OK, so many creationists just don't get it - let me spell it out. The Flintstones was not a documentary.
First, let's get something straight. A scientific theory is a well supported explanation of natural phenomena, facts, and data that is has not been falsified, and best explains the data we have. Theories are the upper echelon of science. Theories are not wild-assed guesses, as some creationists like to pretend. Nor are theories simply problematic guesses trying to become laws. Laws and theories are quite distinct things in science and there isn't a hierarchy whereby ideas go along stages, with "law" being the last and best stage.
Also, science changes as new data becomes available. This is not a failing of science, but a strength. It shows a willingness to incorporate the best information we have in formulating the best explanations that we can.
Evolution is a theory. It is well supported by many independent lines of scientific inquiry (paleontology, biology, genetics, geology, etc.) We have many different independent lines of evidence that support it. Evolution is built on facts, many facts, and is the over-arching explanation of those facts. No other alternative "explanation" even comes close (and no, creationism and ID are not theories - they aren't even proper hypotheses). Evolution has been rigorously tested for over 150 years now and it is still weathering the test of time, even though it has made predictions that could have falsified it (like the chromosomal fusion of human chromosomes from our last common ancestor with apes that was predicted and found, for example).
Evolution, as an explanation, is (very simplified) that mutations to the genetic material of organisms provide for variation, which is then selected by nature for survival and the passing on of those genes.
All animals on the planet are just as evolved as we are. We are not more evolved than other animals. Evolution is happening still.
Evolution is not random. The variations that arise do have a random component, but selection is not a random process.
It does not mean that we should see giant flies with 20 wings, or dats (dog/cat crosses). It doesn't mean that we will grow another arm (not unless genetic material for another arm arises and is selected for over say the next 20 million years that is).
Now, why go through all this? It's because I'm constantly amazed at the amount of creationists who know just about nothing about evolution, but are dead sure it's wrong. They don't know what a theory is. They don't know how science works. They don't know how evolution works. They don't even understand the very, very simplistic overview that I just gave above.
But they do know that it all has to be wrong, wrong, wrong.
Do these creationists really think that either virtually all scientists are part of some atheistic conspiracy to dupe the public, or that virtually all scientists are stupid or blinded by atheism and that they, having done no research or any other lab work, somehow know more than the professionals? Any other options?
47 comments:
Another way to explain the difference between science and religion is: In science, we gather information and analyze it to come up with an explanation of why something is the way it is or how it works. We might even start with a theory -- our belief of what we think the explanation might be -- but if the facts don't fit the theory, then we change the theory to conform to the facts.
In religion, we start with the explanation and then devise facts to back it up. Facts that don't fit our explanation are simply tossed aside and ignored as if they don't exist.
"Evolution, as an explanation, is (very simplified) that mutations to the genetic material of organisms provide for variation, which is then selected by nature for survival and the passing on of those genes."
This is nothing I, or any other IDer I know has argued against. Variation is normal. However variation is only possible within a particular kind. We have no evidence of one kind of animal (say, a dog) becoming another (say, a cat.)
When any IDer says, "I don't believe in evolution" an athiest will immediately begin to give examples of variation within a kind, while there is not one shred of evidence for change beyond it's own kind.
Please give me an example of a dog that has become something not obviously a dog-looking animal.
As you've said, evolution has been proposed as a theory of human existence for quite some time now. So TRT, would it not be true that when you were born, you were indoctrinated from a young age with the theory of evolution? Despite the fact that while humans live in very many different climates, habitats, etc, there are no large variations amongst us, you still argue that macroevolution will happen.
The only reason evolutionists tout the "millions of years" age of the earth is that it conveniently gives them an argument of "Well, we haven't had enough time." I hope we're still on this earth millions of years from now so that future creationists won't have to deal with that garbage argument.
So TRT, would it not be true that when you were born, you were indoctrinated from a young age with the theory of evolution?
In all honesty, I was indoctrinated into two schools of thought simultaneously -- evolution and creationism. I learned one at school and the other in Sunday School and church. For many years, I believed in both of them.
In time, however, evolution won out because it deals with facts, while creationism deals with opinions.
Oh, facts. I like those. Can you show me a commplete lineage from inorganic compounds to man? That's a fact I've always wondered about.
