Britain, Evolution doubts grow...

[photon]

Originally Posted by Finny61

2. God molded Adam in his own image, Eve was created from Adam. Why can't evolution still exist with this biblical statement? Can 'molded' not be the evolutionary chain from where we started whatever that be (a cell) to a human?

Sure.. though God appears to have done it in such a way that it appears 100% completely natural with mistakes, dead ends, and all that kind of thing.

To me that isn't the kind of message of God that I'd want to represent, as I said before I'd prefer a God that got it all right at the beginning of the universe, rather a God that's had to prod and correct things as time went by.

Originally Posted by Finny61

They can go hand in hand even if evolution one day becomes 100% fact it doesn't change the faith aspect. Ultimately the reason why there is struggle in teaching is that it is so wide open to discussion and firm answers can't be given and that's where the disagreements are coming out.

That 100% fact thing has come and past. The fact of evolution (changes in frequency of alleles in a population over time) is established as much as drop something and it falls is established. The theory of evolution is as well supported as any theory we have for anything; it's the foundation of modern biology.

[photon]

Originally Posted by John Doe

Hi all, I am a first time poster after having lurked on this site for a long time,

Welcome!

Originally Posted by John Doe

Theories are interpreted from these laws. For example, mathematical theory is based on a set of premises or axioms from which we derive theorems.

I think though it's important to know that how math uses these terms and how science uses them is different. In math you can prove something; in science there's no such thing as proof for example.

Otherwise I follow.

Originally Posted by John Doe

The problem that I see in this and other threads like it is that you all have different laws that you accept as the basis for your systems of knowledge. Some of you accept logic, the scientific method, the laws of physics, etc. as your base axioms. Others have the additional law that there is a God who created the world as we know it, while others may have even more laws (eg: the Bible is the word of God and he created the world literally as it says in the bible).

The problem here is that the axioms science uses are derived from observation and interaction with reality (well most are, I take stuff like "I exist, you exist, we both observe the same reality" on faith but to do otherwise is pointless). The addition of "God created the world as we know it" is completely arbitrary and based on nothing but the desire to think it. I could just as easily put in a law that an invisible pink unicorn created the world last Tuesday as we know it.

Originally Posted by John Doe

For the first group mentioned, natural selection fits so well in their systems that many consider it a fact. For the latter group, not so much. Now they can either reject natural selection, add new laws (Gods “days” are not the same as what we consider days to be now), or they can reject some of their laws. Of course this would be difficult to do, as it would undermine their whole system of belief. Therefore, they conclude that natural selection must be wrong.

I agree, to avoid cognitive dissonance they have to do as you say, makes sense.

Originally Posted by John Doe

I don’t think that there will ever be a consensus on what the "facts" are until you can agree on what the laws are.

That makes sense. Some adhere to the idea that the Bible is the inerrant Word of God and that every letter is to be taken 100% literally (hence the 6000 years from genealogies), so to get to the point of accepting evolution they would have to change or abandon their "law of inerrancy", either by allowing for mythical interpretations of some portions, or abandoning inerrancy altogether.

And a lot of people aren't going to change their laws.

So focus on the kids and hope for a better result the next generation then?

[photon]

Originally Posted by Rathji

If the theory of evolution does not include how life started, then how is it that it exists in a manner that is mutually exclusive of creationism which is explaining how life started.

To me it is all the same thing.

Well the theory of how life started is called abiogenesis, to which there are a few hypothesis currently. Scientists are looking for a natural explanation for abiogenesis.

This gets to the "God of the gaps" idea of putting God into whatever gap currently exists in understanding.

Example: Diversity of life by God's creation, evolution is discovered and explains diversity of life, so God is moved back to the point of first life. Abiogenesis is discovered and it's shown how life first started by natural process, so God is moved back to the start of the universe. Some theory demonstrates that the universe is one of millions, so God is moved back to the creation of the manifold of universes.. etc etc..

Kind of puts God in a box IMO.

