Lois & Clark Forums Forums General Discussion Fun with Polls Evolution

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