Pravoslavnik,
A scientific theory is a causal explanation for a corpus of empirical data--of facts that are gathered through scientific observation and measurement
I agree. But, the evolutionists would have to be present at the time that the formation of the rocks are being evolved into another lifeform.
An example is Isaac Newton's theory of gravitation, which was a comprehensive explanation for the observed natural motion of bodies.
This is real observation. He was there at the time. But, just the same, you don't need theory of gravity to prove that gravity exists...we live it everyday. Just like you don't need a theory of oxygen to know that it keeps us alive.
Charles Darwin spent a great deal of time observing and studying available data of various world fauna and fossils before elaborating his theory of the origin of species through a process of natural selection.
He made it up from his imagination. I can pick up a fossil and say: hey, here's a fossil of a fish, but I can't determine that it developed from another species.
Natural selection works based on the environment a species lives in. Some species die out because they can't adapt to their environment and situation of survial, for whatever reason. But, that doesn't explain his theory of evolving, BY NATRUAL selection, into another species. A fish does not grow legs because he plops on the land and can breath without water...that is creating a whole new air-breathing species and it doesn't work like that. It is a child's fairy tale.
Since its publication, a vast amount of additional biological data has accumulated in support of the basic theory.
And a mass amount of scientists have disputed it.
Other modern biologists, like Kenneth Miller, have argued that the punctuated equilibrium concept is much ado about nothing. If you are interested in a quality summary of this whole issue, and data base, I cannot recommend Finding Darwin's God too highly, all the more so in that Dr. Miller is a Christian (Roman Catholic) who is critical of the way that some scientists, like Gould, have inappropriately tried to use scientific findings to "debunk" religious beliefs.
Since we are talking about secular explanations, I much prefer Dr. Kent Hovind.
Rather, the evolutionary theory is based upon the observed data. It is a mechanistic attempt to explain the sequential data, the facts.
How can evolution of species be observable data? A person would have to have been there to observe it.
The whole enterprise of science is based upon empirical observations being integrated into explanatory theories and natural laws about the cosmos.
No. The whole enterprise of science is based upon empirical observations that are FACTS. A theory implies an opinion that MAYBE, it happened this way. Science, STATES that in FACT, it IS happening or happened this way.
A scientist finds a fossil of a fish. The scientist can say, in FACT, that one, it was a fish and two that it died. The scientist cannot say that the fish fossil had babies or that it developed from a rock.
Others, like you and me, believe that the "truth" about the cosmos can also be revealed to us by God, speaking through Holy Men and Women, including the Incarnate God, Himself.
You say, "also". I don't believe in also...I believe in first, God and science can
support it, because God is the Creator and created the elements of science that we study. Science is basically the attempt of mankind to believe in God, because faith is not enough.
You see, God created the earth and the universe and gave us an intellect, to first contemplate Him and worship Him and second to learn about Him in the world that He created for us. Because in studying the nature He created, He also left a plethora of trademarks in order for our souls to recognize Him and marvel about His wonderous creations.
But, the evolutionists have an equation that eliminates His Glory. They reduce it to a form of imagination and speculation and lose the faith which is witnessed in the Holy Bible and by the holy fathers and saints(of Orthodoxy).
The evolutionists preach, in the textbooks that an embryo is nothing but a similar form to other species. That leads a person to believe that the embryo is not worth a life. They led the way to the Pro-Choice movement, who grabbed Haegel's "theory" that embryos of pregnant women are less than human because they resemble that of other species. BTW. He faked the diagrams of the embryonic stages of humans, when he compared it to other species. His own colleagues took him to court and he was found guilty. I'll give you more details if you are interested.
I believe, as do others, that both science and Orthodox Christianity offer us aspects of the "truth," and are not mutually contradictory, when properly understood.
Orthodoxy is the full truth...there is no "aspect" about it. If you think that way, then you are not Orthodox.
Are you a person that wants to live by "aspects" or do you want the full-blooded truth? If Orthodoxy is an aspect, as is science, then WHAT do you considered to be the FULL truth??
Would you accept to live by the "aspect" of being paid a certain amount for your work, or would you want the solid facts and truth about the amount that will appear on your check?
Don't settle for less than the full truth.
