Evolution is a scientific theory.
As such, it started out as a hypothesis, or set of hypotheses, which were rigorously tested, and found to be descriptive, predictive, and useful. Then it was recognized as theory. I understand that in everyday vernacular, a theory is used to describe ideas that may be fraught with doubt, or have only modest data supporting them. But in science these are called hypotheses, while theories are ideas with a great deal of validation attached to them. Scientists opted for the word theory because in science there are rarely any absolutes, and scientists always allow for the possibility that we do not completely understand a phenomenon. Theories therefore can grow and change, evolve if you will, as new information is understood.

Evolution has an enormous amount of data supporting it from a variety of disciplines. Of course, the theory of evolution of today is not the same as it was ten years ago, or even one year ago, as refinements are made with increasing knowledge. Evolution is no more problematic a theory than most others in the life sciences, as some would have you believe. Evolution is subjected to particular and unfair scrutiny because some people misunderstand evolution and see it as a threat to their idea of the existence of God, while others try to use it as evidence that no Creator is needed at all. Both are absurd reactions, since evolution says nothing about the existence of a Creator. There is nothing in the theory of evolution about how the Universe came to be, or even how life on Earth came to be. It addresses only the generation of the diversity of life on planet Earth.

Creationism, on the other hand, is religion, not science. So is intelligent design. This is a new name for the same idea, that tries to pass itself off as science. It essentially says: life is so complex and intricately balanced, that we must throw up our hands, and instead of delving into its secrets and mysteries, simply declare some higher power must have willed it into existence. There are philosophical and spiritual issues that might extend from that premise, but no scientific ones.

Evolution does not preclude the existence of God. If someone says evolution says a Creator is not necessary, they are either lying or they don't understand evolution. If someone feels their idea of God is threatened by evolution, they also don't understand evolution. While it would be useful for them to learn about evolution, they really need to examine their own faith in their religion.

I have known a number of very religious people who have no problem with evolution. They merely look at it as that is the method god set into motion as part of creation. I agree that evolution is not necessarily against there being a god it is just the extremists on both sides that make that the issue.

No, no, no.....I'd much rather trust the oral tradition of a single Eastern Mediterranean tribe's creation myths, chronicled in 500 BCE, and re-compiled 1000 years later (with supposedly no errors or editing).....

than your modern "science" and "data"!

PUSSIES. GUYS WHO STICK THEIR HEADS UP THEIR OWN ASSES TO AVOID A CONFRONTATION.

IF MY IDEA OF GOD IS THAT HE CREATED THE UNIVERSE IN SIX DAYS THEN THAT IS THREATENED BY EVOLUTION. SCIENCE IS BELIEVING SOMETHING ONLY WHEN THE BEST AVAILABLE EVIDENCE SAYS SOMETHING IS SO. RELIGION IS THE EXACT OPPOSITE OF THAT. TO PRETEND THAT ONE IS NOT DIAMETRICALLY OPPOSED TO THE OTHER IS TO LIE TO YOURSELF AND OTHERS. SCIENCE IS RELIGION'S WORST NIGHTMARE AND VICE VERSA. NOW STOP ALL THIS TOUCHY-FEELY HORSESHIT AND KICK SOME ASS.

...and lends no greater authority to it's content.

“IF MY IDEA OF GOD IS THAT HE CREATED THE UNIVERSE IN SIX DAYS THEN THAT IS THREATENED BY EVOLUTION.”

>>I agree your idea of god would be threatened, but that isn’t synonymous with god’s existence being threatened.

There’s certainly no credible reason to presume a priori anyone's idea of god is accurate, and there is abundamt evidence from multiple fields of inquiry which falsify the world’s various creation myths (including the two offered in Genesis.)

“SCIENCE IS BELIEVING SOMETHING ONLY WHEN THE BEST AVAILABLE EVIDENCE SAYS SOMETHING IS SO.”

>>No, it isn’t. Confidence in scientific explanations doesn’t arise as a function of believing that they’re valid: it derives from a demonstrated ability to explain observations within their scope in a comprehensive and predictive manner.

“RELIGION IS THE EXACT OPPOSITE OF THAT.”

>>Only in the sense that it's the opposite of beleiving something based on evidence: religious belief is a function of personal faith. That doesn't make religion the opposite of science,, since science and religion don't address the same questions.

“TO PRETEND THAT ONE IS NOT DIAMETRICALLY OPPOSED TO THE OTHER IS TO LIE TO YOURSELF AND OTHERS.”

