Lois & Clark Forums Forums General Discussion Fun with Polls Evolution

This post is for the one who believe in evolution only.

Being strongly attanched to my religion and to God, I do not believe in evolution. Assuming I did, though, becoming like Superman can't be because if you think about it, any theories about the evolution did not point out developement of special abilities (except basic ones like speaking and walking upright). So I wouldn't think this is possible.

Just to clarify this post from someone who both believes in evolution and believes in God, evolution and God are not mutually exclusive. Beacause you believe in evolution DOES NOT mean that you are an athiest in any sense of the word! There are many different interpretations of the bible. Not all of us believe it literally.

The Pope\'s View on Evolution
Catholics and evolution

The following information is from this website (I thought the whole article was really interesting
2. Evolution and Religion
Q1. Doesn't evolution contradict religion?

Not always. Certainly it contradicts a literal interpretation of the first chapter of Genesis, but evolution is a scientific principle, like gravity or electricity. To scientifically test a religious belief one first must find some empirical test that gives different results depending on whether the belief is true or false. These results must be predicted before hand, not pointed to after the fact.
Most religious beliefs don't work this way. Religion usually presupposes a driving intelligence behind it, and an intelligent being is not always predictable. Since experiments judging religious beliefs cannot have predictable results, and may give different results under the same circumstances it is not open to scientific inquiry. St. Augustine commented on this in _The Literal Meaning of Genesis_.

Some religious beliefs do make predictions. These predictions can be tested. If a religious belief fails a test, it is the test that contradicts that religious belief. The theory which makes the correct prediction should have nothing to say on the matter. This does not mean that scientists don't sometimes make the mistake of saying a theory contradicts something.


Q2. Isn't evolution a religion?

Evolution is based on the scientific method. There are tests that can determine whether or not the theory is correct as it stands, and these tests can be made. Thousands of such tests have been made, and the current theories have passed them all. Also, scientists are willing to alter the theories as soon as new evidence is discovered. This allows the theories to become more and more accurate as research progresses.
Most religions, on the other hand, are based on revelations, that usually cannot be objectively verified. They talk about the why, not the how. Also, religious beliefs are not subject to change as easily as scientific beliefs. Finally, a religion normally claims an exact accuracy, something which scientists know they may never achieve.

Some people build up religious beliefs around scientific principles, but then it is their beliefs which are the religion. This no more makes scientific knowledge a religion than painting a brick makes it a bar of gold.

So the answer is no, evolution is no more a religion than any other scientific theory.


The Catholic Encyclopedia

For the second question in this poll, I couldn't answer except to say, "What the heck?" That option wasn't there. I wanted to answer "no", but I do not believe that evolution and God are mutually exclusive. Even if I did think it would happen, how can you set a time limit for how long it would take. I am not undecided. The answer is a resounding "no" at least from me, but I couldn't answer that because evolution does not mean that you don't believe in God.

Theory of Evolution

- Laura

What about that super-kid on one of the ripley's show?

Considering I watch Ripley's every Wednesday (Dean is gorgeous!!!!!), It's strange that I don't recall seeing any superkid. Can you please inform me?

I'm completely in line with Laura on this. I get pretty hardcore on my religion, but although I think God had a hand in creation etc, there's no reason for me not to believe that evolution doesn't exist etc. God and science don't have to...be in a fight with each other, if that makes any sense. But it probably doesn't considering the fact that it's2:30am and I'm slowly getting drunk and knocked out by NyQuil.

JD

The Kid who is 60 Lbs and can lift 140 LB weight. I call him the SuperKid.

I voted 'Yes' for the first question and 'No. Evolution teaches there is no god'. Actually, I kinda misunderstood what you meant, I thought it was 'Evolution teaches that no one can't be like God'. Anyway.

I want to say I completely agree with Laura. I have a friend who is an atheist, and we have talked soooooooooo many times about religion. He always tries to tell me that, if I believe in Evolution, I don't believe in God, and I always try to explain him that these are two irrelevant things. But he just won't listen.

In short, I think that God created the universe, but not the way the Bible shows. My interest in Biology started when I was five and took my father's teaching books to read about Mendel and Darwin (these, along with the 'Cells' and the 'Eye and Vision' were my favourite chapters) so I have studied a lot of Biology and that gave me the opportunity to think a lot about the relation between Evolution and God. (And please note that my father is as much a Biology teacher as a person that may not go to church every Sunday as he once used to, but strongly and deeply believes in God.)

AnnaBtG.

Well, assuming he can do that it's not that amazing -- the only thing that's remarkable is that he is so strong at such a young age.

Many grown men and women can lift more than -- even twice -- their weight.

Furthermore, someone who was raised in the Christian faith I feel the need to reiterate what posters before me said about it not being impossible -- or even unlikely -- to believe in God and accept the theory of Evolution. In fact, most Christian in the western world accept evolution and the big bang theory - I would wager only the fundamentalists have problems with it.

Evolution does not teach that there is no God it just asserts that life came to be on earth through natural means rather than supernatural.

Also, what does thinking that "the next phase in human evolution is to become like Superman" have to do with believing in God?

Finally, and this is me being nitpicky -- one shouldn't "believe" Evolution. Belief is for things we have no tangible proof for -- like God. "Believing" in science really goes against the nature of science itself -- to always challenge and question. One either accepts or rejects scientific theories like evolution and the big bang.

Building on previous posts, evolution has no "path." It's not like things are evolving up a great chain of being. While more complex beings have appeared over the course of evolution, things aren't necessarily getting 'better' just different. Take, for example, the differences among human beings that can be attributed to genetics. Humans have adapted (at least a bit) to their various environments. Sickle cell anemia is prevelant among blacks because the gene that codes for sickle cell anemia also provides resistance to malaria. This gene evolved in Africa and provided a useful trait to those who were only carriers, but is deadly to those who have both sickle cell genes. It's a mutation that is both good and bad (though the bad seems to significantly outweigh the good).

Most mutations are in fact bad, and are removed from the gene pool (though not necessarily in human beings, since we just find ways to cope with things like allergies and astygmatisms). Very rarely do good mutations occur, but when they do, they can spread like wildfire through a population and dramatically change a group within a very short time period (evolutionarily speaking).

Since evolution isn't aiming toward any sort of final product, it's impossible to accurately determine where we're going to be many mutations from now. We can conjecture and speculate on whether certain extant traits will become more or less prevalent, but massive changes are far more difficult to predict. Mutations are accidents, not Nature's planned way of creating better things slowly.

The reason why most mutations are purely bad is that if something is working, most random changes to that functioning system aren't going to make it work better. Sometimes there are mutations that are purely good, but they're rare. These will spread very quickly through a population. An example of this is the human ability to speak. It is hypothesized that once a certain part of the brain that decrypts syntax was 'turned on' by a mutation, this mutation spread throughout the entire human race. Those humans that could convey complex messages to each other were far superior to those with more limited means of communication that they completely replaced them in a short period of time. More commonly, there are mutations that will be good in some cases, and bad in others, like the sickle cell anemia case.