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by photon

Well the theory of how life started is called abiogenesis, to which there are a few hypothesis currently. Scientists are looking for a natural explanation for abiogenesis.

So it is separate from evolution? That doesn't make any sense to me.

Evolution is a recursive sequence, that is at every step of the chain what we have is defendant upon what we had in the previous step. So you start at humans and work your way backwards until you get to the origin of life. Then once you are at the origin of life, in order to prove the whole thing, you need to prove that base case.

I am a computer guy, so that's how I think. I realize that with the natural sciences that base case isn't required but without it I am surprised that the lack of creation (or its impossibility) can be considered a certainty without that last building block.

[Cheese]

Originally Posted by Rathji

So it is separate from evolution? That doesn't make any sense to me.

Evolution is a recursive sequence, that is at every step of the chain what we have is defendant upon what we had in the previous step. So you start at humans and work your way backwards until you get to the origin of life. Then once you are at the origin of life, in order to prove the whole thing, you need to prove that base case.

I am a computer guy, so that's how I think. I realize that with the natural sciences that base case isn't required but without it I am surprised that the lack of creation (or its impossibility) can be considered a certainty without that last building block.

Rathji...is your version of creation typical to the Genesis account, or does it differ in some way?

[photon]

Originally Posted by Rathji

So it is separate from evolution? That doesn't make any sense to me.

Evolution speaks to how life changes over time, in order for life to change there has to be life in the first place.

Evolution is descent with modification, to go from a combination of chemicals and such to a self-replicating molecule isn't evolution, since there's no descent and no modification, it's something else. The first step.

Many of the components of evolution simply don't apply in that first step, so it's a different theory.

Originally Posted by Rathji

Evolution is a recursive sequence, that is at every step of the chain what we have is defendant upon what we had in the previous step. So you start at humans and work your way backwards until you get to the origin of life. Then once you are at the origin of life, in order to prove the whole thing, you need to prove that base case.

Not really, evolution doesn't depend on any specific method of abiogenesis. Could be chemicals in the early earth, could be aliens, could be God, from evolution's point of view it doesn't really matter.

Originally Posted by Rathji

I am a computer guy, so that's how I think. I realize that with the natural sciences that base case isn't required but without it I am surprised that the lack of creation (or its impossibility) can be considered a certainty without that last building block.

What do you mean the lack or impossibility of creation? Evolution isn't a theory about how life began, so it doesn't say anything about creation or the lack thereof. Evolution is about the diversity of existing life. I guess it removes the necessity of special creation back to the point of first life, but that building block of abiogenesis isn't a component of evolution.

[driveway]

Originally Posted by Rathji

So it is separate from evolution? That doesn't make any sense to me.

Evolution describes how life acts once it is already in existence. It has nothing to say about how life came to be in the first place.

Evolution is a recursive sequence, that is at every step of the chain what we have is defendant upon what we had in the previous step. So you start at humans and work your way backwards until you get to the origin of life. Then once you are at the origin of life, in order to prove the whole thing, you need to prove that base case.

This is a very simplistic and, in several fundamental ways, inaccurate description of the way evolution acts. Unlike a chain of logic, evolutionary theory does not hinge on a 'base case'. You could start at any point and observe evolution spreading in both directions.

It's important to recognize that evolution is not a steady progression upwards to greater levels of development and complexity. Evolution is better thought of as an increase in diversity with no inherent drive towards 'improvement' or increase in complexity.

the lack of creation (or its impossibility) can be considered a certainty without that last building block.

Evolution is not inconsistent with the idea of a supernatural creator. However, all major theologies and creation myths are largely inconsistent with the idea of evolution.

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by photon

What do you mean the lack or impossibility of creation? Evolution isn't a theory about how life began, so it doesn't say anything about creation or the lack thereof. Evolution is about the diversity of existing life. I guess it removes the necessity of special creation back to the point of first life, but that building block of abiogenesis isn't a component of evolution.