Adam said...
"Evolution, as an explanation, is (very simplified) that mutations to the genetic material of organisms provide for variation, which is then selected by nature for survival and the passing on of those genes."
This is nothing I, or any other IDer I know has argued against.
So you accept Evolution, great...
Variation is normal. However variation is only possible within a particular kind.
I knew there had to be a catch. OK, please give a full definition of 'kinds' (with examples would be good). It would also be nice if you could explain why variation is limited only within those 'kinds'.
We have no evidence of one kind of animal (say, a dog) becoming another (say, a cat.)
We wouldn't expect to find evidence of a dog becoming a cat - in fact that would falsify the ToE.
When any IDer says, "I don't believe in evolution" an athiest will immediately begin to give examples of variation within a kind, while there is not one shred of evidence for change beyond it's own kind.
How about the evolution of the horse then? http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/horses/horse_evol.html (waits for IDer to suggest Hyracotherium is actually just a different 'kind' of horse because 'kind' has no definition and so can be used to mean whatever you want it to mean).
Please give me an example of a dog that has become something not obviously a dog-looking animal.
Why do you think evolution would require that any subsequent descendants of the modern dog would necessarily have to look like something else? Species are differentiated by more than just morphology.
As you've said, evolution has been proposed as a theory of human existence for quite some time now.
No it hasn't, evolution explains biological diversity it says nothing about existence.
So TRT, would it not be true that when you were born, you were indoctrinated from a young age with the theory of evolution?
I can't speak for TRT but for me that's a no. I was taught in biology that the theory of evolution was commonly held to be the best explanation for diversity of life on this planet.
Despite the fact that while humans live in very many different climates, habitats, etc, there are no large variations amongst us, you still argue that macroevolution will happen.
Humans have become very adept at overcoming certain natural selection pressures but I'm not sure how you think that disproves 'macroevolution'. We don't argue macroevolution will happen we argue that it has happened and that the likelihood is that it will continue absent a cause (or causes) that prevent it.
The only reason evolutionists tout the "millions of years" age of the earth is that it conveniently gives them an argument of "Well, we haven't had enough time."
Nope, we 'tout' the b illions of years age of the earth as that's what the evidence supports.
I hope we're still on this earth millions of years from now so that future creationists won't have to deal with that garbage argument.
So you're not hoping for Jesus' return then?
Cop said...
Oh, facts. I like those. Can you show me a commplete lineage from inorganic compounds to man? That's a fact I've always wondered about.
Here you go --> http://pick18.pick.uga.edu/mp/20m?tree=Life&res=640&flags=all:
I asked for a fact. What fact from this page are you trying to point out.
So TRT, would it not be true that when you were born, you were indoctrinated from a young age with the theory of evolution?
I can't speak for TRT but for me that's a no. I was taught in biology that the theory of evolution was commonly held to be the best explanation for diversity of life on this planet.
------------------------------
That's a yes, not a no.
You know I honestly do look forward to a day where I can leave this world and nonsense like this behind. However I also hope it is quite far off so you have more time to come to the truth, that I might not have to spend eternity regretting I didn't convince you.
I appreciate your opinion freddie but the concept of macroevolution insists that species can change beyond morphology. To believe in macroevolution you must believe that all life evolved from a common ancestor, which means going far beyond morphology to an extreme extent.
I'm curious: Do you support the Big Bang theory? If so, where did the matter that supposedly exploded for some unknown reason come from?
However I also hope it is quite far off so you have more time to come to the truth, that I might not have to spend eternity regretting I didn't convince you.
I take from the above statement one of two things: 1) You believe you will spend eternity in Hell or 2) You don't believe in Heaven.
Regret is a form of sadness and heaven is supposed to place of absolute love and perfection. Consequently, one could not experience regret and reside there. Since Hell is a place of darkness and estrangement, regret would fit right in.
If your only chance at making heaven is dependent on turning me and/or CGT, you might as well check your bags for Hell right now.
"So TRT, would it not be true that when you were born, you were indoctrinated from a young age with the theory of evolution? "
Most in the US get a pretty shoddy educational introduction to evolution. But, to call it "indoctrination" is simply absurd. First off, the US culture is saturated with Xianity, so for every lesson one receives in evolution and natural science, one will probably receive three times as many in religious instruction. Secondly, presenting facts and evidence is not "indoctrination." Presenting the lies of religion certainly would be though.
