Why can't we question science
I just saw Ben Stein’s “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed” last night and felt compelled to share a little about the movie and my thoughts. I know this is completely off topic from my typical blog posts, but hey, it’s my blog. For those who have not heard of the movie, Ben Stein provides commentary and interviews various scientists and philosophers from around academia regarding Darwinism, Intelligent Design and the effort by the pro Darwinian scientific community to exclude any debate and research that runs counter to classic evolutionary theory that all life evolved from non living material into a single cell into today’s spectrum of life on earth.
Here is the trailer to give you a very brief overview of the movie. The basic function of natural science is to question how and why things work and then to try and find an answer but in the case of evolution and Darwinism it seems like the scientific community, and to a large extend mainstream media, refuse to allow any questions or alternatives to be raised that counter Darwin’s ideas and theory.
Personally I do not belief in the traditional evolutionary theory that all life evolved from a single cell, that through some unknown process came to life, was able to survive, thrive, replicate, and eventually over time evolve into higher and higher life forms. I am not a biologist but I can grasp the basic complexity of a single cell and all the things that happens inside of that cell for life to happen. Essentially it is a mini factory that contains vast amounts of information (DNA) for sequencing proteins and manufacturing the various pieces of cellular structure for life and generation of other cells. Evolution requires us to believe that through some unknown process, various amino acids and other chemicals merged into a single cell that contained all sorts of information for functioning and reproducing.
How can something so complex happen by complete and random chance, even if given millions or billions of years? DNA is probably the most complex and compact information known to man, how does that happen by chance. If I took apart a computer piece by piece, placed all the pieces in a clothes dryer and turned it on tumble dry for a billion years would I end up with a fully assembled computer that also had vast amounts of legible and complex data stored on it’s hard drive? Why are we then expected to believe that is how we came about? How is it possible for the majority of the scientific community, and society as a whole to belief that outcome is possible yet reject any other options.
If evolution is true where does morality, ethics, compassion and justice come from? These are certainly not “physical” things, so how did they evolve? Why do humans exhibit these qualities when the rest of the physical living world does not? If everything evolved and natural selection (survival of the fittest) is the only guiding principle then who is to say what is right and what is wrong, everything should be relativistic, there should be no moral absolutes, the only “law” is the one I make that benefits my survival. If that is the cause why is murder wrong? Who could argue that murder is not right, it would simply be survival of the fittest, this person was stronger than that person, humanity would be no different than the animal kingdom. If evolution is true we are no better or different than animals, sure we look different but that is it. If evolution is true, there can be no moral absolutes (ie murder is wrong), if there are no moral absolutes who can say the Nazis where wrong. If Germany had won WWII would that mean they were right, only certain “desirable” people deserved to live? The thought repulses me to the core, and yet that is the slippery we must go down if we follow the path that Darwin started and society seems bent to accept and follow at face value.
The bigger question for me is why does society accept evolution and Darwinism? What is so appealing about it that makes people accept it without question, without considering alternatives, without thinking about the consequences and ultimate outcome of it. Are we just born, live, do what we want and then die? What is so scary about considering an alternative to that? What if we have a purpose? What if we go somewhere after we die? What if something or someone created life on earth? Is the answer to that question what scares society into evolution’s camp? What if we were created, what if there are moral absolutes that were programmed into us? What does that mean, that we answer to a higher power? Is that why science can not accept anything outside of evolution, because it would require humanity to acknowledge that we are not in complete control and yet something or someone else is? Is it a fear of religion, or possibly that if we were in fact created, that one religion is correct, that keeps us from considering anything other than evolution as the means of our origins.
My own personal beliefs are that the entire universe, the earth, and all living things were in fact created, by a loving omnipotent creator. I belief that science and religion are not necessarily contradictory but rather complimentary. When I look at the world around me, the wonders of nature, the complexity of things, I feel an overwhelming sense of awe and amazement. I am not some random chance that grew out of a pile of muck billions of years ago, I am fearfully and wonderfully made.
I respect the fact that everyone is entitled to their own opinions, that we do not all have to believe the same thing, we are free to make our own choices. All I ask it that you question current mainstream scientific thinking. Question your origins, do not accept at face value what a text book says, where it says you came from. Consider that science does not know everything and can not explain everything. Consider that belief in evolution, belief in the fantastic, virtually impossible odds of life occurring by random chance require as much or more faith and belief than belief in a greater power that created life.
Jun 30, 2008 at 10:01 AM
Where to start? For the record, I am a practicing Christian.
Do you live in America? I do, but blogs are international, so I just don't know. If you lived in America, you wouldn't be asking questions or making statements about why people don't stand up and question science in favor of religious sentiment, because we have A LOT of that! The number of people who don't believe in evolutionary science are in a minority, but get PLENTY of air time.
Questioning, skepticism, challenging - those are all very scientific things, and the scientific community, from what I see, welcome all of that. The problem is when religion gets taught in a science class, without reciprocal return. Can you imagine if a Catholic Priest was expected to say, before his sermon on a Sunday morning..."There is no proof of a God or an after life. All texts I will read from are thousands of years old, and do not exist in their original languages. We must consider that none of what we preach is true, and we are the result of random evolutionary jumps. Let us pray."
The Intelligent design (ID) people want to do the equivalent of THAT in a science class room.
Now, lets take a little look at what the ID folk ALSO believe - that the earth is about 3 thousand years old, that there were no dinosaurs, and that we were created, on earth, by a higher being. They go on to say that dinosaur fossils, etc, are a part of a vast scientific conspiracy, designed to make atheists of us all.
Stein, and all those who follow him, do a great job of cutting snippets of conversation from scientists and presenting them completely out of context - just look at the ones in this promo. And as for the instilling of fear - if you are a teach, student, scientist, don't WATCH this movie, or your life will be ruined? Seriously? He also throws in the obligatory "nazi" reference - aren't we done with that yet? The most shameful manner to present your case, and put down those that disagree with you is to go to Nazism early and often, I mean who can disagree with you, if you're going to be painted a Nazi? It IS sickening, and I mean that on all levels, like when people compare Bush to a Nazi - people must not know what the Nazi's actually did, when they make these comparisons.
Science and Religion SHOULD balance each other. You can point to Nazi Germany as Science without religion, and be correct. How about societies that rely on religion without science? Sure they may not have had the means to do the destruction that the Nazi's did, but there's room for plenty of repression and death, don't worry about that.
