Was Darwin Wrong?

[5stringJeff]

You wrote that evolution and creation "science" are in the same boat when it comes to provability, because we can't reproduce evolution on a grand scale. I disagree--I think the small-scale ways in which we see evolution work (e.g. moths evolving their colors to match sooty cities, pigeons evolving in city environments, dog breeding--remember that all dogs came from a single wolf-like creature and now look different simply by selective breeding) combined with the breathtakingly detailed and consistent evidence of the distribution of species (Darwin's evidence), the equally breathtaking evidence in the fossil record (which accords perfectly with radiocarbon dating, all sorts of geologic dating, etc.), and finally the equally breathtaking evidence from genetics (we share 98% of our genes with chimps and an amazing percentage with plants, for example) provides adequate support for evolution and the unity of life from all sides. But even if someone doesn't accept all this evidence as absolute proof, he/she still has a ton of work to do to propose an alternate theory. Simply saying "God made it" doesn't count as a scientific-type explanation, since there are millions of specific details to be explained.

Intellegent Design advocates point out several flaws in evolutionary theory that make the case that the universe, and life, must have been created. Among these are the Precambrian Explosion in the fossil record, the concept of irreducable complexity in cells... I could go on for a long time, but frankly, I have to use the bathroom. More to follow.

 

[Mariner]

seek problematic areas in any scientific theory--that's fine. It seems a little odd, though, for the current ID people to pick on the pre-Cambrian explosion. Does that mean that they're essentially admitting that all evolution up to that point was fine, and all evolution after that point was fine? There's a perfectly clear evolutionary pathway--the explosion simply represented a time period in which large numbers of new phyla appeared in the record. I don't seee that as particularly hard to explain (I think we already discussed it above). But the bigger point is that simply finding an area in a theory you're not happy with doesn't entitle you to toss the entire thing until you have another testable theory which accounts for at least as many facts as the first. ID doesn't work for that--it can't be falsified.

Mariner.

 

[sagegirl]

It is undeniable that man has evolved to a certain degree. But evolutionists have found their holy grail to be elusive. They have never established that link between man and the apes.

Without getting long-winded about it, in order to buy into the evolutionist theory in full you have to believe:

1. That the universe was created by the explosion of a huge ball of gas. There's no explanation of the origin of that ball of gas, it just happened to be there. When it exploded, suns, moons and planets condensed and ordered themselves magically.

2. The earth was simply an aggregate of rock. It had no water, no atmosphere and no life. Yet somehow oceans formed - either from the solid rock or from ice. (I guess the ice came from that same gas cloud).

3. Over time, the oceans (which formed from either rock or ice on a planet which accidentally formed out of wandering rocks created by an explosion of a huge ball of gas ball which came out of nowhere) created an atmosphere.

4. Somehow, in this sterile and lifeless hunk of space junk some sort of single celled fungus took life. (No clue how that happened. Maybe the planet got athlete's foot or crotch rot.)

5. That slimy, single celled fungus evolved eventually into man.


What I do not understand is how any thinking person can look upon the function of the human hand, or admire the artitistic products of the human mind, or walk into a forest and wonder at the complexity of life or gaze into the heavens at the majesty of the universe and still deny the existence of a Creator.

Ball of gas indeed.

Not a huge ball of gas, A SINGULARITY.....and no we cant go back beyond that and it doesnt matter ......its just like the existence of a Creator...who created God, (it could be said we did,) but it doesnt matter either.
You explanation of the evolution of matter and the universe, and life are scientifically incorrect, if you want to debate an issue it is always best to know your opponents talking points.....you totally lack any credibility on this.

 

[jody]

to come up with a theory that contradicts the whole christian chuch in a time when christianity was science and england was ruled by the church, obviously had some truth, to deniy it is intellectual naivity

 

[Mariner]

first books on the subject were so convincing that the majority of Christian scientists immediately gave up the idea of reading the Bible literally on this subject. That's why I keep encouraging doubters here to pick up Darwin for themselves.

We also should remember that there already were 1000 years when the West took the Bible literally--it was called the Dark Ages, and I'm wondering exactly how many people here are ready to return to it? If the Pope said you couldn't see it through a telescope then you'd better stop believing your eyes.

The history of Christianity retreating from its beliefs in physics, chemistry, earth science, astronomy, biology and medicine is very long and very unidirectional. In medicine, the kidney was the last stand of the vitalists--they simply couldn't believe that the astonishing power of the kidney to filter blood into urine was possible via biochemistry alone--it stood as evidence of God.

It's also quite inconsistent for ID supporters to accept the findings of science in thousands of areas where earlier Christian beliefs have been found untenable while rejecting it in one theory within one discipline. Cherry-picking evolutionists' own internal arguments as a way of trying to pull down the whole theory is also intellectually unsound--since none of the scientists whose work is cherry-picked disbelieves evolution.

ID supporters may also want to take a look at the backgrounds and histories of the "scientists" who support ID. It's quite clear that most are fundamentalist Christians first and "scientists" second.

What's so bad anyway about being evolved? I don't see that this has to negate morality in any way at all.