For a concise, clear, and enjoyable introduction to evolution, consider reading Jonathan Weiner's "Beak of the Finch." It won the Pulitzer Prize for best work of non-fiction some years ago and is a great place to start learning about evolution.


Rac

I do believe in God, but I also believe in Evolution. Just because I believe in one, doesn't mean I don't believe in the other. There are several interpretations of both, and God probably had a hand in Evolution. There's an excellent chapter in Piers Anthony's "And Eternity" which argues Religion vs Evolution. One person argued for Religion, another person argued for Evolution, and the main character had to make a decision between the two. In the end, a decision couldn't be made between the two because of suppositions, but it was decided they weren't mutually exclusive. (I think. It's been a year or two since I read the book. I still love that chapter, though.) After all, Genesis says God did everything in 7 days. But who's to say it's earth days? Why can't one of God's days be several hundred millienia?

I had to answer undecided to the second question, because none of the answers fit. I couldn't answer Yes, because I don't believe we're going the way of Superman. Man's brain capacity has increased over the years, not his physical strength or certain other attributes. Man has gone from the Caveman with only slightly more brain power than a monkey, to what we are today. Now, I'm no scientist, so most of what I'm saying may be wrong. But I agree with most Science Fiction that we're heading towards an increase in brain function, possibly leading to ESP. I couldn't answer No, because of the second part to the sentence: Evolution teaches there is no god. On the contrary, Evolution makes no mention of religion. Oh, sure, certain religious officials SAY that Evolution says there is no god, but it doesn't. And just because there's no conlcusive scientific proof that there's a god, doesn't mean there isn't.

I don't think I can add anything much to what everybody has said thus far. It's a little sad that decades after the concept of Evolution is introduced, there's still so much misunderstanding about the entire concept, so much so that some people have demanded it be taken off the school syllabus. Or worse, introduce an oxymoron like "Creation Science". While they scoff at the Theory of Evolution for being "just a theory", I don't see them take the same attitude for, say the Kinetic Particle Theory. :p

I think though, that many Christians who have problems with Evolution only know one very famous aspect of it; and that man evolved from apes. That's not what evolution is about. Charles Darwin never said "Man evolved from apes". However, Evolution does suggest a mechanism of which man and ape COULD have shared a common ancestor, I suppose that this notion is totally unacceptable for some people.

In any case, I believe that Science and Religion should be kept separate. They are not mutually exclusive, but they should be kept distinct.

In Science, there are steps in place, things to be done, before a hypothesis (a scientific guess/thought) could be accepted as a Theory (a scientific explanation that fits all presently available evidence). Even if a Theory has been accepted for a long time, emergence of new conflicting evidence will overturn it. A good example of this is Classical Mechanics like Newton's Laws of Motion.

Religion is about faith, not proof. You can't prove/disprove religious texts, but with evidence, you can certainly do so for scientific ones. You may believe what is written in religious texts, without needing hard evidence. That's Faith. However, Faith has no place in Science.

In short, if you were to complete this sentence "I do not accept the theory of Evolution because..." your answer should be along the lines of "the experiments are biased/skewed/inaccurate"...etc. What your religion is should not be a consideration at all.


metwin1

Very well said, metwin1 and Rac, and everyone else .

You all said what I was trying to say, but couldn't figure out how to put it into words.

- Laura

I still don't see how anyone can believe in both. Evolution teaches that Man came from apes. Their our cousins.

creation tells us that God made us from his own hand.

or do you guys mean that you only believe in half of the evolution theory.

Anyhow, I think I might have started an arugment or something. I only wanted to know people's views.

Evolution teaches that we descended from the same ancestor as modern apes. Along the way apes evolved one way and we evolved another.

We are not cousins but chimpanzees and humans do have the most similar DNA.

And he did. But I don't think the creation story is a literal account of how this came to be just a more poetic one.

I, personally, believe that God sent into motion the chain of events that led to the creation of the universe, life and humanity.

I've seen the arguments FoLCs have had over religious/social topics and I assure you this is no argument. More of a spirited debate.

phew. That's a relief. :rolleyes:

To put in my two bits. Everyone has said over and over that you can't prove religion. I agree. You can't prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that God exists. You have to have faith.

But...

You can't prove evolution either. Scientific theories are proven when you can observe the theory taking place. We can't observe evolution taking place, it takes too much time. We can't observe creation taking place either, that's already happened. Creation in seven days and evolution are both improvable theories and both require a tremendous amount of faith. Creation Science is not any more of an oxymoron than Evolutionistic Science. Both are theories. Both are improvable.

And while I am on the subject, for those who understand the big bang theory, where did it come from? If there was a bang, there had to be matter to begin with. Where did that matter come from?

That is not true. As metwin1 put so eloquently,

She is right. As Birdie said, there is evidence showing that apes are humans' closest relatives, yet we are so different, we are a completely different genus and species. We aren't even close to "cousins". All the evolution theory says is that there is a possible common ancestor in the evolutionary past between apes and humans. That is a very common mistake for people that don't want to understand the theory of evolution.

That's not exactly true. You can prove evolution. In small, simple animals (for example Drosophillia (fruit flies)), you can make a very simple mutation to one gene and it causes a chage in the whole animal. If the change is not a fatal change (if the change is fatal, the animal does not reproduce), when the animal reproduces, the mutated gene is sometimes passed down to the next generation. That mutated gene can be passed down for many generations and become a perminant fixture in the animal. That is a type of evolution that is man-made. Natural evolution happens over a long time -- too long to observe.

- Laura

Funny you should mention fruit flies, Laura.

For it is with them that some of the limits of mutation and genetics have been shown. This link is a bit over the top, but it gives you the idea. Evolution in the laboratory shows only very minor changes with some very definite boundaries.

Here 's a site that's a bit less extreme.

And you are not distinguishing between microevolution -- which has indeed been demonstrated both in the lab and in nature -- and macroevolution which has NOT. And it's not merely a question of time. There are fruit fly strains that have been bred in labs for thousands of generations.

Finally, I've found someone who shares my opinion on the big bang. This is *exactly* what I think.

I did have a rambly post written out, but the internet crashes every 3 seconds here. But basically I was just going to comment on one of our R. Catholic beliefs that God created man in his image and likeness. So while there are reasons to believe in evolution, I also think God had a hand in it all along. Where? I don't know. I wasn't around then. It's just one of those things that I believe on faith...or at least until I update my Catechism of the Catholic Church which is about 10 years old LOL...oops.