Each has its place - you want to believe in a religious theme to our lives, then great. You want to be an atheist scientific? Go for it. But, let science be taught in a science class room, and Religion be taught at Sunday school. Then, make your own mind up.
Cheers,
David
Jun 30, 2008 at 10:46 AM
Derrick,
You find it hard to believe that something so complex can happen by random change. Here is a quote from Jurassic Park, "No, I'm simply saying that life, uh... finds a way." I believe that Science and Religion are two roads that lead to the same place. Both Science and Religion were created to answer questions about things we don't understand. Maybe God's plan was evolution. I think it's just as easy to believe an all-knowing super being created us as it is to believe that maybe we created ourselves. Both ideas are very difficult to grasp. The answers exist where science and religion meet.
Michael
Jun 30, 2008 at 10:55 AM
Wow, that was a lot of questions. :)
I think I agree with you. Any belief is worth questioning; even if it is your own religion.
Thanks for the thoughts. And for the record, I am in favor of Intelligent Design and I do not think the dinosaurs are a vast conspiracy. In fact, I've never even heard of that before. What I do doubt sometimes is the methods with which we judge their age.
~Brad
Jun 30, 2008 at 11:22 AM
So what if God is like a super-hyper-smart systems architect that created a self-evolving system that changes itself over time? A system that is just "seeded" with basic simple elements and the rules are designed so that it keeps mutating until its complexity arrives to unimaginable levels of sophistication (i.e human body, plants, planets, etc) ? Given that religion teaches us that God is all powerful, all knowing, doesn't this sounds plausible? Why does evolution and creationism has to be an either/or problem?
Jun 30, 2008 at 11:37 AM
What is so appealing about it that makes people accept it without question, without considering alternatives, without thinking about the consequences and ultimate outcome of it.
-----------------------------------------------
I think that hits on the main problem with the Intelligent Design argument. People have come to accept evolution because for a couple centuries observed fact has supported it. And the moral, religious, or philosophical consequences of a theory simply don't have any bearing on the theory's scientific validity.
Fundamentally, intelligent design is about faith not science. And while I respect everyone's right to make choices about their personal faith, this effort is simply an attempt to cloak a prevelant religious belief in the guise of an alternative scientific theory.
Jun 30, 2008 at 11:38 AM
David, thanks for the comments. I live in Canada so I see and hear quite a bit from American media. Things like ID do get media attention but it seems like it is always negative, it never seems to be taken seriously, but rather pandered to and ultimately told to be quiet via the courts and threat of litigation. Where is the freedom in that.
Regarding the age of the earth and non-existence of dinosaurs, I believe the earth is approximately 6,000 years old (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4005.asp) and that dinosaurs did exist (maybe they even exist today in unreached places of Africa and the Amazon) (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/2.asp). I have never heard of the dinosaur conspiracy before, I'll have to read up on that.
I agree that science and religion should balance each other out, but current scientific process seems to want to completely rule and ignore any and all evidence if it points to a "religious" source or outcome. I'm not sure that religion should be taught in schools, how would you decide which ones to teach and which to not, besides it should be the parents job to teach their children their belief system, not entrust that to schools, but I do think that in cases where science and religion could fall in line with each other and point to each other (ie creation), that it should be at least presented as an alternative to evolution. Let the students evaluate the evidence and make a decision for themselves, but don't hide evidence just because it does not fall in line with what Darwinists belief. If educational systems are going to be truly successful they can't brainwash students in accepting the status quo, they should be teaching students to research, evaluate evidence, test hypothesis and form a conclusion. In science classes today, students are not given that opportunity in regards to the origins of life.
Ultimately I think science, when examined and viewed correctly points to a creator and religion (the Bible) points to science, and that the two can coexist and not be contradictory. God gave us the faculties to examine, study and appreciate His creation, but modern science has twisted the evidence and misused our faculties in an attempt to rule out God completely.
Jun 30, 2008 at 11:59 AM
Oscar,
Good question, I believe the answer is no, evolution and creation can not coexist. Yes God is all powerful, yes he is capable of doing what you said, but ... that's not what the Bible says. It clearly states in Genesis that God created the heavens and the earth, all the animals, the birds, fish, land creatures, he created man in his own image, in six days. It doesn't say he created a very intelligent organism that evolved over eons ( http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/couldnt-god-have-used-evolution ).
For people who believe in the Bible and it's literal translation, there is no way to shoe horn evolution into the biblical account of creation. People have tried and likely will continue to try as a way to reconcile religion and science but I think that only shortchanges both sides of the equation. For a bible believing creationist I think It is a slippery slope to take that view, because once it is taken, the entire foundation of your belief system is at risk. If you accept evolution into the creation account, which means accepting that Genesis is not accurate, where do you stop, you can't, and then you end up with liberal wishy washy sudo Christian beliefs which is unfortunately where many have ended up.
Jun 30, 2008 at 12:25 PM
Well stated, few in our culture of denial are brave enough to state the obvious conclusions you have made.
Thank God for your courage.
Jun 30, 2008 at 12:25 PM
Derrick,
You say that you believe the world is 6k years old, and scientists date dinosaur fossils to millions of years - thats your conspiracy right there. At least, thats how I saw it presented when an ID advocate got equal time. Are the Scientists lying? I can understand how carbon dating can be off by a certain percentage, but not millions of years. And its the same carbon dating that puts Newgrange (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newgrange) in Ireland (close to where I grew up) at 5000 years old. If carbon dating is wrong for dinosaur fossils, then its wrong for Newgrange, by the same amount.
Look, I think its quite right to question science - thats the very nature of science. But there needs to be a rational argument to present. And simply saying "its very complicated, and we don't understand it fully, therefore it MUST be the work of a higher being" doesn't cut it! You talk about "evidence" like there is any. The link you provided attempted to poke holes in existing science, yet offers none of its own, ending with the, quite lame, if it should be said "The Biblical time scale is much more likely". That there is the problem, there is no science provided. We take the bible on faith, and therefore it should viewed in that context. Faith. Religion. Belief. Not science.
As for "letting students decide" and "brainwashing". Look, its science class. There is an accepted standard of science, as understood by the VAST majority of scientists. It is the job of religion class to teach another view. THAT is how people are educated. Not by diluting what they actually DO learn. Again, can you imagine going to Sunday school and getting a disclaimer about God being a theory, never proven, before class begins? You can't call one education brainwashing, and not the other. Each presents their point of view.
