the Media hype tried to portray Dr. Behe as slinking away from the court case in weary humiliation.

Some of these Media types [b]love to convince the masses that every one whose not a Darwinist is a fool.

You guys have a tremendous propoganda machine going.[/b]

Dr. Behe and his friends were trying to pass off religion as science. I don't think he is a fool, I do think he is wrong, misguided by his religion, and extremely dishonest - as was proved in the court case.