"Oh, facts. I like those. Can you show me a commplete lineage from inorganic compounds to man? That's a fact I've always wondered about."
Thank you for showing your ignorance...just as I spoke about. You are combining two different scientific disciplines, abiogenesis and evolution. Evolution starts with a fully formed and replicating life form and describes how the diversity of life became what it is today. (For macroevolutionary evidence see Tiktallik, the chromosomal fusion in humans, horse lineages, whales, etc...there's literally mountains of evidence despite how much you plug your ears and eyes and deny deny deny). Abiogenesis is the study of how that first replicating life form came to be. We have much less evidence and idea of how that happened, and there are gaps in our knowledge. That said, we do have some evidence and interesting ideas to test.
"I'm curious: Do you support the Big Bang theory? If so, where did the matter that supposedly exploded for some unknown reason come from?"
In all likelihood it simply was. Or maybe it was an offshoot from another meta-universe. Offering "goddidit" as the "explanation" neither explains anything nor is it at all compelling or satisfying.
In all likelihood it simply was. Or maybe it was an offshoot from another meta-universe. Offering "goddidit" as the "explanation" neither explains anything nor is it at all compelling or satisfying.
In other words, you don't know. That's all I wanted you to admit.
"In other words, you don't know. That's all I wanted you to admit."
I do know that it happened...as much as anyone can know anything. I also know that inserting god is useless, irrational, and that there's not a scrap of evidence for it. You may be satisfied with a fallacious appeal to god of the gaps theology, but I am not.
Yeah, GCT! And if Man came from monkeys, then why are there still monkeys, hmmm? Take that, real world!
Anonymous said...
I asked for a fact. What fact from this page are you trying to point out.
Assuming you're 'Cop' then you asked for a lineage showing organic compound to man. I gave a link to the phylogentic tree of life which shows the link from organic compound (in man's case Eukaryotes) through to man (we're down the bottom in Mammals by the way).
If you just want a random 'fact' then I give you "Charlie Brown's father was a barber."
Another Anonymous said...
So TRT, would it not be true that when you were born, you were indoctrinated from a young age with the theory of evolution?
I responded:
I can't speak for TRT but for me that's a no. I was taught in biology that the theory of evolution was commonly held to be the best explanation for diversity of life on this planet.
------------------------------
That's a yes, not a no.
There is a difference in education and indoctrination. I was never taught that the ToE was immune to criticism and was always told that it was tentative and subject to change.
You know I honestly do look forward to a day where I can leave this world and nonsense like this behind. However I also hope it is quite far off so you have more time to come to the truth, that I might not have to spend eternity regretting I didn't convince you.
As long as you don't waste your life regretting it I really don't mind what you believe.
Matt said...
I appreciate your opinion freddie but the concept of macroevolution insists that species can change beyond morphology.
It does not insist anything - there is no evolutionary imperative for species morphology to adapt beyond what environmental pressures require. That morphology can change greatly is just product of evolution not a driving force.
To believe in macroevolution you must believe that all life evolved from a common ancestor,
Agreed
which means going far beyond morphology to an extreme extent.
Not necessarily. Evolution can generally be defined as a change in allele frequency in a population over time. Nowhere in that is the imperative for extreme changes in morphology. Yes, it happens, but it is not necessary for evolution to be 'true'.
I'm curious: Do you support the Big Bang theory?
I accept it as the current best explanation for the beginnings of the universe as we know it.
If so, where did the matter that supposedly exploded for some unknown reason come from?
Personally I do not know. There are several theories but I don't subscribe to any of them specifically. I do ask though, why did the matter/energy have to come from anywhere?
"That morphology can change greatly is just product of evolution not a driving force."
So can you show me an instance (aside from supposed human evolution) where a creature has experienced such a comparatively huge change in morphology as a result of evolution?
"There is a difference in education and indoctrination. I was never taught that the ToE was immune to criticism and was always told that it was tentative and subject to change."
That's not the way most textbooks cover it anymore. It is treated as a foregone conclusion, despite the split in the scientific community over it.