David
Jun 30, 2008 at 12:49 PM
David,
Evolutionary biased scientists date dinosaurs at millions of years old. This http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4379577.stm is an article from a few years ago about blood cells being found in trex bones. The assumption is automatically made that the conditions must have been extraordinary for the tissue to survive millions of years, scientists could not consider the alternative, that the bones are not millions but rather thousands of years old ( http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v19/i4/blood.asp ). That would certainly make the existence of soft tissue more likely, and yet it's not considered. Why, because science has predetermined that dinosaurs MUST be millions of years old, any reasonable conclusion outside of that range can not be considered, or must be manipulated to fit into the "acceptable" range.
I would argue that carbon dating is not as accurate as the media and science would have us believe, http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/does-c14-disprove-the-bible , again the facts are open to interpretation.
Derrick
Jun 30, 2008 at 12:56 PM
Derrick - the problem is that many advocates of ID don't just advocate the possibility that life on Earth may have been a result of intelligent design.
It's not just about skepticism towards evolutionary theory, but bad science. The focus of ID advocates is on disproving evolution, not on proving their case.
It's bad logic - that either intelligent design OR Darwinian evolution is correct, and that disproving one proves the other. That is not how science works.
Proving Newton wrong is one thing, proposing a theory of Relativity that can be verified by experiment is another. What you can't do is say 'Because Newton is wrong, I am right'.
In addition, ID advocates are rarely open to the idea that the designer could be an alien species or the Hindu pantheon, but have a very specific idea about who the designer was, and which religious tribe he's backing. It's Creationism in a smart suit.
>If evolution is true where does morality, ethics, compassion and justice come from?
Well, it turns out that cooperation and trust are useful traits for a species to evolve (there are game theory models that show this). The survival of the 'fittest' does not mean the survival of the strongest or most aggressive - being able to co-operate to build a nest or hive, or store and share gathered food may actually be a better survival trait than being a predator.
Personally, I believe most morality and ethics comes down to 'treat someone as you would wish to be treated, if you were in their position'. It stems from our ability to empathize, and it's notable that this is something psychopaths can't do.
>If evolution is true, there can be no moral absolutes (ie murder is wrong)
I don't think you'd find Darwin, or even Dawkins, agreeing with that statement, or defending the Nazis. I don't think it makes logical sense either - you don't have to have a moral absolutes to have morals - murder can still be wrong in a society with relative morals - so long as most people think it is a bad idea (not wanting to be murdered by the first person who didn't like them) and that majority of people defined the laws and justice (that violent people should be punished).
You should also look up Godwin's Law - saying your opponents are no better than Nazis is like, well, it's like bringing up the old point that religion has been responsible for more and bloodier wars, etc - I don't agree with that one either. Of course the Nazi's DID use eugenics to justify some of their policiies.
>What does that mean, that we answer to a higher power? Is that why science can not accept anything outside of evolution, because it would require humanity to >acknowledge that we are not in complete control and yet something or someone else is?
The main argument is that such questions are essentially not within the realm of science, but metaphysics or philosophy.
Even if ID theorists proved God created Man, then the question would arise - who created God?
Jun 30, 2008 at 1:01 PM
I'm still smiling in a Unix geek way at :
sudo Christian beliefs
Jun 30, 2008 at 1:23 PM
Derrick - First of all, they're not "evolutionary biased" scientists. They're scientists. ONE discovery of a fibrous material - inconclusive, by the way of what the material was, and even if it was that of the Dinosaur - EVER and this *proves* ID?
The articles you site - I notice you're using the one web site, by the way - offers no time line or scientific proof what so ever regarding the discovery, it just ends in a (again, quite lame) "It speaks volumes for the Bible’s account of a recent creation."
That same article makes it sound like Dr. Schweitzer is some sort of anti-evolutionary maverick in the scientific world. All she was cautioning was that at a first glance, it may look like blood cells, but obviously more tests were needed. THAT is science - not taking things at face value, doing constant research, and testing to produce the most definitive answer possible.
That is the reason why scientists believe dinosaurs existed 65 million years ago. Its not a number they plucked out of the air and went with. The same carbon testing that accurately dates events we know about - the age of the pyramids, for example - and events that fit biblical timescales, also dates dinosaur remains. Its an all or nothing deal - one is not more correct than the other. Are you calling scientists outright liars?
Is it me, or has this conversation gone from one of ID (as supported by Oscar, I believe, earlier) to one about Genesis? There's are both big and small differences. Obviously in the representation - ID stays neutral on the responsible deity and the timescale. The small difference is how, ultimately, ID advocates tend to come back to Genesis.
I don't have a problem with the concept if Intelligent Design - as a Christian, I believe it. The big question is whether or not it should be taught in a science class, as opposed to a religion class. My answer is still a hard "NO". It's bad for science, and worse for Religion.
Cheers,
David
Jun 30, 2008 at 1:56 PM
"Why can't we question 'science'?" Good question.
Occam's Razor gives us probabilities, but shouldn't govern belief.
Agnosticism -- acknowledging the limits of our own knowledge -- is much more stressful than certainty in belief, or certainty in disbelief. There are psychological disincentives to an accurate weighing of what we don't know.
And pragmatically, the centralization of educational curriculum inevitably leads to conflicts on what is "proper" to teach. With a decentralized academic scene there would be less pressure to convert the heathens, whether they be IDers or Darwinists.
We don't know what people are, why we're here, what our nature is... that's a heavy burden of ignorance to bear. It's easier to believe in what the authorities tell us.
Jun 30, 2008 at 2:21 PM
Derrick,
I agree with you 100%. I do not see academic freedom in the world of academia, and it is too bad really. I am a certified scientist in the fact that I studied a scientific field (chemistry) in University and at no point in during my studies did I get taught anything other than the evolutionary view point. I am a Christian and so I believe in the creation account and that God created the earth in 6 days as you do.
I did feel through my studies that if I admitted to this belief that I would either receive lower grades or I would not be taken seriously.
I agree with David that "science is - not taking things at face value, doing constant research, and testing to produce the most definitive answer possible". But i strongly disagree that science and the creation account cannot go hand in hand.
I know you (Derrick) referenced the Answers in Genesis page where they spoke about dating methods and I would like to reiterate to David that the people who write those articles at Answers in Genesis are accredited Ph.D scientists. Most of which earned their Ph.D's at secular schools. With that being said I do feel that if they worked through the secular system and STILL arose to the same beliefs that is is possible their could be two views to take into account.