The OP, among others, claimed that people were idiots for thinking creation was a viable option as to what happened. Since he is clearly basing his opinion on what he views as fact, it would mean that creation is impossible.

Originally Posted by driveway

Evolution is not inconsistent with the idea of a supernatural creator. However, all major theologies and creation myths are largely inconsistent with the idea of evolution.

But people are idiots if they believe in creationism ( according to the OP ) even though, according to the things said in this thread, there is no evidence which excludes it as a possibility?

I personally think that the 2 concepts can exist in perfect logical harmony, that is, I don't think belief in one excludes belief in the other.

[driveway]

Originally Posted by Rathji

But people are idiots if they believe in creationism ( according to the OP ) even though, according to the things said in this thread, there is no evidence which excludes it as a possibility?

I think the intent of the OP is that people are idiots if they don't accept that evolution occurs. It's all well and good for a person to believe that a god of some kind or other kicked everything off, but to deny that evolution takes place requires a certain degree of willful ignorance.

Also, for the record, I think the... vehemence of the OP is somewhat pointless, though the frustration brought on by the stubborn intransigence of fundamentalists (not to accuse anyone in this thread of being such) is something I understand.

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by Rathji

But people are idiots if they believe in creationism ( according to the OP ) even though, according to the things said in this thread, there is no evidence which excludes it as a possibility?

Well I'd argue that evolution DOES give evidence that creationism didn't occur.

I mean as mentioned, evolution dosn't explain the origins of life, but it does show the growth of the life on the planet (along with other sciences that show the age and change and development of the planet itself)

There IS significant evidence that the earth is NOT 5000-10000 years old, man DIDN'T live with dinosaurs, all beings of life DID NOT appear simultaneously, etc.

Many creation stories or creationism beliefs have been disproved quite soundly.

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by Daradon

Many creation stories or creationism beliefs have been disproved quite soundly.

Of course, but that does not mean that there was not creation.

[Cheese]

Originally Posted by Rathji

The OP, among others, claimed that people were idiots for thinking creation was a viable option as to what happened. Since he is clearly basing his opinion on what he views as fact, it would mean that creation is impossible.



But people are idiots if they believe in creationism ( according to the OP ) even though, according to the things said in this thread, there is no evidence which excludes it as a possibility?

I personally think that the 2 concepts can exist in perfect logical harmony, that is, I don't think belief in one excludes belief in the other.

Creationism a possibility?
I posted the Genesis account and asked if thats the version you believe in. If its not Id like to know what version of the creation story you are trying to get us to understand? We are very open about our beliefs, is it not contingent on the theist to also post his or hers? Seriously, you cant just keep throwing creation against the wall without someone calling you on your theory? Which creation story is it...dont beat around the bush.

[photon]

Originally Posted by Rathji

The OP, among others, claimed that people were idiots for thinking creation was a viable option as to what happened. Since he is clearly basing his opinion on what he views as fact, it would mean that creation is impossible.

He's talking about creation of things as they are less than 10,000 years ago, you're talking about (I think) the possibility of God sparking life 3.5 billion years ago and then letting it evolve, totally different things.

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by Rathji

Of course, but that does not mean that there was not creation.

Never said that there wasn't. Heck even the term itself is true no matter what you believe in, divine intervention or no.

But it DOES mean creationism is a farce and probably shouldn't be taught in schools.

[Cheese]

Texas is ready to join the world on Evolution.

After two days of heated debate, the board made a key vote Friday in favor of dropping a mandate that teachers address both "strengths and weaknesses" of scientific theory.

Critics of the "weaknesses" language argue that watering down the teaching standards of origin of man is an attempt to promote creationism in public schools.

Critics of the proposal to drop the mandate blame "left-wing ideology" for trying to stifle free speech.

[Cheese]

A US based poll.

One in eight high school biology teachers are teaching creationism as a valid scientific alternative to evolution,

about one in six teachers still believe humans were created by God within the last 10,000 years. These teachers spend 35 percent fewer hours on evolution than other teachers do.

