Britain, Evolution doubts grow...

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by Thor

This is what is most frustrating, I know you don't believe Evolution isn't true or something we should doubt.

I do think that the evolution theory as it is commonly understood is not complete, and I think we have a long way to go about understanding it to the point where we can claim it as fact.

The Law of Gravity on the other hand, I think we are a lot closer on.

I think the real difference between our positions is that I realize we don't know everything there is to know, and you are trying to claim that we do with 100% certainty.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by photon

If they didn't keep poking their nose in it'd be easy to ignore them. It's hard to ignore them though when they start lawsuits and try to have laws changed.



Because they wield enough political power that it impacts everyone, not just themselves. If someone wants to sit in their house and say the sky is red, knock yourself out. But if a group wields enough political power to change the education system to teach the sky is blue OR red, to set scientific policy so that research into the sky is dissuaded because dogma makes research into other possible colours of the sky immoral, that impacts everyone.

Ignorant students make ignorant citizens. Less scientists, falling behind in technology.. technology is necessary to the survival and thriving of society now, without it we can't feed everyone, we can't help people that are sick. Scientific literacy is very important, anything that undermines that has to be looked at carefully.

Well, I guess you're more disturbed by the weak forrays into those arenas that have been made than I am. I know there was a big uproar here in Kansas about teaching creationism in school a couple of years ago. Everyone got all upset about it, but it was voted down. Logic and sanity prevailed.

I could be totally out to lunch on this, but aren't the numbers of the folks you are talking about decreasing?

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by photon

An interesting semi-topical post this morning by the Bad Astronomer:

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/ba...tic-etiquette/

http://twistedphysics.typepad.com/co...etiquette.html

As always, talking on a forum is difficult because so much of what makes good communication is lacking, so while a poster has to consider that, so should a reader.

What a great line from that post Photon....

"
Sometimes I think Michelle needs to believe in the supernatural, because she doesn’t really know how much there actually IS of the natural world to be dazzled by. No faith is required, just your own two eyes to see and hands to feel."

It goes not only for the stuff she talks about, but to me, it explores the realm of drug use as well. It's something I've never felt the desire to do and have always used the defense (if it can be called that) that I find my wonder in nature and don't need to 'expand my mind' as they like to say.

Thanks for sharing that link.

[photon]

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

Well, I guess you're more disturbed by the weak forrays into those arenas that have been made than I am. I know there was a big uproar here in Kansas about teaching creationism in school a couple of years ago. Everyone got all upset about it, but it was voted down. Logic and sanity prevailed.

Except that the same thing is now being repeated in other states as well, this year even. Eventually I think logic and sanity will prevail again, but that requires active intervention of the voices of logic and sanity. And the groups that are starting these things aren't going to stop, not in your or my lifetime anyway. They won't stop until there are so few left that everyone will see them in the exact same light as if someone was trying to have red sky theory introduced into the school system.

Unfortunately it's an ongoing struggle, and it can't be ignored, not yet anyway.

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

I could be totally out to lunch on this, but aren't the numbers of the folks you are talking about decreasing?

I don't know, worldwide I'd probably agree, but in the US? I'd like to think so, but we've talked about polls and how they're worded and measuring this kind of thing before.

Increasing or decreasing isn't as important as the question of what impact it has on society.

[octothorp]

Originally Posted by Rathji

I do think that the evolution theory as it is commonly understood is not complete, and I think we have a long way to go about understanding it to the point where we can claim it as fact.

The Law of Gravity on the other hand, I think we are a lot closer on.

I think the real difference between our positions is that I realize we don't know everything there is to know, and you are trying to claim that we do with 100% certainty.

I'm curious to know what you think is missing from the theory of evolution. It seems pretty complete and well understood to me, from the latest universal common ancestor (LUCA) down to the entire picture of life on the planet today.