>>Nonsense: nothing in evolutionary theory is incompatible with religious faith nor speaks to the existence of lack thereof of supernatural entities commonly termed ‘gods’. It’s demonstrably possible to believe in god, believe in a created universe, and still have confidence in evolutionary explanations for the worlds observed biological diversity. Suggesting otherwise is to ignore the witness of millions of individual of all faiths—Christian faiths included—who do just that.

The only thing evolutionary models aren’t compatible with is the premise that any of the world’s various creation myths represent literal depictions of actual historic events.

“SCIENCE IS RELIGION'S WORST NIGHTMARE AND VICE VERSA.”

>>Only if you mistakenly believe their magisterial overlap. Science and religion appropriately seek answers to different questions—science asks questions of “How?” (e.g., “How did the human race arise as a species?”) while religion asks questions of “Why?” (e.g., “Why am we here?)

SWEAR TO GOD YOU'RE THE BIGGEST BORE ON THE BOARD. DO YOU WORK IN A PUBLIC LIBRARY SHUSHING PEOPLE FOR A LIVING OR WHAT? YOU'RE ALSO COMPLETELY FULL OF CRAP ABOUT THIS, BUT I'D RATHER TRY TO KNIT A SWEATER WITH MY BALLS CLAMPED IN THE JAWS OF A WILD BADGER THAN DEBATE YOU.

Whatever sweater you turned out, even under the conditions you describe, would almost ahve to be of better quality than your posts in this thread.

"Evolution does not preclude the existence of God. If someone says evolution says a Creator is not necessary, they are either lying or they don't understand evolution."

The word Evolution is also often used in the wider sense of the creation and development of the entire universe since the instance of the Big Bang. The question is what part in this process did God play? Did God just go poof and unleash a whole lot of energy or was God actively involved say up to making the planets or say up to making the primates? (Could the universe just self poof ever few trillion years thus negating the need for a creator?) Is God still active in biological evolution today? Biological evolution says humans are a result of a branch of mammals evolving via natural selection. Did God forsee that natural selection would produce humans when he "kicked off Evolution", or did he say "wow, look, there are humans now, I think I will be their god"?

If you think God created the universe in six days then evolution is the least of your problems. Thanks for proving my point that evolution is unfairly singled out for scrutiny. Why don't you have a problem with geology, physics, and astronomy? They all make your touchy-feely six days story impossible. Let's hear you have a go at them.

Religion and science seek enlightenment by different paths. They are not diametrically opposed to each other. They operate in different realms. It's not my problem that you lack sufficient faith in your religion to come to terms with that reality. No lie there, junior.

WRT kicking some ass, just remember you asked for it.

All of the questions you pose fall in the realm of philosophy/theology/religion. None of your questions can be answered through scientific inquiry.

That doesn't mean they aren't worth investigating.

The word Evolution is also often used in the wider sense of the creation and development of the entire universe since the instance of the Big Bang.

Not by anyone I know. Evolution does not even include the origins of life itself, let alone the origins of the universe.

Boz:

Evolution does not preclude the existence of God. If someone says evolution says a Creator is not necessary, they are either lying or they don't understand evolution. If someone feels their idea of God is threatened by evolution, they also don't understand evolution.

Evolution states that human beings, like any other animal, came about by random mutation and natural selection over an incredible span of time. It would be impossible, in fact, to point to any two creatures in the history of earth and say "Ah, those are the first two Humans!"

That is a deal-killer for many religious people - more than simple biblical literalists. I've many times seem people make the argument that "Oh sure, evolution may have functioned millions of years ago, but it stopped with the creation of man."

Evolution lowers us into the mud with all the other biting, stinging, scratching creatures of the earth.

Before Darwin, it was necessary to come up with some alternate explanation for life on earth - especially man. For most, the explanation was "god". That explanation is no longer, as you put it, necessary.

to discuss both science and religion, since they both affect and reflect human behavior, and thus they are to some extent intertwined. Most people say they believe such and such about science because of some physical evidence. Then they make some assertion about religion, and I like to ask where is their evidence, or what is their line or reasoning which prompts them to believe such and such.

One example of the overlap between religion and science is belief in ghosts. Some people say they have seen or felt the presence of ghosts or spirits. Thus a scientist can say, lets go look for these physical phenomena, and TV shows on Discovery, History, Scifi, etc. are the result.

"Not by anyone I know."

Google "evolution of the universe". Here is but one result:

LINK