I personally belief that evolution is just as much a belief system as various religions. Everyone starts with assumptions and they interpret evidence accordingly. If you believe the Earth is billions of years old that is the conclusion you are going to make sure you find.
David you keep returning to the dating methods that some scientist use. I am not sure if you read the entire article that Derrick referenced but being a chemist i learned how carbon dating works, and In the formulation you are required to used the half life of C-14 and that is approximately 5,730 years. In the referenced article is states that this dating method is only valid to 80,000 years. To me that would be analyzing the data "evidence" given to determine if our estimate is correct, ad given that they are predicting that dinosaurs are Millions of years old that is much greater than 80,000 years) this method is not viable there would be no C-14 left in these bones! They used rock layers to determine the age of dinosaur bones, but interestingly enough they use the Dinosaur bones to determine the age of the rock layers. I don't think that is a good measure. They also use radioactive dating methods to date those rocks but that has proven tricky since they have dated young rocks with old ages.
I think that all scientist work with the same date (the earth and the universe) but they are interpreting the data based on the presuppositions.
I just wanted to clear up the dating methods a bit
Thanks,
Eric
Jun 30, 2008 at 2:27 PM
Sorry i made a typo-
I think that all scientist work with the same DATA (the earth and the universe) but they are interpreting the data based on the presuppositions.
Jun 30, 2008 at 2:41 PM
"God created the heavens and the earth, all the animals, the birds, fish, land creatures, he created man in his own image, in six days"
Wow, I am still amazed that in these times people still believe in fairy tales. Scientists were once decried as heretics for even suggesting things like the Earth was round, that the Earth revolves around the sun (and not the other way around), and that the Earth isn't at the center of the universe (even though many of these scientists believed in God). We all know who ended up being right. In my opinion, religion has never been about God (or Allah, or whatever you may call him), but about people as imperfect as you or I pushing their dogma on others. Science is about the search for facts through experiments and observation. Evolution is a theory just like gravitation is a theory. In other words -- a fact.
Jun 30, 2008 at 2:54 PM
Hang on guys - you're killing your own theory here. If the half life of c-14 is 5730 years, and carbon dating is unreliable for dating past 80,000 years (what your web site doesn't explain well is that half life doesn't mean NO c14 left, just half of what was there originally), then a dinosaur fossil with no c14 left in it would be greater than 80,000 years old. WAY past the 6,000. Have you considered that Derrick?
Now, I'm sure Paleontologists use many more methods than c14 testing. I know for a fact from my own chemistry days that there are many more isotopes that have a much longer half life.
So, 65 million years may be off a little - perhaps it was 55 million, or 75 million, but its not an arbitrary number that every theory has to revolve around. And for SURE, the half life of carbon does not prove that the world is the same age.
+1 Jules. I see a lot of hole punching in a lot of scientific theories, but evidence of Genesis philosophy as a reality. Lets face it, science is easy to poke at, and tear holes in. When you put yourself out there, its easy to be torn down. But fair dues to scientists, thats what they do, and thats how science gets better.
Again, I'm not even sure why we're arguing Genesis when we started off with ID. Did you always mean Genesis from the beginning?
Jun 30, 2008 at 2:58 PM
Jules,
It's hard to say if one is right the other must be wrong, but in some cases it must be that way, one plus one will always equal two. When the two views are so polar opposite, millions of years and goo to you vs thousands of years and intelligent design, it would be very hard if not impossible to find some common ground. I agree that ID and creationist should not set out to prove Darwin wrong, rather they should set out to find an answer to a question, which ultimately may proof some prior beliefs wrong, much like science has done throughout the ages.
I agree that I don't think Darwin or Dawkins would agree that murdering is ok, but if you take their logic and follow the path, that is where you end up. Your statement "murder can still be wrong in a society with relative morals - so long as most people think it is a bad idea" is exactly the type of thinking I'm talking about, murder is wrong ... if the majority agrees. NO, murder is wrong .... period, even if only one person agrees.
The reason I included the Nazi reference was because of eugenics. It's a modern example of survival of the fittest, sponsored by the state, it even occurred in the US, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics#Eugenics_in_the_United_States_.281890s.E2.80.931945.29 , now if that is not a scary realization at the outcome of Darwinist ideas I don't know what is.
I agree that some of this on the ID/creationist side turns into a metaphysical, philosophical issue, but does the fact that happens mean science can not be involved. If science can not understand or explain meta physical things, does that mean they do not exist and do not happen. What if science points in that direction? Is it better to say no there is no way that can be, rather than openly evaluating that as an option.
Thanks for the "sudo" catch, I noticed that after the fact :)
David,
I think Eric made some excellent point re the dating issue. I think the whole dating issue is a very foggy one and open to many types of interpretation. I agree that religion should not be taught in schools, the state should not dictate which religion is the one, that is for individuals to decide, otherwise we end up with something like an Islamic state, however I think that when science points to evidence that could in fact point to something clearly stated in religion, it should at least be given equal billing.
Eric,
Thanks for clear-up on the carbon dating. I agree, I have read some fantastic articles and books by PhD scientists who are Christian, their work is outstanding, and the theories and conclusions no less scientifically based than their Darwinian counterparts, yet because of their religious beliefs, most of the work would never see the light of day in mainstream science.
Jun 30, 2008 at 3:49 PM
While everyone is entitled to their opinion, there are so many flaws in your logic here that it is difficult to know where to start. So I will simply address a couple of the biggest issues I saw from a read of your entry and a scan through the comments:
The statement "How can something so complex happen by complete and random chance, even if given millions or billions of years? DNA is probably the most complex and compact information known to man, how does that happen by chance? If I took apart a computer piece by piece, placed all the pieces in a clothes dryer and turned it on tumble dry for a billion years would I end up with a fully assembled computer that also had vast amounts of legible and complex data stored on it’s hard drive? Why are we then expected to believe that is how we came about?" is probably the linchpin flaw that causes most of the rest of your argument to collapse. By asking this question, you reveal a *fundamental* misunderstanding of what evolution is. First, the complete name of the theory is "Evolution by natural selection", which may or may not immediately reveal the source of your misperception.