What we don't know is the process behind how the first DNA-based life-forms came into being (and there are a number of competing hypothesis, the most likely of which involve different self-replicating nucleic acids). But the questionmarks around this initial creation of life shouldn't be carried over to the theory of evolution, because evolution was never intended as an answer to how life first came into being.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by photon

Except that the same thing is now being repeated in other states as well, this year even. Eventually I think logic and sanity will prevail again, but that requires active intervention of the voices of logic and sanity. And the groups that are starting these things aren't going to stop, not in your or my lifetime anyway. They won't stop until there are so few left that everyone will see them in the exact same light as if someone was trying to have red sky theory introduced into the school system.

Unfortunately it's an ongoing struggle, and it can't be ignored, not yet anyway.

I don't understand their motivation. If I were a person of faith I think I would want control of what is taught to my kid. If you give the schools the mandate to teach creationism you lose that control completely.

It seems like a very counterproductive endeavor.

[Cheese]

When we try to compare Creation vs Evolution we need to have something to compare it to.(This is not just about God did it, its how did God do it?) We know the basics of Evolution; Photon, myself and others have posted links and given the reasons behind the "theory". IF one intends to be a Creationist, Young Earth specifically, the following is what must be considered. It also behooves theists of all stripes on the Christian side of things to then take a stance on exactly what it is they believe. IF Im a Christian, which I was, I firmly believe that the bible is the word of God. If the Genesis account of things is NOT accurate in the mind of a Christian, then why is that they disagree with "some aspects of the bible", and agree on others? At what point does a Christian start thinking the line in the sand is nothing more than a mirage?

BCE= Before the Common or Christian Era

When was the universe created, the Creationists side of things.

Archbishop James Ussher: 22 October 4004 BCE

Young-Earth Creationists: 6000 - 10,000 years ago

Jehovah's Witnesses: 46,026 BCE

Old-Earth Creationists: Somewhere between 10,000 and 20 billion years

Catholic Church: The date cannot be determined from the bible. At least 200 dates have been suggested, varying from 3483 to 6934 years B.C.


The following is not the entire account and adds non Christian hypothesis to the Verses.

The Genesis Account:

1. The Genesis 1 creation account conflicts with the order of events that are known to science. In Genesis, the earth is created before light and stars, birds and whales before reptiles and insects, and flowering plants before any animals. The order of events known from science is just the opposite. 1:1-2:3
2. God creates light and separates light from darkness, and day from night, on the first day. Yet he didn't make the light producing objects (the sun and the stars) until the fourth day (1:14-19). And how could there be "the evening and the morning" on the first day if there was no sun to mark them? 1:3-5
3. God spends one-sixth of his entire creative effort (the second day) working on a solid firmament. This strange structure, which God calls heaven, is intended to separate the higher waters from the lower waters. 1:6-8
4. Plants are made on the third day before there was a sun to drive their photosynthetic processes (1:14-19). 1:11
5. God lets "the earth bring forth" the plants, rather than creating them directly. Maybe Genesis is not so anti-evolution after all. 1:11
6. In an apparent endorsement of astrology, God places the sun, moon, and stars in the firmament so that they can be used "for signs". This, of course, is exactly what astrologers do: read "the signs" in the Zodiac in an effort to predict what will happen on Earth. 1:14
7. God makes two lights: "the greater light [the sun] to rule the day, and the lesser light [the moon] to rule the night." But the moon is not a light, but only reflects light from the sun. And why, if God made the moon to "rule the night", does it spend half of its time moving through the daytime sky? 1:16
8. "He made the stars also." God spends a day making light (before making the stars) and separating light from darkness; then, at the end of a hard day's work, and almost as an afterthought, he makes the trillions of stars. 1:16
9. "And God set them [the stars] in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth." 1:17
10. In verse 11, God "let the earth bring forth" the plants. Now he has the earth "bring forth" the animals as well. So maybe the creationists have it all wrong. Maybe God created livings things through the process of evolution. 1:24
11. God gave humans dominion over every other living thing on earth. 1:26
12. God commands us to "be fruitful and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over ... every living thing that moveth upon the earth." 1:28
13. "I have given you every herb ... and every tree ... for meat." 1:29
14. All animals were originally herbivores. Tapeworms, vampire bats, mosquitoes, and barracudas -- all were strict vegetarians, as they were created by God. 1:30
15. "God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good." He purposefully designed a system that ensures the suffering and death of all his creatures, parasite and host, predator and prey. 1:31
16. In Genesis 1 the entire creation takes 6 days, but the universe is at least 12 billion years old, with new stars constantly being formed.1:31
17. Humans were not created instantaneously from dust and breath, but evolved over millions of years from simpler life forms. 2:7
18. After making the animals, God has Adam name them all. The naming of several million species must have kept Adam busy for a while. 2:18-22
19. God fashions a woman out of one of Adam's ribs.
    Because of this story, it was commonly believed (and sometimes it is still said today) that males have one less rib than females. When Vesalius showed in 1543 that the number of ribs was the same in males and females, it created a storm of controversy. 2:19