"I do ask though, why did the matter/energy have to come from anywhere?"
Because matter cannot be created or destroyed, so if it got re-arranged by an explosion, that means it was already here in some form. I simply wanted to point out that you believe something is eternal. In your case, matter. In my case, God.
BTW, the lineage I asked for was:
"Can you show me a commplete lineage from inorganic compounds to man?"
That's not the way most textbooks cover it anymore. It is treated as a foregone conclusion, despite the split in the scientific community over it.
There is no "split" on this topic. To be split would mean that about 50% say yea and 50% say nay.
Is evolution accepted as the best theory to date by 100% of the scientific community? Of course, not. I can think of almost no topic or subject that 100% of the people involved agree on completely.
But the same can be said for Christianity. There are literally thousands of different branches and denominations because they each disagree about how to interpret the Bible or how to best worship God.
The way you're acting is, if 1,000 people are surveyed on a given subject and 990 of them agree, you would say there was a split because 10 people had other ideas.
Anonymous "So can you show me an instance (aside from supposed human evolution) where a creature has experienced such a comparatively huge change in morphology as a result of evolution?"
First: "supposed"?
Second: Evolution of whales
Third: Evolution of a bunch of things into a bunch of other things
Fourth: Pick up copies of these: Your Inner Fish, Making of the Fittest, Endless Forms Most Beautiful, Relics of Eden, Genesis: The Scientific Quest for Life's Origins and
Why Evolution Is True, to start. Then, at worst, you'll at least know what you're arguing against.
"It is treated as a foregone conclusion…"
Until something explains the data better, it is the conclusion. Provisionally so, however.
"...despite the split in the scientific community over it."
O rly?
"Because matter cannot be created or destroyed, so if it got re-arranged by an explosion, that means it was already here in some form."
And "before" the Big Bang, "I don't know" is the only logical, scientific answer.
"BTW, the lineage I asked for was: 'Can you show me a commplete lineage from inorganic compounds to man?'"
No. You're asking for a granularity of data far higher than the world can provide.
"Before" the big bang doesn't make sense considering that time is a property of this universe.
That's why I put it in quotes. I'm cool like that. The ladies dig my enquotening. My combover drives 'em wild, as well.
"Because matter cannot be created or destroyed, so if it got re-arranged by an explosion, that means it was already here in some form."
And "before" the Big Bang, "I don't know" is the only logical, scientific answer.
I agree.
"BTW, the lineage I asked for was: 'Can you show me a commplete lineage from inorganic compounds to man?'"
No. You're asking for a granularity of data far higher than the world can provide.
Especially considering it is has never happened.
Getting from one thing to another isn't the problem in my mind... the problem is getting from nothing to something. Problem: intelligent scientists with loads of technology can't create life (even ONE living cell) from the elements in a lab. Even if they do one day, you have to ask, how hard was that. I would assume that life would be originating all around us, all the time, since it must be so easy with the millions of different oraganisms on this planet. Even Miller's primordial soup doesn't cut it. I don't know the answer, but the question of true origin has always puzzled me.
Modus,
"That's why I put it in quotes."
I figured as much, but I'm not so charitable with our theistic commenters, and I figured that I better point that out, lest we get dragged into bad apologetics.
Anon,
"I agree."
Good, then stop saying that goddidit.
"Especially considering it is has never happened."
And, you can stop trying for god of the gaps fallacious arguments.
"Getting from one thing to another isn't the problem in my mind... the problem is getting from nothing to something."
So, you accept evolution?
"I would assume that life would be originating all around us, all the time, since it must be so easy with the millions of different oraganisms on this planet."
Except that the conditions are different now and there's already life here using up valuable resources.
"Even Miller's primordial soup doesn't cut it."
It's a piece of the puzzle and gives us some valuable insight and evidence. No, it doesn't explain all, but it's a step in the right direction of explaining it.
I'm still waiting for anyone to defend the god notion. Relying on "goddidit" by pointing to gaps in our knowledge is both a god of the gaps fallacy and a false dichotomy.
OK, I have a question or two for those of you who poo poo scientific theories such as evolution and the like because certain variables are still not understood and/or the theory doesn't explain every aspect.