Evolution is not random. It is the exact opposite of random. There are elements of randomization involved in evolution, particularly in reproduction. However, the process itself is fundamentally causal: natural selection is the crucible upon which adaptations (and thus, organisms) survive or fail. An eyeball doesn't just sprout out, whole and functioning. It happened as a series of millions of very small steps. This is not a difficult thing to understand and it is the core reason why evolution by natural selection is not only plausible but utterly probable:
Say you have a population of organisms that have no eye or visual perception of any kind. One day, through one of many random mutations involved the reproduction of this species, one of these organisms grows a single cell that is capable of detecting a fractional difference between light and dark. Surely you can't object to this? Yes it is random. But it is a one-cell mutation that has a barely perceptible change. However, even the slightest ability to discern light from dark may benefit this organism. Perhaps it lives in the ocean and it can get to food more quickly by telling that it is light out and the plankton in the ocean are at the surface. It lives and reproduces. It's offspring share the mutation and are able to consume food more efficiently. Eventually, possibly over thousands or millions of years, another mutation causes the photoreceptor to be slightly better, or slightly bigger. These organisms continue to outcompete their rivals. Through an incredibly long series of tiny changes over an incredibly long period of time, the visual sense of these creatures improves. Until we get to a rudimentary eye.
Nothing in the above paragraph is difficult to accept or understand. The point is that many tiny changes build up over time, with changes that improve survivability being more likely to stay in the gene pool. We only think things like eyes are complex because we're seeing them at the end of a nearly unfathomable amount of time. At no time along that long chain of events did any particularly unlikely change in the eye occur. Nonetheless, we have now have eyes.
The second flaw is among people who believe the earth to be 6,000 years old. This is so contrary to the vast majority of scientific evidence that exists that it is difficult to grasp how one could possibly say they believe it. However, if one believes that the earth is indeed 6,000 years old, then surely that removes any possible way that one could convince you that evolution is actually a viable theory. In fact, it pretty much removes the ability to argue rationally on any scientific subject at all.
The primary difference between creationists and proponents of evolution is that evolution is a provable scientific theory. It is backed up by mountains of evidence. That evidence is available for scrutiny and verification by anyone who wishes to undertake the effort. People have tried to disprove the theory since the day it was proposed. Every one of them has failed. Far from undermining the theory, the continual effort to disprove it actually reinforces it. That is the way science advances. All it will take is one reproducible experiment that demonstrates that evolution is impossible to nullify the entire theory. It hasn't happened.
Creationists, on the other hand, have no theory. A theory requires the ability to perform experiments based on a hypothesis. Creationists have no hypothesis. They have a book that tells them what is true. Why is it true? Because the book says so. End of argument. In any other arena of thought, such circular arguments would be evident to even the smallest child. Somehow, religion is exempt from logic or rational debate.
You may choose to believe that creationism is real, but do not pretend that it is in any way scientific. "Intelligent design" is not a theory. I would strongly urge you to read "Climbing Mount Improbable" or "The Blind Watchmaker" if you really wish to put your belief to the test. You would probably be very surprised by the result.
Jun 30, 2008 at 4:16 PM
Well said Brian.
Derrick, with regards to ethics and morality...
"I agree that I don't think Darwin or Dawkins would agree that murdering is ok, but if you take their logic and follow the path, that is where you end up."
Yet if you follow the teachings of Genesis, various parts of the old testament and bits of the new testament, you see the loving omnipotent creator that you describe commending murder, genocide, rape and slavery.
Jun 30, 2008 at 4:51 PM
Derrick,
Congrats on the successful blog. It appears to be filled with respectful discussion except for some cheap shots here and there. I also enjoy this debate and wouldn’t mind joining in on the fun ?
Tony,
I thought I could add some insight into this discussion by clarifying the difference between the theory of gravitation and the theory of evolution. I am a physicist by training so I absolutely love the beauty of both Newtonian and relativistic physics. In addition, I have spent countless hours studying the theory of evolution.
What Tony is doing here (either wittingly or unwittingly) is using a form of the logical fallacy of equivocation. This is better known as the ‘bait n switch’. By lumping an operational theory, like the theory of gravitation, with a historical theory, like the theory of evolution, we are lead to believe that they share comparable scientific validity. Let me take a minute to define my terms.
First, an operational theory is an explanation of a set of facts (evidences) based on a broad set of repeatable and testable observations.
Second, a historical theory is an explanation of past events based on the interpretation of evidence that is available in the present.
Both evolution and creation fall into the category of historical theories since the deal with what happened in the past and the past is not directly observable, testable, or repeatable. Unlike the well-tested and repeated theory of gravitation, we can’t test or repeat evolution (that is, molecules-to-man evolution) in the laboratory.
A common misconception is that evolution and creation are all about who has more ‘facts’. In reality the facts are all the same. Evolutionists and creationists share the same fossil record, same planets, same animals, etc. It’s the interpretation of the facts that is different. For example, when paleontologists dig up fossils (evidence), they always require an interpretation based on a set of presuppositions.
Well, what are the evolutionists’ presuppositions? Evolutionists start with the assumption that excludes anything not naturalistic. Sadly, the definition of science has been virtually replaced with the word naturalism. Science used to be a search for knowledge and truth, whatever they may be. Now it is a search for naturalistic explanations. But what if the truth is not naturalistic?
They also use uniformitarian assumptions about the past (i.e. the present the key to the past). These axioms are un-provable and are taken on faith.
All this to say that the theory of evolution and the theory of gravitation are NOT of equivalent standing, even though they superficially share the label of theory.
Tim
Jun 30, 2008 at 7:02 PM
Tim,
Point taken, but I was really going for hyperbole with my statement. Being a scientist myself as well (biologist), I am well aware of the distinctions between the theories of gravitation and evolution. My point was really that there is such an overwhelming body of evidence supporting evolution, that in modern biology evolution is pretty much regarded as fact. Intelligent design is just Creationism attempting to disguise itself as a science, when, as Brian pointed out, there's nothing scientific about it at all. Brian did a really good job saying pretty much what i wanted to say (but didn't have the time). so --- what Brian said.
Regarding your statement about scientists excluding explanations that aren't natural -- in my opinion there's no such thing as "supernatural", only natural phenomena that we cannot fully understand (yet). And there are are most likely things about our universe that the human mind will never be able to grasp. But that's not because there is a supernatural explanation, but because it would be presumptuous not to recognize that we are infinitely more limited than the cosmos we inhabit.
Jun 30, 2008 at 7:08 PM
I also wanted to say that I disagree with your statement that "Science used to be a search for knowledge and truth". Science is about the search for facts, not truth. Truth is too subjective. I feel religion is about truth.
Jun 30, 2008 at 8:49 PM
"A common misconception is that evolution and creation are all about who has more ‘facts’. In reality the facts are all the same."