Should the above be taught in classrooms as Science? Would you want your child coming home and arguing with you that this is indeed fact?

[FlamesAddiction]

I think a lot of people don't understand evolution and that there are several different modes and mechanisms for it. People look at natural selection and point out that there are things "missing" from it and that it can't explain everything - and of course they are right.... but evolutionary biology is a lot more complex than just natural slection. Mutualism, co-evolution of organisms, and symbiosis are major mechanisms that people tend to overlook and explains many of the complexities. Here's a quick slide show that explains it: http://www.sumanasinc.com/webcontent...rganelles.html

I don't think evolution and spiritualism/religion are necessarily opposed though. They're apples and oranges as far as I'm concerned.

[Cheese]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

I think a lot of people don't understand evolution and that there are several different modes and mechanisms for it. People look at natural selection and point out that there are things "missing" from it and that it can't explain everything - and of course they are right.... but evolutionary biology is a lot more complex than just natural slection. Mutualism, co-evolution of organisms, and symbiosis are major mechanisms that people tend to overlook and explains many of the complexities. Here's a quick slide show that explains it: http://www.sumanasinc.com/webcontent...rganelles.html

I don't think evolution and spiritualism/religion are necessarily opposed though. They're apples and oranges as far as I'm concerned.

Not arguing with you here...but if religion and evolution arent opposed then how does one account for the Genesis story?

[photon]

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

I don't understand their motivation. If I were a person of faith I think I would want control of what is taught to my kid. If you give the schools the mandate to teach creationism you lose that control completely.

It seems like a very counterproductive endeavor.

I totally agree! It's only because the people pushing this are the dominant religion I guess.. would these same people be pushing for this if the addition to the science class was a creation story from some other religion?

But when one believes they are Right, that they have The Truth, I guess that kind of thought doesn't cross the mind.

[jammies]

Originally Posted by Rathji

I do think that the evolution theory as it is commonly understood is not complete, and I think we have a long way to go about understanding it to the point where we can claim it as fact.

This sounds like "I don't know what is wrong with the theory of evolution, but there must be something because it disagrees with how I'd like the world to work."

Doubt is a good thing, but used selectively it is just another way to close the mind by doubting only that which challenges one's convictions. That isn't intellectual freedom, that is being ruled by indoctrination. Freedom is where you put a different interpretation upon facts, not where they are rejected as being suspect because they don't fit into a pre-existing interpretation you've inherited from whatever authority guides your thinking.

There is a superficially modern idea that one's "opinion" is as valid as anyone else's even when it is directly contradicted by fact. This is evil and needs to be vigorously opposed. If your opinion is based on what you believe as opposed to what is known to be true, you aren't "different" or "steadfast" or "alternative" or "pious", you are just... wrong.