JD

okay, i've been trying to stay away from this one. evolution vs creation can be a touchy subject.

i feel, though, that i have to respond to this:

this is not actually true. you can watch it happen. one well-used example is a species of moth that changed its dominant color from brown to grey within the span of a single human lifetime, as an adaption to the change in color of their usual hiding spots due to air pollution. there are also fossil records that allow us to study animals of the past. beyond that, we can study plants and animals in remote locations, such as the relatively isolated galapagos islands.

if you want to really watch evolution in action, though, you go to microscopic level. bacteria have very short life cycles, and entire populations can be observed to adapt to changes in their chemical enviornment within days.

that's actually the reason it's so hard to cure the "common cold." you can't, under ordinary circumstances, get the same cold twice. you develop antibodies to it when you get rid of it, and your body keeps the template for those antibodies for the rest of your life. so, if you encounter the same strain again, you'll just produce those antibodies again and fight it off before you get sick. the thing is that the cold viruses mutate and evolve, changing enough so that the same antibodies won't work. the same is true of the flu. that's why you need a flu shot every year. the shot innoculates you against the 3 most prominent developing strains of each year.

so, basically, there are plenty of ways to observe evolution, and other long-term evidence to support the theory.

i won't get into the term "creation science."

as for the big bang, i'm not well-versed in current physics theory, but i hear it's still under debate. actually, last i heard, the big bang theory had been discarded in favor of one based on the observed phenomenon of spontaneous generation. i never quite got the details of that, but basically, particles have been observed to more or less "pop" into existance (though always with a balancing anti-particle). i'm not explaining it well because, like i said, i never studied the theory myself (i just got a quick explanation from a physics major friend, and that was a few years ago).

we've known for a long time that when particles and anti-particles (the anti-matter equivalent of the particle in question) meet, they basically cancel each other out, instantaneously tranforming from matter to energy (in what's known as a matter-anti-matter explosion). you can calculate the exact amount of energy released using good old e = m * c^2 (energy is equal to the amount of matter involved multiplied by the square of the speed of light). so, as i understand it, spontaneous generation is basically the same process in reverse.

if you let that happen for a few billion years, eventually enough particles would come into existance to start forming the observable universe.

or something like that. hopefully some other folc can explain it better.

the point is that what actually happened is being studied, and that our understanding is being updated as we learn more. old theories can be disproven, new theories put forth. gaps in our knowledge are being filled in.

just think. a few thousand years ago, we had no way to explain lightning, other than claiming it was a fight between gods. we're learning, slowly.

now, that doesn't mean that the universe wasn't created by some higher being, its physical laws and basic constants and such carefully defined, etc etc. that remains a possibility (though how probable a possibility is obviously a matter of debate and personal opinion).

as for literal 7-day creation, i've always wondered about something (and it actually came up in "inherit the wind," the novel/play/movie based on the scopes trial)... if the sun wasn't created until the fourth day, how do you know how long the first 3 days were? isn't it conveivable that those "days" are metaphors for longer periods? or that the whole story is a parable?

Paul

Again, Paul, you aren't distinguishing between micro evolution and macro evolution. I know micro evolution exists- but we can't prove macro evolution.


The fruit flies have never managed to mutate into another species, no matter how many times we breed them in the labs.
The fossil record doesn't support it if you look at it.

Exactly. They adapt, not change into another species. Livings organism do adapt, they do not evolve.


And by bringing up the whole sun thingey, you brought up another basket of worms I'll try not to spill too many out.

For lack of a better way to put it, God created plants on the third day. He created the sun on the fourth day. Now, if we had to wait for algae to turn into moss to turn into grass to turn into bushes, etc, we'd have to wait far longer than the literal twenty four hours. We'd have to wait generations of plants. Plants can't survive without sunlight for photosynthesis. They could survive twenty four hours, but they couldn't evolve over millions of years (Unless I totally missed something in my highschool bio class)

Oops, forgot to reply to the metaphor bit. In the Hebrew language (which Genesis was written in) the word "yom" (day) is always translated as literal when accompanined by a numerical value (7)

The Hebrew language also has a perfectly suitable word for an "age," namely, 'olam, which is almost precisely what we mean when we speak of a geological age. And

Oh! Creation story! Let me have at it, according to the Roman Catholic Church. We just finished studying various parts of the Bible in the first half of the course. Or at least, I'll tell you what we believe and you can read it and take it with a grain of salt if you so choose. It doesn't matter to me.

Basically, Adam and Eve and the story of creation is just a myth. Now for many of us today, the word 'myth' has come to mean a fictional tale with unreal elements in it, like a fairytale. But Biblical scholars use this word in a completely different manner. "A myth is a story developed by a group over a long period of time that tells a universal truth in a symbolic way. The word myth, as used of the Bible and of other religious literature, points not to its untruth but to its universal significance."

Genesis 2:3 is from what we as Roman Catholics call the Yahwist Source. These stories usually tell a story of sinfulness and failure in order to present human reality for what it really is. (There's another source that tends to change things to emphasize the moral aspects, but I'll shut up for now on that.)

Now apparently (I'm just going to jump into Adam and Eve since I'm on a roll lol) many scholars see Adam and Eve as reflecting issues from the current time...the united monarchy, the conflict with Canaanite fertility religions.

Just to name a few symbols, the most interesting one for me is the serpent. When the anonymous author wrote this way back when, evil was not personified like we personify it today (devils, snakes, etc.) So why on earth are we calling the snake the devil. Scholars actually the snake has to do with the Canaanites and how the people thought they could manipulate the gods through fertility rites...but I can never explain that part very well.

Hopefully I've said something useful. It all makes sense to me but putting it down in words can get really confusing for me.

JD

Interesting, Shadow. I didn't know that the Caananites had used snakes in that way.

At any rate, I've said my two bits, gotten everyone riled up, and probably thoroughly confused everyone in the process. Unless I get another uncontrollable impulse (I had managed not to reply to this thread every day until now) I will leave you all alone

God bless all y'all!

Actually, nquoire, the idea that these "days" were not literal days is hardly new in Jewish thought. The Rambam (Maimonides) published such ideas in the 12th century.

Another fun link .

And since "light" was created on the first day, the plants probably did fine.

Oh, and "olam" means world. I've never heard it used as a time measurement.

One last thought before the internet crashes for the third time. Honestly, we Catholics don't believe the world was created in 7 days. We simply aren't literalists; nothing against those who are, that's your opinion completely, and I respect it. We just happen to think when the editor of the Bible was compiling everything together, he put his story first. Personally, I think we could have spent more time on the whole 7 days thing, but we simply don't have enough time, especially in a night class. Adios.

JD

I've been staying out of these theological debates because I really dislike debating issues like this online. (Heck, I'm not overly fond of debating them in person to be honest.) But I just wanted to include a gentle reminder that not all members of certain religions or denominations of a religion necessarily believe the same thing. Religion is a deeply personal issue, and it's hard to make broad generalizations. I happen to know a number of Catholics who do believe in the literal interpretation of the Genesis story. That's not to say that they are right, or that they are not a minority within the Catholic church. I just prickle a bit when I see sweeping statements like this. (And I don't mean to pick on you, Jen. I've seen other statements like this in these debates. Yours is just the most recent.)

Annie

I think what Shadow meant was that a literal interpretation of the creation story is not the position the Catholic Church endorses.

Ditto

AnnaBtG.