The difference here is not facts, but evidence. There is not a shred of evidence to support the creationist story, any more than there is supporting any and all other creation myths: is the earth and its land a product of tears of the gods? It was in feudal Japan. Did Zeus create everything? Or Odin? Or a giant turtle? There are an infinite number of possible ideas one could come up with as an explanation. They are not all equally valid. In fact, every one of them can easily be called nonsense by the entire population. With the exception of the one story any given person happens to subscribe to based on their religious indoctrination.
However, there are stunning amounts of evidence that support evolutionary theory (http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/105/23/7899 is a good start but the repository of backing evidence goes back decades). Evolution may not be as meticulously understood as gravity (though believe me, there are plenty of things that we don't understand about gravity that are just as bizarre as the most unusual evolutionary path). But to compare evolution and creationism as relying on the same standards of evidence and critical analysis is not only wrong, but rather depressing.
Jul 01, 2008 at 5:03 AM
Hmmmm...
I've heard the 'random chance' argument used by religious folk so many times and it always confuses me - evolution does not involve any element of chance since there is always a reason for each incremental change in the design of an organism (eg: the evolutionary pressure for some animals to evolve incredibly sophisticated defense mechanisms to ward of attacks from predators and vice versa). The problem is that the argument seems to believe humans were somehow destined to be 'structured' as we are right now - by working backwards from this current state it would appear to be some sort of fluke that we made it to our destination.
As for the 'survival of the fittest' concept, evolution operates on the level of the gene rather than the organism (or group) therefore the process is driven by the ability of our genes to propagate within the overall gene pool.
This is obviously a very complex topic for a simple blog post - for me, the argument comes down to the idea that complexity does not just happen, it evolves gradually. If there is a God then it would have to be many times more complex than us humans in order to do some of the things that are claimed therefore, it must have evolved as well. No matter how far back you go, life is more likely to have begun from something simple than something complex.
'The God Delusion' has received a great deal of attention recently however, if you want to understand the true beauty of evolution then I really recommend Richard Dawkins' first book: 'The Selfish Gene'.
Cheers
Jul 01, 2008 at 7:29 AM
Andy and Brian,
Just to clarify my statement about "random chance" I was speaking specifically about the actual origin of life as proposed by evolutionists, that a combination of chemicals and some external cause (lighting) combined to form the first living cell and that from that single cell all life sprang. That is the random chance I was referring to, not as evolutionists proposed changes that happen later in time referred to as survival of the fittest. That I understand as defined in Darwin's ideas is not random but rather predicated by some need of the organism to adapt to better survive or perform a task it could not previously. That initial event of going from no life to living cell can have no other definition than random because there was nothing living before that point to evolve into something else.
To everyone,
Just as a follow up to everyone who has posted and or read, I would encourage you all to at least give some serious examination to some of the theories and evidences offered by ID and creationist scientists. I think through careful examination and honest reflection of the facts you may be open to modifying your views of how life began. Personally, I was born and raised a Christian however through the teachings of school and university, felt that the Genesis account of life on earth and the age of the earth wasn't compatible with science and thus science must be right and the account was more figurative then literal. However after lots of reading and studying over the past few years I feel the Genesis account is literal and the science is there to prove it.
Derrick
Derrick
Jul 01, 2008 at 7:57 AM
Brian and others...
I agree (and yes my view is a believer in Jesus Christ and young earth) that the blind watchmaker is no more scientific than spontaneous generation. It misrepresents the 'theory of evolution'. Evolution believes in simple design adding design be it useful or not over time. The more useful designs to an environment would allow for greater survival and continued evolution. This is a valid suggestion... but the question is can we find evidence for this process occurring? If you watch the movie you will see that eve the great Dawkins resorted to confession that we have no 'science' showing this occurring or actually explaining how it happened. Translation... there is no proof of evolution.
Now to be fair we can agree that depending on how we interpret the facts of fossils and things we have not observed one person will translate what we did not see happen different from how another person views it. Yet, when we divide the "science" from the "non-science" we cannot use either evolution or religion because there is no science "proving" either view.
(And Brian, study the chemical properties of how the eyes work. The ability of a cell to respond to light and the way the chemicals work with our eyes isn't a pathway of evolution. You have to have a number of processes for vision to work as we have it. One plus one is two, two plus one is three. The issue is these processes are interdependent and cannot arise out of minor mutations. I understand your theory or who ever taught it to you... but that is replacing one bad argument with another bad argument.)
Jul 01, 2008 at 8:02 AM
Derrick,
Please, give us that science. I haven't seen it, and you haven't given it thus far. Poking holes in other theories is not science, its skepticism. "It very difficult and we don't understand it", doesn't cut it in as science. And we're not even getting into balancing the argument of scientists versus creationists. As Brian pointed out, we're not talking about scientific research in its infancy, or a few published papers - there is mountains of research that supports scientific.
If this post was an attempt to get me to consider creationism as a science, you're going to have to do a better job. So is that site you recommended "Answering genesis". I've taken the liberty to read through some articles and to me it doesn't make an attempt to be scientific.
It asks us to look at the bible and consider the bible - it asks some great philosophical questions, but draws no scientific conclusions. It pokes holes in existing scientific theory, but then offers such statements as "The Biblical time scale is much more likely" or "It speaks volumes for the Bible’s account of a recent creation."
Now, if you want to tell me that this is your faith speaking, then I have no problem with that. If you have a problem resolving your faith with science, then thats a personal thing you need to work through (or maybe you already have). But you don't have the right to state "I am logical and scientific, I am also a faithful Christian, thus Christianity is scientific".
I'm glad you brought this up - there has been great input from many people. I'm open to any rational debate, but you're losing me, here. I personally believe faith and science were meant to balance each other, not mix, and not dilute.
I will tell you that you that this conversation has made me more sure than ever that religion should not enter the science class room (and vice versa).
Cheers,
David
Jul 01, 2008 at 8:23 AM
John, I'm sure Dawkins is being quoted out of context, since there is plenty of evidence for evolution. I posted this earlier which I assume you did not look at (http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/105/23/7899) but one can see evolution occur even in high school genetics class. Anyone who did fruit fly experiments and tracked the changes in the gene pool over time has watched evolution happening. What people don't seem to grasp is that these small changes over time, pruned by survivability, IS evolution.
I have no idea what you are saying about eyes not being a pathway of evolution. Clearly, it *is* a pathway of evolution, or we wouldn't have eyes. Unless of course one believes that a "super-eye" greater than us decided to give us eyes. Which, it has already been pointed out in this thread, is a dead-end argument.