How precisely did God go about creating the world and the life upon it? It's not enough to say that he simply did it. I want to know the steps involved.
As I understand it, in the beginning there were two things: God and the void. So where did he come up with the necessary building blocks for the earth and, say, viruses? Where does matter come from?
If you can't explain this in a way that the average human can understand -- the precise methodology -- then the very criticisms you're leveling at science fall back on you.
LOL! And we're the ones with the bad argument? Your science has to have the answers, because it is the one claiming the answers are all within the realm of modern physics. You can't apply the same argument to a Creationist who doesn't make that same physics claim.
Creationists argue that a supernatural God created everything simply by speaking it into existence.
Creationists argue that a supernatural God created everything simply by speaking it into existence.
Out of what? How can a being that is not made of matter create matter? Also, if God was perfect for eternity -- meaning he existed in perfect harmony -- what could cause him to do anything? If he desired creation, then he's not perfect. If he was lonely, he's not perfect. If he was simply bored, he's not perfect. Perfection desires nothing and needs nothing but perfection (its nature) itself.
Besides, if your ONLY answer is that God spoke life into existence, I could say "Flimfoble nipzo zorttwi verbuthima -- Life" and it would say the exact same thing.
"How can a being that is not made of matter create matter?"
By being the Almighty Creator, capable of anything.
Well, a splokneforndoogle can zipdoppanoo a qoproriqia. (Makes about as much sense as your answer.)
Anonymous said...
"That morphology can change greatly is just product of evolution not a driving force."
So can you show me an instance (aside from supposed human evolution) where a creature has experienced such a comparatively huge change in morphology as a result of evolution?
I could, indeed MO did, but I'm not sure what it would achieve. As I said an extreme change in morphology can (and has) happened during evolution, but it is not necessary.
"There is a difference in education and indoctrination. I was never taught that the ToE was immune to criticism and was always told that it was tentative and subject to change."
That's not the way most textbooks cover it anymore.
It has been 20+ years since I took biology in school - that's how it was then.
It is treated as a foregone conclusion, despite the split in the scientific community over it.
I'd suspect that it's more likely that it's still treated as the best explanation rather than a foregone conclusion and if you want to call a 99.9% (pro-evolution) to 0.1% (pro something else) ratio a split then you go ahead.
"I do ask though, why did the matter/energy have to come from anywhere?"
Because matter cannot be created or destroyed, so if it got re-arranged by an explosion, that means it was already here in some form. I simply wanted to point out that you believe something is eternal. In your case, matter. In my case, God.
Well at least we have something in common then :-/
BTW, the lineage I asked for was:
"Can you show me a commplete lineage from inorganic compounds to man?"
And I gave you the phylogentic tree of life which shows that lineage. Is it complete? No. Will it ever be? probably not but I'm not sure how that helps your argument, unless you're intending on slipping your God into the gaps.
Anonymous "Especially considering it is has never happened."
Yeah! Take that, people that are trying to figure stuff out!
Anonymous Getting from one thing to another isn't the problem in my mind... the problem is getting from nothing to something."
And the step from new Earth to first life (as nebulously defined as "life" is. You'd be surprised at the breadth of definitions and cut-off points), is the biggest step. Somewhere up to a billion years passed before that happened. Then a couple billion more before multicellular life. Then around a billion more for the really complex stuff.
"Problem: intelligent scientists with loads of technology can't create life (even ONE living cell) from the elements in a lab."
And so? I'm still waiting for my robo-butler and nuclear powered hovercar.
"Even if they do one day, you have to ask, how hard was that."
If you want to be truly jaw-dropplinged (note: not a real word), look at the scale. A billion years over (potentially) most of the Earth. That kind of massive-multiparallelism dwarfs anything that Man can do.
"I would assume that life would be originating all around us, all the time, since it must be so easy with the millions of different oraganisms on this planet."
Ah. I see. What you're forgetting is that any new precursors for life are just food for life that's already here.
"I don't know the answer, but the question of true origin has always puzzled me."
Have you considered becoming a biologist? Biochemist? Those crazy cats love not knowing the answer. It gives them something to look at.
Anonymous "LOL! And we're the ones with the bad argument?"
Yes, actually.