When we get down to nitty gritty of it, nothing in Science is proven. I'll repeat this. *Nothing* in Science is proven. What happens during a scientific process is this.
1) A scientist makes an observation.
2) He/She makes a *hypothesis* as the reason behind the observation.
3) He designs experiments to test the hypothesis, and makes error analysis.
4) Base on the results, he conducts more experiments.
5) Other scientists conduct the same experiments under the same, but independant conditions.
6) The hypothesis stands if observations of the experiments do not contradict the hypothesis.

This means that nothing is proven without a shadow of a doubt. We simply have a hypothesis which seem to fit all observations. When this happens, the hypothesis stands. As long as no new observation which cannot be explained by the present hypothesis turns up, the hypothesis still stands. This means that a hypothesis is never proven, simply never disproven. Can an experiment be skew such that it fits the hypothesis? Absolutely. But there's where other scientists come in. They'll read through the paper, and argue that the experiments are skewed. It's then up to this scientist to explain his position better, or accept that the hypothesis is wrong and reject it as well.

I want to correct a term that's used here, the term "Theory". This word is used differently in scientific terminology. Basically, it's not easy for a hypothesis to, well, shall I say raise in ranks, and become a theory. A theory not only has to fit all past and current observations and evidence, it must also hold in predictions. Meaning that a scientist will design an experiment, predict its results based on the hypothesis, and see if the actual results match the hypothesis. If the results are predicted correctly, then this hypothesis can be called a theory. I know the term "theory" implies guesswork normally, but in science, a "theory" is so much more than that. It's not exactly easy to get a hypothesis to the level of a "theory". Scientists who DO/DID come up with theories are honoured in their field. So never say that "The ________ Theory is just a theory". It isn't, at least, not the way the layman uses the term "theory".

Evolution is a theory that has stood the test of time, experiments and predictions so far. Hence as scientists (or as science students) we accept the Theory of Evolution. Scientists don't insist that it's true, it just so happens that we don't have any evidence thus far to reject this theory. Experiment results match with the predictions. It gives plausible explanations to certain events. Hence, the theory of Evolution stands.

As I've said before, faith has no place in Science. No matter how long the hypothesis or theory has stood, no matter how much we want to believe a hypothesis, the moment new (and conflicting) evidence comes up, the hypothesis or theory is thrown out of the window. At the turn of the century, scientists threw an entire branch of Physics, known now as classical physics, which included everything we knew about waves, motion and matter then, out. Why do you think Einstein, Bohr, Schrödinger and other quantum physicists then were so instrumental and thus celebrated today? It's because they completely changed the way we view the world. Classical physics is still taught in schools today, because the laws and equations work for large objects. They don't work for minute particles, but they're fine as long as you don't ever work with small particles.

Creation Science is considered an oxymoron because creation science hinges on the belief (dare I say, assumption?) that there is a Divine Being that 'created' the world as we know it. Like Science, this statement cannot be proven without a shadow of a doubt. However, unlike Science, it cannot be disproven either. So it has no place in Science. Let me reliterate this point again: All Science statements/laws/theories/hypotheses can be disproven, if you have evidence or observations from experiments that do not agree. The same experimental results must be obtainable from independant sources. A statement that cannot be disproven, is not a scientific statement, hence it's not Science. This is not about about religion at all: even a simple statement like "There are horses in the universe that exist outside Earth" is not considered scientific because this statement cannot be disproven.

I hope you see that it's not a good idea to subject religion through the scientific method. The results can get pretty ugly. Religion cannot be objectively verified, you either believe it or you don't. But Science came about in the first place because people challenged and questioned. As Birdie puts it so nicely here:
I don't mean to offend anybody here. If I've made errors regarding my understanding of science and religion, I stand here ready to be corrected. If I've made any sweeping statements, I stand to be corrected too.


metwin1

PS: I've done some editing based on Kathy's and Rivka's responces. I'm sure I'll have to do more later on. :p Thanks Kathy and Kivka for your corrections!

Ah, indeed I did mean that. Sorry if I was unclear, folks. I tend to type in a hurry and not have time to reread things over, since it bears repeating, the internet crashes in the middle of everything all the time now.(Evilness)

JD

As a Catholic I shouldn't really believe in Evolution however, I did High School Biology (for the HSC) and whether or not the school believed in it we still had to learn it (I went to a Catholic high school) and it is hard to ignore the evidence given especially that of Human Evolution. Still there are gaps and while the bible taught us to believe that God created the world and all it's inhabitants in seven days I do believe that God probably chose a different path to create the world we have today. I believe that information can get distorted when passed from person to person and while there is evidence that that the Bible is NOT a piece of fiction and indeed true some of the stuff in there shouldn't be taken word for word and I'd been taught that way the the fact that some person lived till he/she was 800 years olds doesn't neccesarily mean that it it a metaphor for the amount of knowledge they posess.

Actually, as a Catholic, it's okay to believe in evolution if that's your prerogative. I swear I read somewhere that John Paul II recently gave a speech about the subject (and when I say recently, I'm thinking within the past few years).

JD...who really wants to go looking for a copy of that speech now.

I agree with most of what you've said about science and evolution, Metwin1, and I think you've expressed yourself well. However, I feel the need to point out the problem with this statement. I think what you were going for is that people who value their religion shouldn't get stressed out if they can't marry it with a science they also believe in (and please correct me if I inferred incorrectly). What your statement actually says, however, is that Biblical scholars have no faith, religious historians have no faith, people who go back and try to re-translate the Bible from early language to see if things were changed incorrectly have no faith, etc.

Even in divinity school, they teach Catholic priests what the problems with the various scriptures are, how the New Testament contradicts itself, etc. Saying that people shouldn't question anything about their religion is ignoring the fact that God -- whatever God one might believe in -- gave man free will. To then say that using that free will means one has no faith seems to contradict the point you were trying to make.

Kathy

First of all, there's not just one "theory of evolution." There the Darwinist theory, which is largely discredited; the neo-Darwinist theory, which is the most accepted; and the punctuated equilibrium theory, which explains some problems with the neo-Darwinist but has problems of its own.

Second of all, there are some serious gaps in and problems with the evidence for evolution -- specifically macroevolution.

What about faith in the accuracy of my carefully-calibrated, precision instrument? Or in the peer-review process that respected journals use? Or how about in the scientific method?

Oh, you mean religious faith. Well, we'll just have to agree to disagree on that one, I think. All scientists have biases. Part of being human. Among mine are my religious views.

/me winces

Well, it's more common to tweak the theory, as necessary. Einstein's (or Bohr's, Schroedinger's, de Broglie's, and Rutherford's) work did not disprove or even discredit Newton's. It simply opened up a new area of knowledge. Classical physics is still very much in use.

Um, what if I found a horse on Tau Ceti IV? My favorite unprovable statement is, "Einstein was the greatest scientist who ever lived."

Different religious tradition, I guess. It's kinda customary in mine . . .

Whoops. Thanks Kathy. I think I should change that last paragraph. I totally didn't mean that! What a faux pax! *Kicks myself* I'm taking that paragraph out now. :p

*Kicks myself harder*
I meant "There are horses in the universe that exist outside Earth." It's a typo, but it totally changes the meaning of my sentence. I better change it. :p Oh well.