You are also incorrect to say that just because these systems (like an eye) are interdependent that they cannot arise out of minor mutations. This is the fundamental flaw in your (and many people's) understanding of the evolutionary process. In fact, the very opposite is true. It is *exactly* because these things evolved over a very long time as a series of very small changes that these interdependencies exist at all.
No one, large, single leap could possibly occur by chance, as the creationists are so quick to point out. One must again remember that *only the useful changes remain*, any mutations that do not result in an increase in survivability are purged because those organisms do not live to reproduce. It is the same reason that intricate relationships exists *between* species, due to the fact that they evolved together and that this happened slowly over an incredibly long period of time.
Put another way, we humans have the ability to make optical systems that far surpass any eye in strength, acuity, and focal distance. We have the ability to make electrical systems that far surpass the brain's electrochemical system in terms of transmission speed. If this is the best an all-powerful creator can come up with for us, maybe he needs to read a high-school science textbook.
The very existence of human tail bones, or male nipples, or the appendix, or wisdom teeth would seem to be more than enough to blow ideas of divine creation out of the water. Unfortunately, due to the depth of people's indoctrination and the early age in which this was imposed on their minds, no argument usually helps. So I'm not really sure why I'm trying since I know the chance that I'm going change someone's mind is virtually 0. Still, the scientist in me can't resist pointing at all the evidence, and then pointing at all the fallacies of the creationist argument, and hoping.
Jul 01, 2008 at 8:40 AM
I feel your pain, Brian. I decided to post comments here against my better judgement because these discussions usually lead nowhere. I have complete respect for people's personal beliefs. If a belief in God and creationism is something that gives someone comfort and inner peace, then more power to them. But you can't pit beliefs based on faith and scientific arguments against each other in a rational way. Once you bring faith into the equation, logic and rationality go right out the window.
Jul 01, 2008 at 9:07 AM
Brian,
With regards to wisedom teeth http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v12/i3/wisdomteeth.asp and the appendix http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v3/i1/appendix.asp .
I do not disagree with the "evolution" at a micro level within a species, that is evident everywhere around us and I think most creationists would not argue that point. However it is a very large leap to go from evolution within a single species to evolution from one species to another, which is fundamentally what Darwinism is. Evolutionists like to point to micro evolution within a species as proof of macro evolution from one species to another, yet there are only a very few dubious transitional fossils in the fossil record when there should be numerous and in laboratory experiments, no new species have been created as a result of evolution. There are two very different types of evolution, one is very obvious, the other quite a stretch, however they are commonly interchanged with each other which is not accurate or fair.
Tony,
My intent was not to pit science against religious views, rather it was to say that an open and honest discussion and evaluation of scientific evidence (both pro evolution and pro creation) should be allowed in order to truly understand life's origins. I think that was the point Stein was making in his movie, evolutionist don't have all the answers, creationist don't have all the answers, but in today's scientific community, creation based science is not given a chance to have it's findings freely reviewed and discussed, rather they are pushed out and ignored. Faith doesn't require logic and rationality to go out the window. Logic and rationality can strengthen faith by providing proofs.
Derrick
Jul 01, 2008 at 9:47 AM
@Brian,
First, Dawkins wasn't misquoted. He was recorded answering questions. LOL... you have got to see the movie before you argue. Normally you sound pretty smart but this example isn't typical of what I hear you offering. When you argue like this without facts of course logically it also makes one wonder how deep your other facts about evolution are researched. Study the doctor who figured out washing hands between delivering mothers would save lives. Popular thought before and after that for a season was he was wrong. We need to know what we speak of before we speak.
The thought that if something is religious in nature makes it an invalid point is also a unintelligent statement no matter how it is stated. If I read in a religious document that the life of the flesh is in the blood... is it right or wrong because it is in a religious document? The 'fact' that it is a religious statement doesn't make it outside the realm of scientific reasoning. That is misguided.
Now on the subject of the eye. Yes, it is possible for "complexity" to arise out of "simplicity". Yet, for these systems to arise there has to be a useful purpose for the persistence of the mutations. The mutations require a genetic structure where information is added to the genetic threads also. So our environment can bring about change like a tan for instance. Or over time it may bring a dominate trait like lighter skin around the polar regions and darker skin around the equator. Yet, the skin color changes all occur within a species. There is not migration from one species to another here. If some of the species is isolated enough they will loose the ability to recover certain genetic traits due to a loss of information. This we know. There is a viable question... is it possible those in another region "gained" genetic information to produce the trait. In other words we know we can loose information, but can we gain information. Read a book by a scientist with expertise in the area, Dr. Lee Spetner in his book "Not By Chance!"
Now to the bigger topic. The movie Derrick was presenting was about how society in America takes a valid scientist who questions the thinking of evolution and EXCOMMUNICATES him from the science community. Note, this doesn't even require him having a religious belief. Ironically Mr. Dawkins in the movie slips up and confesses the unfounded nature of the whole theory. He doesn't say he doesn't believe it but straight out admits that he has found no explanation of how it could have occurred on earth.
So... how about giving Derrick the respect of being newer or not a eloquent in his presentation on the topic. This is a blog and his points are interesting points. If you want to see his points presented in a way you could actually argue then see the movie and argue with the movie. Derrick didn't write or create or sponsor the movie. He said he liked it and agreed. What do you think of that approach?
Lastly, we used to believe in organs with no purpose. Yet decade after decade we learn they have a meaning and use. You call our bone a "tail bone" yet we do not have tails. Of course we could look at our genetic information, and the information in animals that have tails and then figure out the chances of us having once had a tail. The again we could also just look at animals with tails and say that our bone structure is similar therefore we had a tail once. That logic is like saying our hands are similar in bone structure to a fish... therefore we must have evolved from fish! LOL, please... let's stick with science, OK? On the answer about the eyes. Eyes are made up of multiple complex systems working together that had no reason to grow in the kind of complexity they have on their own. There is no purpose to the complex systems by themselves because they would not perform any meaningful function. Together multiple complex systems work to give us our sight as we know it. These systems have to be complete in current form, each of them, to make our vision work. Simple systems changing into complex on their own is a reasonable theory. The eyes are not a match to this theory.
So, we as intelligent creatures are doing genetic engineering of crops, animals and such. Yet, we resist the idea that it could have been created with intelligence from the beginning? That is because we choose to create God in our image rather than letting ourselves accept that we are not God or that God doesn't have to be exactly like us. (Including his origins.)