Mariner

 

[Isaac Brock]

You wrote that evolution and creation "science" are in the same boat when it comes to provability, because we can't reproduce evolution on a grand scale. I disagree--I think the small-scale ways in which we see evolution work (e.g. moths evolving their colors to match sooty cities, pigeons evolving in city environments, dog breeding--remember that all dogs came from a single wolf-like creature and now look different simply by selective breeding) combined with the breathtakingly detailed and consistent evidence of the distribution of species (Darwin's evidence), the equally breathtaking evidence in the fossil record (which accords perfectly with radiocarbon dating, all sorts of geologic dating, etc.), and finally the equally breathtaking evidence from genetics (we share 98% of our genes with chimps and an amazing percentage with plants, for example) provides adequate support for evolution and the unity of life from all sides. But even if someone doesn't accept all this evidence as absolute proof, he/she still has a ton of work to do to propose an alternate theory. Simply saying "God made it" doesn't count as a scientific-type explanation, since there are millions of specific details to be explained.

Just having "a feeling" that evolution doesn't make sense also doesn't count as science. Many people have "feelings" that turn out not to make sense. Science is unbelievably counterintuitive. Remember, everyone use to feel it was obvious that the earth couldn't be round. What idiots those scientists who couldn't see that you'd just fall off the other side!

Mariner.

Indeed Mariner, I don't dispute your facts. However, let us not forget one of the more important tenents of the scientific process. For a scientific theory to be validated it must be reproducable. Until that, it is just a thoery, however convincing it may be. We cannot, as of yet, reproduce the mass changes attributed to evolution. However, nor can Creationists.

Remember Columbus found America to support he claim the Earth was round. We do not have that similar luxury.

 

[Mariner]

Isaac--there are theories in some areas of science that can't be tested in certain ways. For example, we can't do any experiments with black holes, or the Big Bang, or even with many geologic processes such as plate tectonics. Evolution is in a similar boat. So what we do in those cases is build up evidence from every possible direction until our hypothesis seems airtight. The evolution of humans and every other living creature on this earth is supported by millions of pieces of evidence from dozens of separate subfields of science. With such a giant number of facts fitting together beautifully, its truth is hard to question. But those who want to question it scientifically (rather than religiously) need to present an alternate explanation for all those millions of facts--many of which are testable and reproducible, e.g. the idea that DNA mutates and that mutations are passed on to offspring. The basic mechanism of evolution can be observed at work every day. Consider penicillin, which used to cure nearly every infectious disease, but now can be used for only one or two. Why? Because bacteria evolved resistance--and then continue to evolve resistance to every one of a dozen generations of antibiotics developed since penicillin. This type of "arms race" drives the development of all sorts of evolutionary oddities. If our lifespans were a few million years, then we'd be able to observe larger creatures around us evolve in "real time." But of course the Theory of Evolution, among other things, explains our short lifespans as necessary in order for evolution itself to work. That's the type of power a really good theory brings to science.

I also notice that no one here has responded to my corollary question--if you, as Christians, would like to teach a Christian version of ID in schools, then don't I have an equal right, as a Hindu, to teach my Hindu version? Once you open that box, then it's pretty obvious that Christian mythology is going to end up with Greek, Aztec, Egyptian etc. mythology in a class on world mythologies. Wouldn't it be better just to teach your version in Sunday school, and leave biology to the biology teacher?

Mariner.

 

[dilloduck]

Isaac--there are theories in some areas of science that can't be tested in certain ways. For example, we can't do any experiments with black holes, or the Big Bang, or even with many geologic processes such as plate tectonics. Evolution is in a similar boat. So what we do in those cases is build up evidence from every possible direction until our hypothesis seems airtight. The evolution of humans and every other living creature on this earth is supported by millions of pieces of evidence from dozens of separate subfields of science. With such a giant number of facts fitting together beautifully, its truth is hard to question. But those who want to question it scientifically (rather than religiously) need to present an alternate explanation for all those millions of facts--many of which are testable and reproducible, e.g. the idea that DNA mutates and that mutations are passed on to offspring. The basic mechanism of evolution can be observed at work every day. Consider penicillin, which used to cure nearly every infectious disease, but now can be used for only one or two. Why? Because bacteria evolved resistance--and then continue to evolve resistance to every one of a dozen generations of antibiotics developed since penicillin. This type of "arms race" drives the development of all sorts of evolutionary oddities. If our lifespans were a few million years, then we'd be able to observe larger creatures around us evolve in "real time." But of course the Theory of Evolution, among other things, explains our short lifespans as necessary in order for evolution itself to work. That's the type of power a really good theory brings to science.

I also notice that no one here has responded to my corollary question--if you, as Christians, would like to teach a Christian version of ID in schools, then don't I have an equal right, as a Hindu, to teach my Hindu version? Once you open that box, then it's pretty obvious that Christian mythology is going to end up with Greek, Aztec, Egyptian etc. mythology in a class on world mythologies. Wouldn't it be better just to teach your version in Sunday school, and leave biology to the biology teacher?

Mariner.

I'm aware that you are concerned about equal rights in schools so does this desire extend to other areas of knowledge? Are all schools to be forced to teach the very same thing in the very same way as other federally funded schools? That's a pretty large box to open also !