No offence to you, Rivka, but personally I won't consider your example a statement, but an opinion. Opinions indicate preferences, and of course, that has no place in Science too. But that's just me.

Well, it is true that, in general, you can't prove a negative.

And yes, it is an opinion. That's kind of what makes it impossible to prove. And I got that example from one of the best HS physics textbooks out there . . .

Its other example is: There exists a universe outside our own which is undetectable by any instrument.

Like Paul, Annie, and others have said, I've been staying away from this topic because it's one that is very personal to people, but I felt I had to comment on a couple of things.

Actually, I think exactly the opposite. If you don't question your beliefs and you just believe everything that you are told by other people, how do you ever know what you really believe? How would you know if what you read or what other people tell you is true? IMO people have to question what they believe, or they don't truely believe it. Faith doesn't mean that you don't question your believes, it means that you truely believe in something that you cannot unequivocally prove.

What I find interesting in this discussion is the definintion of terms that has been going on and *not* going on. Some people have defined terms such as evolution, macroevolution, microevolution, theory, etc, but other terms such as 'religion' and 'science' are also ambiguous and have yet to be defined here. I'm a Comparative Religion major and the first thing that comes up in almost every class is the problem of definining the words that we use. I guess what I'm trying to get at is that I think that most of the people who have put their 2 cents in on this thread are basically agreeing with each other to some degree, but (whether we notice it or not) we're using different definitions for some of the terms that have been used. That's not a good thing or a bad thing, it's just something that, IMO, most people don't think about when they're discussing serious topics like this one.

~Anna

Okay, I've been idly following this thread for days now and I just have to chime in.

Religion is a thorny topic for any group to discuss - like politics - and it can get tetchy and heated when various viewpoints are aired. It's almost a universal given that along the way tempers fray.

So far though, <g> I've seen nothing here but a lively and spirited debate with all posters being respectful and interested in the other pov and good-humouredly debating the subject.

Well done, you guys! I'm seriously impressed!

LabRat

I agree with you LabRat religion is one of those topics that almost always end up in a hot debate. Look at the world now, people are still fighting and arguing over the fact that they believe that their religion is the true religion. Although I'm Catholic I don't see Catholicism as the world's true religion (to be completely honest some of their beliefs really make me mad because they still want to live in a closed shell away from the changing world) and so I do allow myself to be influenced by other religions Buddhism being the first because it teaches people to find inner peace within themselves. At the same time all the religious squabbles going on at the moment and throughout the ages seems really stupid in my opinion because this sort of fighiting isn't what God wanted in the first place. Take for example the split between Henry VIII and the Catholic Pope (or whatever he was I forget) during the Reformation period it was over the refusal to grant him an annulment from his marriage to Catherine over the fact that she was unable to produce a male heir and in the end his chops off his second wife Anne Boleyn's (sp?) head. Even today this still hasn't changed I alway's thought that religion was supposed to teach that violence is wrong and look at the world today, violence is common place.

I just found this thread and actually haven't read the whole thing. The debates on religion and belief in evolution is personal.

But, I don't think we can think of Superman as being an evolution. He was brought here from outside of the normal evolution, out of his natural habitat where he could have a better possibility of becoming extinct.

I appreciated Rac's information on mutations, but it seems to me this falls into a totally different category. Of course, some species have been transported to areas where they had no natural predators, etc.

It also occured to me watching a show about Space Age furnishings how wrong we were about what the 21st century would look like when we were in the middle of the 20th century (For those of you who can remember that far back )

I should probably read all these posts before replying, but oh well

This one sentence caught my eye, metwin1. And the way you mean it, I think I agree -- faith shouldn't stand in the way of science. I personally am perfectly comfortable believing that God made a rational universe, that it has laws, and that we're in the process of figuring out those laws. So science, from my point of view, gets us closer to God.

It's a matter of faith for me that *no one* has All Truth, scientist or pastor; everyone gets something wrong somewhere (some more than others, but that's a whole different debate). So where things are confusing and seem to contradict each other... well, that's where we should try to find out more. Maybe we'll resolve it, maybe we won't, but it's worth trying to figure it out. More times than you might think, apparent clashes between science and Christianity have worked out to harmonize with both of them, as we learn more about science. One of the fascinating things about quantum physics is the "observer effect" -- that things can't happen unless someone is looking to see if things are waves or particles, as in Schrodinger's cat.

Oh, and another interesting thing... you could make the case that science itself was an invention of Christianity. The ancient Greeks & Romans thought that things happened because the gods did them, or it was in the stars, and it could happen differently next time, who knows? Jews and Christians, however, believed in a God of order, who set up the world with a pattern of natural rules. So, naturally, finding out those rules would bring you closer to God. There were other factors too, of course, but Christianity had a *huge* influence on Europe (note the past tense :p ) and can't be discounted. "What about the Dark Ages?" I can hear you ask -- well, God is perfect but his followers screw up a *lot*

PJ

Yes. But years ago, there wasn't that many people who could lift that much weight.

Most of my friends can't even lift 1/4th of their body weight. I weight between 170 to 175 and I can lift about 53 pounds.

How did you come to this conclusion?

There have been "strong man" competitions since the mid-1800's. Not to mention people in the "olden days" did the kind of back-breaking labor we couldn't even imagine now.

There have always been exceptionally strong people.

I know, but I mean normal people who look buney and yet can lift things like a strong men.

My friends never expects me to be able to lift more then twenty pounds and yet I can lift 52 lb. I'm may be chubby but I'm not very big in stature. I guess it's probebly because I like to eat spinich.

Are you talking about weight-lifting as a sport/exercise here or just simply how much a person can carry in general?

Maybe it's just me, but I can't believe that lifting 25% of one's body weight is too difficult. My weight is about 51kg (112lb) , but I can lift at least 16kg (35.2 lb). And with a lot of effort, perhaps more. Would you then consider me ?

But I'm not even particulary strong, considering that I do no sports and do not train with weights at all. So forgive me if I don't agree that the ability to lift about 25% of one's weight is anything strange.

(I obtained these numbers when doing grocery shopping, and not by any standard, scientific method, so take them with a pinch of salt)

It's much easier to simply lift something as compared to lifting, then walking with it. I've found that to my detriment, when I go grocery-shopping, under-estimate the weight of all my groceries, and have to walk home with all those bags. :p

In the first place, RL should be outlawed! Last week was the longest three weeks in recent memory. There are too many places to start, and too many things to say, so I appologise in advance if this doesn't flow well or jumps around a little.

How about some quotes:

"Of course, evolution is scientific. Everybody says so.

It doesn't violate any scientific laws. Well... except the first and second laws of thermodynamics- getting matter from nothing (a vaccuum fluctuation without even a vaccuum (Big Bang) is a neat trick!) and spontaneous decreases in entropy and increases in Gibbs free energy.

Well, at least evolution doesn't demand that you believe in out-moded scientific theories like phlogiston or spontaneous generation... oops, bad example. You do have to believe in life coming from non-living matter all by itself.

