Evolution should not be treated as the explanation to creation solely?

[Sykfactz]

Many Atheists use evolution as a way to discredit religion, but I don't understand this. Evolution is not a fact, it is simply a idea. The problem with evolution being the sole answer is that there is no explanation as to the Cambrian explosion. Evolution is a slow and systematic change in a species to adapt to it's environment, but by this law the amount of variety in species should rise at a steady rate. The Cambrian explosion is a short period in time in which the variety of species on the planet rose by a unprecedented amount. Evolution is a visible law of nature, but it is not as indisputable as is commonly claimed. I am not a creationist, nor am I religious in any way. I simply don't think that the evolution theory should be treated as a definite fact in the way it is, nor should it be taught as such. As I said, it is undeniably real and visible in nature, however it should be left to personal interpretation as how to supplement the theory to meet a persons own beliefs. Evolution is not disproof of religion, only proof of a natural occurring change in species yes? If you have further information that i have missed or overlooked I would welcome to be enlightened. It's just that from what i have found, evolution doesn't seem to be a viable theory as to our existence, at least not by itself.

[Leviathan]

Wrong.

Evolution is a fact and a theory that describes those facts.

Evolution doesn't disprove religion - I don't think you will find many atheists claiming it does. What it does disprove is creationism.

[Sam James]

whats your "idea" then! Evolution does discredit religion because it outdates religious icons and imaginations by millions of years. Religion was bought about at at time when humankind was still trying to understand the world...its outdated! literally and figuratively.

[Guardian Angel Mitchell]

Evolution is a fact.

Natural selection is a theory.

Intelligent Design is an idea from somebody who lacks logic and reasoning.

[numbnuts222]

The Cambrian explosion lasted 70 million years, hardly a short period of time.

Evolution doesn't mention the rate of change in an organism, if a species is under environmental stress then the change is faster.

Btw, its creationists that see evolution as a challenge to their religion, not atheists using to justify non belief.

[TheGoldenGael]

you are correct. Biologists are giving evolutionary experts genetically altered pigs for human transplant, that totally blows their ape common ancestor theory.

[Frou Frou]

i agree
but your not totally correct in saying that many atheists use it as a way to discredit religioon, its usually, from what i see anyway, its usually religious people who use evolution as a way to discredit atheists views and knowledge
its religion that dissagrees with evolution, not evolution that disagrees with religion

[TheGoldenGael]

you are correct. Biologists are giving evolutionary experts genetically altered pigs for human transplant, that totally blows their ape common ancestor theory.

[jtrusnik]

"Evolution is not a fact, it is simply a idea."

No, it's a fact. We know that alleles change in populations over time, and that's all the evolution really is (really, look up the definition--that's it). As a bonus, we've observed speciation, both in the lab and in nature. I'm not quite sure how we can have all of this and yet it still not be a fact.

"Cambrian explosion is a short period in time in which the variety of species on the planet rose by a unprecedented amount."

The Cambrian explosion lasted nearly 80 million years. That's not a short amount of time at all. For a point of comparison, consider that the dinosaurs went extinct 65 million years ago.

"Evolution is a visible law of nature, but it is not as indisputable as is commonly claimed."

It can't both be "visible" and "disputed." What's common among those who argue against evolution is that they don't know the evidence for it--they don't see that it's visible (or they refuse to open their eyes and look when the evidence is presented to them).

"...however it should be left to personal interpretation as how to supplement the theory to meet a persons own beliefs."

Agreed...but now re-read your argument. You're a pot calling the kettle black.

"Evolution is not disproof of religion, only proof of a natural occurring change in species yes?"

Yep. However, I'm sure that you can also see that it makes a literal reading of the Book of Genesis very difficult.

I was an atheist before I ever understood evolution. Evolution didn't convince me of anything, and I would hate to see somebody who dropped their religion just because evolution gives them a hard time. If it causes them to question, fine; we shouldn't accept anything without questioning it. But many have shown that evolution and belief in a supernatural agent are not directly at odds.

"It's just that from what i have found, evolution doesn't seem to be a viable theory as to our existence, at least not by itself."

Nor is it intended to be. The Big Bang, how the universe changed over time, nucleogenesis, the early geological history of the earth, abiogenesis... all of that (and more) are needed to have a viable theory to how we came to be. Nobody ever intended evolution to explain these things anymore than anybody intended to use optics to explain how germs make us sick.

[The Wicker Man]

The cambrian explosion is the biggest hyperbole i have ever seen. It took millions of years dude! it is fast compared to the rest, but it doesn't disprove evolution in any way. Also, evolution doesn't seek to explain the origin of life (although it is helping scientists to lay the foundations of how this abiogenesis theory must be). Also, gradualism (steady state evolution) is losing ground to Stephen J gould's (who was a devoted christian btw) punctuated equilibrium, which a simple highschool ecology class would allow you to understand the bulk of it.
The cambrian explosion started because of a radical change in the environment, which led to a radical (yet slow as fuck compared to our view of time) uprise in variation.