Teachers with a stronger background in science, however—especially those who have taken a course in evolutionary biology—spend 60 percent more class time on evolution than those with the weakest science backgrounds.

[Cheese]

A U.K. Poll

Twenty-nine per cent of teachers believe that creationism and intelligent design should be taught as science, according to an online survey of attitudes to teaching evolution in the UK.

Thirty-one per cent of respondents and 18% of the 248 science teachers in the sample said they thought creationism or intelligent design should be given the same status as evolution in the classroom, although this question did not specify whether it was referring to science lessons or the curriculum in general. Twenty-two respondents said they had been pressured to teach creationism or intelligent design by their school.

[Cheese]

A Canadian poll

Roughly three-in-five adults in Canada side with the theory of evolution, according to a poll by Angus Reid Strategies. 58 per cent of respondents believe human beings evolved from less advanced life forms over millions of years.

Conversely, 22 per cent of respondents think God created human beings in their present form within the last 10,000 years, while 20 per cent are not sure.

In November 2000, Canadian Alliance leader Stockwell Day—who currently serves as Canada’s public safety minister—said there is "scientific proof" that early man co-existed with dinosaurs.

The poll suggests Canadians divide in essentially three groups on the issue of creation: 34 per cent of those polled said humans developed over millions of years under a process guided by God; 26 per cent said God created humans alone within the last 10,000 years or so; and 29 per cent said they believe evolution occurred with no help from God.

The findings suggest the least educated were most likely to be creationists, as were respondents living in rural Canada.
Among respondents without a high-school diploma, 37 per cent said they believed God alone created humans less than 10,000 years ago, whereas only 15 per cent of university-educated respondents were strict creationists.
Rural respondents also had a plurality who believed in strict creationism at 34 per cent, whereas only 22 per cent of urban dwellers said they believed God alone created humans.

[Cheese]

An Evolution Primer for Creationists


Myth #3: Evolution is just a theory.

First of all, if you believe that most biologists consider evolution to be "just a theory", you're behind the times. Almost all biologists call it a fact, and not because they feel any particular need to respond to creationists.
Second, when creationists try to put evolution down by dismissing it as "just a theory", they're actually acknowledging its scientific validity. To understand why, it's necessary to understand exactly what a theory is. When creationists use the term to disparage evolution, they really should be using the word hypothesis. A hypothesis is a provisional idea, a suggested explanation that requires validation. Evolution is well beyond that stage, though; even the staunchest anti-evolution creationists assign evolution the much higher status of theory.
In order to qualify as a theory, evolution had to meet the following criteria:

• A theory must originate from, and be well supported by, experimental evidence. It must be supported by many strands of evidence, and not just a single foundation.
• A theory must be specific enough to be falsifiable by testing. If it cannot be tested or refuted, it can't qualify as a theory.
• A theory must make specific, testable predictions about things not yet observed.
• A theory must allow for changes based on the discovery of new evidence. It must be dynamic, tentative, and correctable.

and finally...giving away our arguments..

How to Argue with a Creationist

[Nage Waza]

Anyone who disputes evolution clearly has no idea what evolution is. Perhaps they can investigate why we have two bones in our forearm, which evolved from the first creatures that crawled out of the water. Basically every land creature has two bones where their forearm is. Then they can investigate why our DNA carries throughout all of those same creatures, from mice to whales. At that point they can start investigating why your DNA is part of your parents. I can go on and on (LITERALLY) on assorted aspects of evolution that seem to 'prove' it is fact, yet because of the nature of evolution itself, it is very hard to test. A theory then, since you can't easily test it alone, and the components of it are so widespread.
The most basic evolutionary experiment would be to force humans to have headbutt contests to see who can reproduce. After about three generations of this, we would see people with bigger and more powerful heads. Go for a million years, and we would have horns or something wacky like that. This is basically what evolution is about, a feature that allowed a species to survive is passed on and can improve with successive generations.