"Your science has to have the answers, because it is the one claiming the answers are all within the realm of modern physics."
My science? It works just as well for you too, buddy.
"You can't apply the same argument to a Creationist who doesn't make that same physics claim."
No, but they still make truth claims (Gen1, The Fall, The Deluge, Babel). Historically, they've been wrong. Science, while also wrong, at least gets closer.
"Creationists argue that a supernatural God created everything simply by speaking it into existence."
Was He phlegmy? Did He mumble? Lisp?
"Your science has to have the answers, because it is the one claiming the answers are all within the realm of modern physics."
Actually science makes no such claim. This is partly why I made the science primer, but alas I couldn't speak to all the creationists' misperceptions about science.
What science says is that one must follow the scientific method in order to actually learn about the universe using science. At present time, we have no way of testing for supernatural entities, events, etc. This means that supernatural hypotheses can not get off the ground. We also know that what we can explain we've been able to explain without need of invoking any supernatural entity.
Hiding your god in the gaps is a bad strategy, considering how the gaps seem to shrink all the time - besides the fact that it's fallacious, which you also don't seem to understand.
You can imagine whatever you like to be in the gaps. I just wonder, how long do the gaps have to exist for you to realize science can never fill them?
"You can imagine whatever you like to be in the gaps. I just wonder, how long do the gaps have to exist for you to realize science can never fill them?"
No, you can't simply imagine whatever you like to fill the gaps. That's god (or imagined explanation) of the gaps fallacious thinking. That's the whole point, which you seem incapable of accepting or understanding.
It doesn't matter if science will never be able to fill a specific gap in our knowledge. It does not give you license to claim that "goddidit," simply because no one else has come up with a satisfactory answer. You have to provide positive evidence that "goddidindeeddoit" if you wish to assert "goddidit." Until you understand this point, you'll not ever get very far in this debate.
"No, you can't simply imagine whatever you like to fill the gaps."
I wasn't saying that anyone could make something up. I was saying that I have no doubt that it was God because I believe His Word. I was saying that YOU can make up whatever you want, because you don't accept God.
"I wasn't saying that anyone could make something up. I was saying that I have no doubt that it was God because I believe His Word."
That's even worse, because not only did you not make it up, but you're believing something that someone else simply made up.
"I was saying that YOU can make up whatever you want, because you don't accept God."
Wow, how thoughtful of you, but you completely missed the point. No, I can't. And neither can you.
You assume that God is "something someone else made up." You cannot factually say that God doesn't exist, even if that is your belief. To say that would mean you have awareness of every seen and yet unseen thing in existence.
"You assume that God is "something someone else made up.""
May as well be if we go by the lack of evidence we have for it.
"You cannot factually say that God doesn't exist, even if that is your belief."
We can, however, say that since we have no evidence for this god that we can't simply insert this god as an explanation for anything. It has just as much explanatory power as "humptelfinnertdidit."
IOW, my argument stands.
The surviving Bible does give God the edge over the flying spaghetti monster, don't you think?
No. Even if it did, your argument also gives more credence to Harry Potter, Zeus, Allah, and anything else that's been written about. Oh wait, the FSM has been written about, so I guess the argument fails on that front as well.
None of those other writings have any archeology to back them up, though.
And the Bible does? What piece of archaeology would you recommend as evidence that god exists? Besides, we do have archaeological evidence of Mohammed's existence, decidedly more than Jesus's. We have even more evidence of Joseph Smith. You are engaging in some serious special pleading and begging the question here.
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-abr/abr-a009.html
Are you just littering this on all threads?
The Jews co-opted their myths from earlier myths when Abrham dwelt in Ur. Just as we recognize the Sumerian stories as myths, we should recognize the Jewish stories as myths.
Someone said...
Because matter cannot be created or destroyed, so if it got re-arranged by an explosion, that means it was already here in some form.
The big bang wasn't an explosion, it was (an on-going) expansion.
SCIENCE:
person1: i have this theory about the way life came to be on earth
person2: ok what evidence do you have to support it?
person1: i have this, this and this.
person2 : interesting, ok lets put it on the shelf and investigate some more.
person1: ok, cool
RELIGION:
person1: god made everything
person2: ok
Post a Comment