Well there's certainly no superstition involved, like tea leaf reading. Imagine, getting information from a random process... oops, another bad example. You do have to believe that information can come from purely stochastic processes.

At least we can dispense with fairy tales like frogs turning into princes... oops again. Substitute long periods of time for the magic and you do indeed have frogs turning into princes - it's hard to see much difference.

Could someone tell me again how evolution is scientific?"


"It is absurd for the Evolutionists to complain that it is unthinkable for an admittedly unthinkable God to make everything out of nothing, and then pretend that it is more thinkable that nothing should turn itself into anything."--- G.K. Chesterton

"Evolution. . .does not specifically deny the existence of God; what it does deny is the existence of man." -- G. K. Chesterton

In response to a comment of "I’m confused as to how this [ Creation ] can masquerade as 'Science'":

"For one thing, creation/evolution is more about history than science, or at least a matter for origins science as opposed to operational science. See Naturalism, Origin and Operation Science . Actually, I’ve often wondered how evolution from goo to you via the zoo can masquerade as science. But I wonder no longer - materialists need evolution as a pseudo-intellectual justification for their atheistic faith. And hijacking the prestige of operational science by adopting the term ‘science’ for their belief system gives it a veneer of respectability."
Dr Jonathan Sarfati, AiG-Australia
------

Evolution is a very slippery term. It can be used to mean anything from simply "change with time" to full "molecules to man with no outside help", and often changes meaning within a single conversation in a "bait and switch" kind of concept.

There is an important thing to remember about the nature of science: The question of what is and is not science is not itself a scientific question. It belongs to the realms of philosophy and metaphysics. It is not legitimate to simply define away the problem by an a-priori committment to metaphysical naturalism (ie. if it references anything but natural causes it isn't science). You have to make that case.

I've been studying origins issues - along with philosophy and philosophy of science - in my spare time for 25+ years (everyone needs a hobby ). As a scientist, I've read the arguments and explainations and examined the evidence presented in the journals and books on both sides of the issue. I have yet to find any lines of argument for evolution (ones that use actual evidence, at least) which don't presuppose the reality evolution as part of the argument.

Most of the arguments, even from the highest profile evolution supporters, consist of little more than hand-waving, question-begging, just-so stories, ad-hominem and simple ridicule. Oponents are often dismissed out of hand without regard for the actual arguments, or disagreement is taken as a sign of idiocy,or worse, taken as a personal insult.

The best evidences they come up with are at best equivocal (like the peppered moth - it started with dark and light peppered moths and ended with dark and light peppered moths - by the way, they don't generaly rest on tree trunks anyway) , and at worst outright frauds (ie. Piltdown Man and Haekel's embryo drawings). Yes, I have examples - they're not hard to find. I'd be happy to refer anyone who is interested to more detailed information.

We could go into specifics like the problems of biogenisis, the origin of complex coded information, the nature of the fossil record -showing sudden appearance and stasis so much that S. J. Gould dusted off Goldschmidt's old "Hopeful Monster" ideas and reworked them into "Punctuated Equilibrium" because there is no evidence for gradualism - but this is getting too long already, and really, it is more an issue of presuppositons and worldview.

I recently picked up a book ("Darwin's God" - Cornelius G. Hunter) that makes a very persuasive case that Darwinism past and present is a mixture of Metaphysical dogma and biased scientific observation. The thesis is that evolution was developed and defended mostly as a solution to the problem of evil, and shows that most of the argumentation was (and is) theological in nature.

There was mention of intelligent design in another thread.

The idea behind the intellegent design movement is fairly easy to illustrate: Picture two mountans - Say Half-Dome in Yosimite National Park and Mount Rushmore. Both are big, impressive hunks of rock. But any three year old can tell that there is a big difference. The current state of one could have come about without any but natural processes, the other couldn't. You can tell at a glance. The aim of ID is to formalize and quantify a general method to discern design from non-design. It isn't an easy research program. Anyone who is interested might want to read William Dembski's "The Design Inference".

Trying to identify intelligent design from accident is quite scientific. People do it all the time in forensic science. "Was this person murdered, or was the death accidental?" type questions are certainly legitimately scientific.

Well, since people tend to get angry when deeply-held and well indoctrinated beliefs are challenged, I guess I've angered enough people for now, even though causing anger is not my purpose. None of this is meant to insult or belittle anyone in particular or in general. I have support (references and examples) for everything I'm claiming here, so if anyone takes issue with something, I'll be happy to expand on it, but try not to take it too personally.

Frank (who can't seem to maintain adequate (blind) faith in (blind) chance to buy macroevolution - and I really did try)

Well, I probably shouldn't, but I suppose it isn't a dialogue if you let go unanswered a post that you disagree with scientifically. Here is a link to a site that gives the response to a lot of claims made against evolution. http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html

One of the prime ones trotted out is the Second Law of Thermodynamics argument. The Second Law of Thermodynamics argument is exceptionally misplaced in discussions about evolution because the Earth is not a closed system. Entropy and the dispersion of energy is expected in closed systems. In a system being constantly bombarded by energy, such as the Earth, the Second Law of Thermodynamics is immediately undercut - the Law describes closed, not open systems.

Further, as the site details, speciation or 'macroevolution' has been observed and is currently occurring, although it takes a very long time. If you're interested in learning more about the debate on evolution vs. creationism and don't know the counterarguments that proponents of evolution give in response to arguments put forward by creationists and intelligent design proponents, I suggest you check out the above website. If you're interested in learning about the geological arguments against young Earth theories, the theory of Plate Tectonics is remarkable in its power to explain the current state of the world geologically. It is a simple, parsimonious theory that we observe almost constantly in real life, even in the measure of continental drift.


Rac

Rac:
I agree completely. That is exactly why I posted in the first place. It's not always easy to disagree without being disagreable, but it is worth a try. BTW. The True Origins site gives some worthwhile responses to some of the "information" on the Talk Origins site you mentioned.

I've seen the claim that the second law doesn't apply made many times before by people who really should know better. I have yet to see anyone substantiate it. If you have a good example of raw energy entering an open system making that system less entropic in the absence of some mechanism to harness that energy, I'd be very interested to see it. Don't hesitate to get technical - my Ph.D. is in physics, and while thermal physics and statistical mechanics weren't my favorite courses, I did pay attention, so I should be able to follow along.

This quote says it better than I could:
"...there are no known violations of the second law of thermodynamics. Ordinarily the second law is stated for isolated [closed] systems, but the second law applies equally well to open systems ... there is somehow associated with the field of far-from equilibrium phenomena the notion that the second law of thermodynamics fails for such systems. It is important to make sure that this error does not perpetuate itself."
[ Dr. John Ross, Harvard (evolutionist), Chemical and Engineering News, vol. 58, July 7, 1980, p. 40 ]
For more information on the thermodynamic issues see This page .

There are a lot of open questions and unresolved issues attached to all of the different plate tectonics, catastrophic plate tectonics and the competing ideas. From some recent papers on the subject it seems the only thing sure about plate tectonics is that there isn't much that is sure. It is far from a simple situation.