[TheDragon]

Originally Posted by Cheese

Not arguing with you here...but if religion and evolution arent opposed then how does one account for the Genesis story?

Speaking personally (and as someone who doesn't necessarily label himself a Christian,) I've always thought of writings in Genesis as being the metaphor for how the universe was created and life began on earth, written at a time when human thought was very primative, and describing things in scientifically accurate terms would have been impossible. I'm someone who never thought the Bible of being the absolute word of God, but rather what mankind has assembled in our understanding of God. The same goes for the Qur'an, the Torah, the Kabbalah, whatever your favorite flavour is.

I don't see why Science and Religion, or perhaps Spirituality would be a more accurate term, cannot coexist in entirely different realms of human understanding.

Granted, I'm not saying I believe in the teachings of Genesis. I'm just saying, it could just be a metaphor, perhaps one with a few mistakes, but none the less, a metaphor.

[Phaneuf3]

I read up to about page 3 with everyone talking about a comparison to gravity. So forgive me if these aren't new ideas to this thread or if the conversation's moved far past this already.

Until there's more work done on unified field theory and such, I don't think we completely understand gravity either. So saying: "I don't think we know everything there is to know about gravity" doesn't make me some ass backwards, bible thumping, science denying, hillbilly redneck that is so desperately in need of Thor's help to educate me.

This is essentially the parallel I drew from the original post's survey question. I interpreted it as "Do we have a complete and perfect understanding of evolution?". To me, there's a clear answer to that question: no. To answer otherwise is a frightening mix of ignorance and arrogance. The second half of the question the article posed is dangerously loaded making it not a simple yes or no question. But of course a journalist will pick up on that and use it to stir up controversy and sell more papers.



Also, trying to lump anyone that says that we don't have a complete understanding of evolution in with the young earth creationists is one of the most ludicrous straw man arguments I've ever seen.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Cheese

Not arguing with you here...but if religion and evolution arent opposed then how does one account for the Genesis story?

Not everyone who believes in a higher power believes in the story of Genesis.

Every once in a while, new scientific discoveries change the way we understand the world. When something in science is proven false, it doesn't undo every scientific theory we have. The same thing is true with religion imo.

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by octothorp

I'm curious to know what you think is missing from the theory of evolution. It seems pretty complete and well understood to me, from the latest universal common ancestor (LUCA) down to the entire picture of life on the planet today.

What we don't know is the process behind how the first DNA-based life-forms came into being (and there are a number of competing hypothesis, the most likely of which involve different self-replicating nucleic acids). But the questionmarks around this initial creation of life shouldn't be carried over to the theory of evolution, because evolution was never intended as an answer to how life first came into being.

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.

[Finny61]

I think it was Cheese who wanted to know how a religious person could intertwine the Bible with science. Really they can blend. Your interpretation is that the Bible is God's own words, a lot of powers that be in the church will tell you that too. For me and many friends of mine, the Bible is MAN's Interpretation of what God says or inspired word of God is another popular sentence. Many of the old testament books are treated more metaphorically then the New Testament minus Revelations which is wide open ballpark to skepticism.

For me the Genesis book is very relevant and so is our discoveries in science.

1. God created the world in days, 1 at a time. Whose to say this means an actual 24 hour day, 1 day could mean 1,000 or 100,000, or 1,000,000 million years.

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?

Personally I believe there is room for both and I accept the religious belief with the advances in science. 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.

[Cheese]

Originally Posted by Finny61

I think it was Cheese who wanted to know how a religious person could intertwine the Bible with science. Really they can blend. Your interpretation is that the Bible is God's own words, a lot of powers that be in the church will tell you that too. For me and many friends of mine, the Bible is MAN's Interpretation of what God says or inspired word of God is another popular sentence. Many of the old testament books are treated more metaphorically then the New Testament minus Revelations which is wide open ballpark to skepticism.

