Evidence for God from Science

First off, I want to apologize if this is a repeat topic. I tried doing a search for what I was wanting to ask, but ended up more confused that when I began Anyway, I am looking for arguments against evolution, made in "layman's" terms, something easy to understand. One thing that got me thinking about this, I was reading older posts here on the forum about everyone's testimony and someone mentioned being in science class and learning about the "supposed" evolution of horses and how it didn't add up and how that was the thing that finally convinced her to become a Christian, Things like that. I have to say, I guess I am just being lazy and am hoping someone else has weeded through all the scientific jargon and can "translate" or maybe posts some links to some studies or papers. Thank you in advance for the help.

amyjo5995 wrote:First off, I want to apologize if this is a repeat topic.

Wouldn't be the first time. For that matter there are numerous repeat posts (and i include myself in that).

amyjo5995 wrote: Anyway, I am looking for arguments against evolution, made in "layman's" terms, something easy to understand.

You need to be more specific.
For what audience? The general "lay" audience who took a little biology in school but doesn't want to invest much time in further study? Someone for whom evolution/Christianity are polarized opposites? Christian/non-Christian?
For what purpose?

Well, I'll start off by saying that I can't help you too much, considering I do accept evolution as the only valid scientific explanation for the origin of species. But I did want to ask a couple questions and raise a few points.

First of all I would question the logic of anyone switching religious views solely over someone convincing them that evolution is not true/real. Evolution is a scientific theory, not a religious stance and in fact many Christians believe that evolution is in fact valid and true. some fall under the "theistic evolution" banner where they believe God guided evolution, or something to that effect. Evidence for evolution is not evidence against Christianity, nor is evidence against evolution evidence for Christianity. The media and militant atheists/theists like to make evolution some kind of battleground over their beliefs, but in reality most scientists will tell you evolution has absolutely no bearing on any religious belief.

Second, I would caution against trying to simplify evolution and the arguments for/against it too much. It is a complicated and heavily scientific subject, and so any legitimate papers for or against it are going to be loaded with things that the average non-biologist might find difficult to understand. I personally think that you can teach the basics of evolution and arguments for/against it fairly simply. But the details and more significant evidence do require some training to understand, or at least a bit of work on your part to understand it correctly. If you aren't a scientist, reading a journal of science or research papers is going to be very difficult stuff. I'm a student of biology at a university now, and even with a few years of college education on the subject it is a challenge to get much out of research papers because of how technical they are.

That said, I'm sure if you are willing to learn there are plenty of people who would be willing to teach you.

Also, I'm curious, how much do you know about the Theory of Evolution? Trying to understand arguments for and against it is really going to be difficult if you don't know what you are talking about at all. And also, what type of view would you propose as an alternative to evolution? There is certainly a difference in how this conversation could go if you are trying to argue from a young-Earth creationist perspective or a day-age/progressive creationist.

I'm looking for things that could be used in a "discussion". This hasn't come up lately, but like for teenagers, when my sons friends are discussing stuff, mostly for the non-Christian, asking questions. I, personally, could be put under the "theistic evolution" banner, since I do believe God created and guided it all. My personal argument is that just because it says the earth and universe and beings were created in 7 days, that doesn't have to mean our idea of 7 days. There is nothing to say that 7 days to God isn't 7 million years or what-not. But, I know alot of people need/want "facts". I know evolution states that supposedly life originated and then evolved from a universal common ancestor approx. 3 billion years ago.

Well, there's always wikipedia. It's very accurate and if you need sources, they usually list the scientific papers they use at the bottom. Wikipedia is more reliable than people give it credit for.

I agree with Beanybag, wikipedia is actually a good source for lots of things. actually, I just looked, and there is even a page called "Introduction to Evolution" which is supposed to be a more accessible and less technical introduction to the Theory of Evolution. It still contains a ton if information, but I briefly read through it and you don't need any real background in science to understand it.

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

If you read and understand this, wikipedia also has pages about the specifics of evolution as well as arguments against it and so on.

Also, your basic concept of evolution is more or less true. The central idea is that all life today has a common ancestor and that the variation of life as we see it today is a result of evolution.

Ivellious wrote:First of all I would question the logic of anyone switching religious views solely over someone convincing them that evolution is not true/real. Evolution is a scientific theory, not a religious stance and in fact many Christians believe that evolution is in fact valid and true

No.. Evolution does NOT have the intellectual high road. Especially around origins... It never did. Therefore it can be taken as a religion in it's basic form based on the idea that time, chance, and matter without a diety, or god, could do all the creating. The belief of evolution is really nothing more than a weak hypothesis. It does, however, have some validity in micro-evolution but most certainly not in macro-evolution though.

Gman wrote:It does, however, have some validity in micro-evolution but most certainly not in macro-evolution though.

But... they're the same thing.

I wish this discussion could ever get anywhere.

Gman, I never said anything about a high ground...All I said was that even evolution is demonstrated as false or true for that matter, it shouldn't have any impact on any person's Christian faith...I just meant that they are separate entities, regardless of what Richard Dawkins might say.

Ivellious wrote:what Richard Dawkins might say.

Does he say that opposition to science is a requirement of religion? I don't think he makes this point. He actually does try to argue for evolution as a scientific theory that doesn't have an impact on religion most of the time that he argues it, unless you know different.

It was just a general statement. He tends to be at the forefront of many atheist/theist debates and evolution tends to be part of it. Part of that is driven by the media or the settings of his debates, but part of it is his own agenda too. He never says that religious people are all anti-science, all I was saying is that he tends to pull evolution into the theism debate which I don't agree with (and nor do most biologists I know).

Beanybag wrote:

Gman wrote:It does, however, have some validity in micro-evolution but most certainly not in macro-evolution though.

But... they're the same thing.

I wish this discussion could ever get anywhere.

Actually they are not.. Micro-evolution can be shown, macro-evolution is assumed via micro-evolution.

Ivellious wrote:Gman, I never said anything about a high ground...All I said was that even evolution is demonstrated as false or true for that matter, it shouldn't have any impact on any person's Christian faith...I just meant that they are separate entities, regardless of what Richard Dawkins might say.

Yes I know what you are saying. And you are partly right... However, to say that the evolutionary belief is devoid of any philosophy is simply not accurate. The way it is presented for the most part, that all there is in the world are only "natural facts" pretty much eliminates the need for a intelligent designer. Therefore the way it's presented is easier cloaked into the atheistic philosophy or religion than a belief in an external creator. That is I believe where the conflict is. And when it becomes dogmatic, that everything we see can only be explained by natural facts, the rift becomes even greater.

Well, gman, science is typically presented in a manner that does not require a designer. In chemistry no one ever teaches it from the perspective that a designer must have done it that way. Same with physics, geology, other biological fields, and so on. And I certainly never hear anyone complaining that chemistry only uses "natural facts" and is lacking in the need for a designer to make it work.

And as far as the philosophical stuff, I don't necessarily disagree with what you are saying. Again, all I meant was that there is no explicit mutually exclusive relationship between evolution and Christianity, and that being a Christian does not mean you can't believe that evolution is real (as the main post seemed to suggest).