As for speciation, the precise definition of species is somewhat vague. Sometimes it is defined in terms of reproductive isolation, and other times the definition is different, particularly with species crosses like ligers (lion and tiger) and mules, hinnies, zorse, zedonk etc. (various equus species crosses) and more. There is nothing related to creation ideas to prevent speciation - rapid variation in response to environmental conditions is expected. See here for more info. It seems to occur too fast for evolutionary time scales, but within fairly strict limits. We can breed dogs into Chihuahuas and Great Danes and lots of variety in between, but they're still dogs and we can't breed them into cats. The "fixity of species" idea Darwin et. al. were arguing against was more a product of Victorian-era popular religion than anything remotely biblical. (see Hunter's book, above)

Frank

I think some of the scientists responding to the True Origins site give good evidence against the arguments made regarding the second law of thermodynamics. If you 'close' the system by bringing the external source of energy into it (i.e, the sun), there is still no real problem because the second law deals with total entropy, not entropy in isolated instances. If a being/organism/group of molecules arranges itself in a way that counters our intuition regarding entropy, it is only because it used energy to do so. That energy is released as heat and dissipates outward in accordance to the laws of thermodynamics. Everyday, energy is trapped and used by complex and simple things to create order out of chaos. These things produce heat and the so called closed system of the Earth and its source of energy are not violating the laws of thermodynamics because the total level of entropy has not decreased.

As for your arguments that plate tectonics doesn't explain things, I'd like to see more. Having seen models that explain the creation of Japan, the Kurile Islands, and more recently Hawai'i from the hot spot currently under the Big Island and having compared the drift and the dating of the seabed to show a pretty much perfect scientific match up of the events, as well as countless other examples of evidence for plate tectonics, It'll take a lot to convince me that the theory is incorrect. Everything I've seen, from road cuts in the Green Mountains to the type of soil found on the Himalayas, suggests that the plate tectonic theory is correct.

As far as speciation goes, the very fact that species are vaguely bounded and that it's hard to draw sharp dividing lines sometimes is evidence that supports the idea of evolution.


Rac

i'm going to try to keep this very brief. due to a variety of causes, i haven't been sleeping very well lately, and when i'm tired, i tend to get overemotional. following the "don't post when you're upset" rule, i've been trying to stay away from this thread. i think i'm more level-headed at the moment (though still tired), but, like i said, i'll try to keep it brief.

this whole concept of "microevolution" vs "macroevolution" is very strange to me (and, for the record, i started posting before the 3 responses before mine last time; i took my time writing.). a lot of science is based on process of induction. it's not firm irrefutable logical evidence, but often, it's the best we can do.

you drop a few objects and time their decent, you see the pattern, and you assume that pattern will hold true. i can't actually prove that gravity will still work the same tomorrow, but it seems a safe enough assumption.

similarly, i've never been away from the surface of this planet. i can't prove that gravity is whats affecting the moon, the other planets in this solar system, or even other stars and galaxies. the only evidence i have for it is that gravity seems to work on the smaller, more immidate scale and observations of distant objects seems to show that it works on a grander scale, too.

applying the same process to gravity as some have applied to "macroevolution," it seems that you can't believe in astrophyscs. there's no more evidence that gravity affects alpha centauri than there is that there are species alive on earth today that didn't exist before (and that those species came into existance as an adaption of earlier species to a new enviornment).

most of the other arguments seem to boil down to "well, if you're right, then explain this!"

to that, i say the following: maybe we can't explain everything, yet. maybe we never will. science is kind of socratic that way (socrates taught that admitting your ignorance is the first step to wisdom, one that he reportedly claimed he'd never managed to move beyond). the thing about science, though, is that if you're going to claim that you do know something, you're going to need some evidence for it. if you're going to claim that your theory is the better one, you're going to need proof.

i've seen fossils. i've seen dinosaur skeletons. i've learned about evidence-gathering methods and dating methods. i've learned about what people who have dedicated their lives to learning, developing, and implementing those techniques have found. i've learned about what others have done in thier labratories. i've seen theories proposed and supported and others discarded in the face of new evidence and new research.

if you're going to claim that your theory is better or even that the current one is invalid, then what proof do you have?

Paul
p.s. so much for brevity. i tried. content-wise, this is probably brief, but i like to take the time to explain myself clearly. <shrug>

Let's step back into philosophy for a minute first (details later).

As a scientist, I have found it to be of great importance to understand my own assumptions and presuppositions. This is especially true of the unspoken and often unconscious assumptions behind my world view. Of course this is not always an easy process.

If one is not aware of their most basic assumptions, they will have blind spots of which they aren't aware. These blind spots can cause us to miss or mis-interpret data all too easily.

At a very basic level, there are three underlying worldviews.

1. The universe is chaotic - Cause and effect is an illusion. (I mention this only for completeness)
2. The universe is characterized by the uniformity of cause and effect in a closed system.
3. The universe is characterized by the uniformity of cause and effect in an open system.

Science, or any sort of rationality is impossible under number 1.

Number two is very common, and can be theistic or atheistic - but it doesn't matter much in any practical sense. Even if God created in the first place, He is either inside or outside the universe. If outside, He is completely irrelevant and has no effect on anything inside. This would be the position of some forms of Deism.

If the closed system God were on the inside, He would be a part of the uniform cause and effect. Any actions would be pre-ordained by whatever the initial conditions were - again, completely irrelevant, but consistent with some forms of Deism and also some forms of atheism because this kind of god could hardly be called a deity.

If you take this to its ultimate result, you also find that humanity falls away completely. Ideas and thoughts are only illusions - pattens in the brain which are the effects of previous causes and inherent in the initial conditions of the universe. Any free will we might think we have is an illusion, a la B. F. Skinner. Nothing has any meaning, and even the idea of meaning is an illusion. (BTW. If all ideas are illusions, then the idea that "The universe is characterized by the uniformity of cause and effect in a closed system." is also an illusion. This makes it arguable that the idea is self-stultifying since it caries its own refutation). This philosophical position has lead to the philosophy of nihilism and the reaction of to nihilism known as existentialism. For a fuller treatment you may want to read the first couple of chapters of Francis Shaeffer's "The God Who is There".

In an open system, humanity - both individual and collective - again has significance and the possibility of meaning, but it also leaves the door open for God.

Note that all of these positions are ASSUMPTIONS. If you take the second assumption, you remove any possibility of God a priori. The possibility simply does not exist. You also remove any possibility of creativity - including your own. It might be argued that you remove any meaning from anything you say or write, and any significance from your actions. Assumptions have consequences.

Similarly, we can define "science" as only concerning naturalistic explanations and processes if we want, but that restricts the areas that science can address. To illustrate - and I am borrowing this illustration - Consider that you are a high powered chemist with a great talent at qualitative analysis. I will put a beaker of clear liquid in a lab, and put a cloth over it. I tell you that in the morning, there will be a precipitate in the beaker. You will then use any method you wish to determine a scientific explanation for how the precipitate came about.