For me the Genesis book is very relevant and so is our discoveries in science.

1. God created the world in days, 1 at a time. Whose to say this means an actual 24 hour day, 1 day could mean 1,000 or 100,000, or 1,000,000 million years.

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?

Personally I believe there is room for both and I accept the religious belief with the advances in science. 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.

Again, Im not trying to change your belief or belief system, but where do you actually get the idea that the Bible is metaphoric? Whose interpretation is that?
In your first paragraph you say "the Bible is MAN's Interpretation of what God says or inspired word of God".

Does it say anywhere within this context that you or your fellow Christians are to take the Bible metaphorically, or further where does it suggest you can "read into" the text what you see as the real meaning? IF its the inspired word of God isnt that the same thing as the word of God?
Re your first point on a day being a year or a million years...Im sorry I just dont buy that...thats taking the easy way out of a conversation...much like "hedidit" so it must be true.
I think the facts are, as science proves anything, theists must change their specific choice to fit the ideals they have laid out for themselves or be faced with ridicule. I dont think many Christians would have bought into your theories just 30 or 40 years ago. You would have been labelled a heretic a 100 years ago or so.
The facts are...science is changing the way people see belief systems. As people become more and more educated, belief in a God becomes needless.

[Finny61]

Buddy everything changes, religion, science, society, culture. Religion tends to adjust to society changing, the Christian church 100 years ago is nothing like what it is today because people today wouldn't find those old traditions accessible. It's about finding new ways to teach the Word without destroying the historical message which is the story of Christ. That would be the Christian side, any other religious party would enter in their own belief system into the above.

[photon]

Originally Posted by Phaneuf3

Until there's more work done on unified field theory and such, I don't think we completely understand gravity either. So saying: "I don't think we know everything there is to know about gravity" doesn't make me some ass backwards, bible thumping, science denying, hillbilly redneck that is so desperately in need of Thor's help to educate me.

I think someone's already said in this thread that we understand gravity far less than we understand evolution in some ways.

We know that the current theory of gravity is flawed, there are tons of observations which demonstrate that.

The parallels to gravity are just useful because people don't have the same kind of emotional reaction when talking about theories coming and going as they do with respect to the diversity of life.

Originally Posted by Phaneuf3

This is essentially the parallel I drew from the original post's survey question. I interpreted it as "Do we have a complete and perfect understanding of evolution?". To me, there's a clear answer to that question: no. To answer otherwise is a frightening mix of ignorance and arrogance.

I don't think you can draw that from the question, since the question ends "so the intervention of a designer is needed at key stages". This question doesn't seem to be about the completeness of the theory, it's explicitly about an agent (God) outside the evolutionary process.

Originally Posted by Phaneuf3

The second half of the question the article posed is dangerously loaded making it not a simple yes or no question. But of course a journalist will pick up on that and use it to stir up controversy and sell more papers.

"God created the world sometime in the last 10,000 years", that's a yes or no (well true or false) question, how could you make that more simple?

Originally Posted by Phaneuf3

Also, trying to lump anyone that says that we don't have a complete understanding of evolution in with the young earth creationists is one of the most ludicrous straw man arguments I've ever seen.

Of course, but I didn't see that going on anywhere.

[John Doe]

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

I feel that there is a bit of confusion in this thread as to what laws are versus what theories are. My interpretation is that laws are presuppositions or axioms that are accepted as fact. Theories are interpreted from these laws. For example, mathematical theory is based on a set of premises or axioms from which we derive theorems. One example is 1+1=2. This is a theorem derived from the mathematical axioms or laws. It can be proven and is accepted as a mathematical fact, but it is not nor never will be a law.

If a theory doesn’t fit into a system, we can either reject the theory (eg: 1+1=10 is false) or we can add new laws (1+1=10 if we are adding the binary system of writing numbers as a law), or we can reject some/all of the laws. The last option is rarely used as in most likely will destroy your system.

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