The next morning I remove the cloth, and you can see cloudy brown swirls around a hard chunk of precipitate. On the rapidly decaying chunk, you can just make out the letters "O R E O".

The obvious answer is "you dropped a cookie into the beaker", but that invokes non-naturalistic processes, and even an appeal to intelligent design, so it isn't a "scientific" explanation by this definition, and thus isn't allowed.

Presuppositions control what we see as evidence, and even whether we can see it as evidence. That is why it is necessary to understand your underlying assumptions - so that you can see any blind spots they cause. Understanding does not mean giving up your assumptions, but it does mean trying to get outside them occasionally to answer the question "What if my assumptions were wrong?".

If we make the assumption of naturalism, some form of evolution is the only game in town. There is simply no other possibility. In some ways, it makes the idea of evidence for evolution moot since the question is already decided by the initial assumption.

I'm reminded of a "Bloom County" strip from several years ago (anyone remember Bloom County, or am I the only old one here?). The first frame hass Oliver Wendel Jones on his roof looking at the stars with his telescope. In the second frame, the stars have re-arranged themselves to read "Repent Oliver". The third frame has them back in their origial configuration, and Oliver saying "Bloody difficult being an agnostic these days".

--------------------
Now the details.
Here is a series of articles on some of the details of plate tectonics. In addition to the articles themselves, there is an extensive list of references, so you should have no difficulty in further research. Oard compares the predictions of the models to the details of the geological features. Remember, a model is only good insofar as it mimics the real system in the aspects of interest.

"Lack of Evidence for Subduction Renders Plate Tectonics Unlikely: Part I - Trench Sediments and Accretionary Prisms" Michael J. Oard . CRSQ Vol 37 Number 3, Dec. 2002 pp. 142

"Lack of Evidence for Subduction Renders Plate Tectonics Unlikely: Part II - Extension dominant at "Convergent Subduction Zones" " Michael J. Oard . CRSQ Vol 37 Number 4, March. 2003 pp. 227


This is exactly the point. The being/organism has mechanisms in place to harness energy, much like a water wheel arranged to pump some of the water to a higher level than the source using the energy available in letting most of the water move to a much lower level. Without the mechanism, the water only goes downhill, and without the mechanism the energy only goes to increase the disorder of the system. As for the "group of molecules organizing themselves", I'd like to see an example.

Order can come about spontaneously through energy loss - ice and crystal growth etc. But this order is completely determined by the physical properties of the molecules/atoms in question. The information content is negligible. Mechanisms and other organized things require some - and perhaps a large amount of - information content.

If we want to talk about uniformly observed experience, in every case in which we have complex information and we know the source, the ultimate source is an intelligent agent or agents (with the possible exception of certain Microsoft products ). For instance, this bulletin board is very information rich, thanks to the efforts of application programmers, operating system programmers, hardware designers, system administrators, and those who contribute the content. So if we see complex information anywhere, it is not unreasonable to look for an intelligent source.

We see variations in different populations to respond to environmental conditions. We see dogs producing dogs, cat producing cats and so on. We never see dogs giving birth to cats. There is a huge amount of variability inherent in the genomes of different kinds of creatures. I once saw an estimate of 10^2000 for the number of unique genetic combinations for the offspring of two humans who's genomes are as heterozygous as possible. That's a lot of room for variation within a kind. All of the variations used to support evolution - that is, the ones which are actually observable - are of this type, or of an information loss through mutation. Nowhere do we see any variations which increase information content. These would be necessary to turn microbes to man or anything of the sort.

We've all seen fossils. I used to hunt fossils all the time in the creek bed of my Grandparent's farm, and some of the dinosaur skeletons are very imperssive. They don't come with dates attached. The largest portion of the fossil record is marine invertebrates. Most of these are identical to modern versions. The record is characterized by sudden appearance and stasis. Stephen J. Gould's punctuated equilibrium theory has this feature as its main line of evidence.

I have heard the argument that denying evolution is like denying gravity before. There are some significant differences. The phenomenon we call gravity is directly observable. The description of gravity can be used to make detailed predictions. The form of the law (force going as r^2) is the only one which gives rise to the Keplerian orbits we observe. Careful observation and measurements of planetary orbits showed an anomaly which could be explained by "a planet right about there" and when we look there, lo and behold, a planet. We can make a prediction that "if stars are in such and such configuration we would expect this kind of behavior", and look for stars in that configuration and see that behavior. We can measure the forces between masses with great precision in the laboratory. While it is still an open question as to why inertia attracts other inertia, the effect is well quantified if not perfectly understood.

With evolution, we have a different situation. We have variations within kinds - some very dramatic variations - to adapt to environmental conditions. This natural selection is not controversial at all, but selection has to have something to select from, so where do novel features come from. We've never observed any, so to get the full blown evolution, we need to make a HUGE extrapolation, and extrapolation is always somewhat dangerous. Here is a humorous example:
"In the space of 176 years, the Lower Mississippi has shortened itself 242 miles. That is an average of a trifle over a mile and a third per year. Therefore any calm person who is not blind or idiotic can see that in the Old Oolitic Silurian Period, just a million years ago next November, the Lower Mississippi was upward of 1,300,000 miles long and stuck out over the Gulf of Mexico like a fishing rod. And by the same token, any person can see that 742 years from now the Lower Mississippi will be only a mile and three quarters long, and Cairo and New Orleans will have joined their streets together and be plodding along comfortably under a single mayor and a mutual board of aldermen. There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact" (Mark Twain)

I've studied dating methods, and used various radiometric methods myself, and studied nuclear physics at the graduate level, so I do understand how they work, and the inherent assumptions that go with them and the potential problems. There are also many dating methods which don't rely on radiometric methods, like magnetic field energy decay, ocean salinity, atmospheric helium content and lunar regression which give upper bounds on age, with explicit assumptions.

All dating methods require some assumptions, ie. what were the conditions when the "clock" was set? Does the process run at a constant rate - or do we know how it changes with time? Could something have interfered with the timing process or contaminate the tested samples? Understanding uncertainty and evaluating possible sources of systematic errors can be more an art than a science, but it is important to all experimental sciences. The choice of assumptions is also colored by the underlying assumptions and world view.

Some recent work done by the RATE (Radio-isotopes and the Age of The Earth) project group shows a lot of promise in isolating and testing some common assumptions. The final report is due sometime next year, but the link discusses some preliminary findings.

So, where does this leave us - beyond a much-too-long post ?
My contention is that if one assumes a closed universe, or that materialistic naturalism must give the answers, then there can be no debate on evolution because it is a fundamental assumption, and is prior to any evidence. If this is your assumption, we can only agree to disagree since nothing can possibly count as evidence against the naturalistic assumption.

My personal preference is to assume an open system, and then either naturalistic or intentional causes are available for explaination. I'm using intentional as meaning "intended by some entity" in this context. From there we can go where the evidence leads. The uniform experience of the past leades me away from naturalistic explainations for origins.

Frank (who is too tired to think of something clever to put here)