Jul 01, 2008 at 9:59 AM
Derrick,
What creationists are saying is that they are a scientific point of view BECAUSE scientists don't have all of the answers. For this, they demand equal billing in a scientific debate, and yet offer no science, but objections to existing theories.
If creationism is not given a chance in the scientific community its because of the lack of science in its argument.
David
Jul 01, 2008 at 10:54 AM
@Derrick,
You talk about an "open and honest discussion and evaluation of scientific evidence (both pro evolution and pro creation)". Name one piece of scientific evidence that is pro-creation. As others have pointed out, creationist's "scientific" arguments consists solely on trying to disprove another theory while offering no hard evidence (other than scripture) in support of their own claims.
@John
You came right out as a believer of a young earth. Those beliefs are very strong and based on your faith. There is no way that they are not going to influence and color your views on evolution. So no matter what arguments you offer, there is no way I (or anyone) could have a debate on the issue with you based purely on scientific evidence. Had you told me that you are an atheist but that you believe in intelligent design (maybe aliens created us), it would be a different story. Basically, your religious beliefs will not permit you to have a completely objective viewpoint on the matter, whether you recognize it your not.
I'm questioning why I'm even bothering to comment here again, so this will be my last. Just like every other time I've gotten into this "debate", we'll have to just agree to disagree.
Jul 01, 2008 at 11:21 AM
David,
You keep asking for the science and I keep providing links to http://www.answersingenesis.org/ because it offers the most easily accessible and centralized source of information on science from a creationist point of view. If you take the time to read through some of the articles and papers there I think you find there is a substantial body of work provided that looks at the same data that evolutionists look at but comes to different conclusions. Here are just a few links for you to peruse.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v3/n3/transcontinental-rock-layers
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2005/1107rate.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/tj/docs/v17n1_proteins.pdf
Derrick
Jul 01, 2008 at 11:25 AM
Derrick, you said
"I do not disagree with the "evolution" at a micro level within a species, that is evident everywhere around us and I think most creationists would not argue that point. However it is a very large leap to go from evolution within a single species to evolution from one species to another, which is fundamentally what Darwinism is."
I have to point out that this is the wrong way to look at it. "Species" is a human term. We invented it to attempt to classify living things. It works pretty well in a general way. However, nature doesn't work like that. There is no discreet, magical leap from one species to another. This is the flaw in your thinking. Nature doesn't deal in discreet leaps. It deals in continuums. It deals with long, slow, gradual changes. A fish doesn't just give birth to a lizard. There were millions of small evolutionary steps involved in the shift from fish to amphibians. Some of these still exist today. The vast majority have died out. Which is why it might *seem* like there are leaps or jumps in the evolution of life. In fact, the opposite is true. Every place there seems to be a gap is actually filled completely by a bridge of other organisms that either did not survive or went down their own separate evolutionary path. These intermediary forms are constantly being discovered in the fossil record.
John, I've had this conversation with you and many others, and I know exactly where this is going to go. You're directing this discussion towards the validity of religion. Which may actually be valid given that the prominent arguments that creationists make end up right back at this point. You say "If I read in a religious document that the life of the flesh is in the blood... is it right or wrong because it is in a religious document?". The question is not whether it is right or wrong. The question is "what proof do you have"? Your statement is no more right or wrong than me saying "Someone told me that an invisible, immaterial dragon lives in their garage that leaves no physical trace that he is there." They are both equally valid because they both have no evidence to back them up. More to the point, they cannot ever have any evidence to back them up. The inability to test the validity of the statement is baked into the statement itself. Which is what is so simultaneously fascinating and disturbing about religious beliefs.
I'll go down Tony's road now and say that the discussion is moving rapidly from the validity of evolution to the validity of religion, and all that's going to happen from this point on is that people are going to start feeling insulted. I'll thank Derrick for the provocative post and again urge him to look at a book like "The Selfish Gene" or "Climbing Mount Improbable" if he would like to get a better understanding of how evolution by natural selection actually works and why it is, in fact, a viable theory that has been challenged on countless occasions over the years. The fact that it has survived all attempts to disprove it might be enough reason for you to seriously consider that it has merit. I certainly would urge you not to base your opinion on a 2 hour movie from the former host of "Win Ben Steins Money".
Jul 01, 2008 at 11:42 AM
Brian and Tony,
Thanks for the comments and thoughts. Looks of good stuff to digest and mull over. It is always good to listen to the opinions of others and consider their merits. I didn't want this to turn into a religious debate, so I agree it's likely a good time to stop. Don't worry, Ben Stein did not form the basis of my opinion or provide anything new to my understanding of the topic, he just provided a few hours of entertainment which resulted in a thought provoking blog post, nothing more, nothing less.
Derrick
Jul 01, 2008 at 11:54 AM
Derrick - I've never come across as much bullshit in my life. You don't START a scientific endeavor with a stated answer : "We have known for some time that radiometric dating methods are unreliable."
c14 can't last millions of years, but it can last for 80,000. The same carbon testing that puts the pyramids at 5000 years old, puts discovered fossils at 80,000. Right there, that simply blows your theory of a 6,000 year old earth out of the water. NONE of the articles I've been able to find on that site address that fact. All it says is, "we *know* its wrong".
Again, again, showing that something is not correct, or is inaccurate does not prove your own theory. That's the part you're just not getting.
You really are giving the religious amongst us a bad name - you are singing a party line and there is obviously nothing that can be said to change your mind. I'll never get these past 24 hours back! I've nothing more to add.
Good luck, God bless, and Cheers.
David
Jul 01, 2008 at 12:44 PM
Science: finding evidence and coming up with a theory based on that evidence
ID: Creating a theory and then cherry picking through existing evidence to back up the theory, ignoring or trying to shoot down contradictory evidence
As for the eye argument, here's a good video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fOtP7HEuDYA
I've seen creationists use the same arguments for years, altering only the labels they give their ideas, meanwhile, scientists keep piling up the evidence that supports evolution.
Jul 01, 2008 at 9:13 PM
@ Brian and @ Tony,
Everyone is influenced by their preconceptions. It is impossible to have a "pure" discussion with anyone. I respect your claim of desire for a pure discussion and suggest you go see the movie. LOL That was the whole point of the movie. It didn't actually promote any religion but rather it was a focus on the need for pure science. Pardon me for saying this if it's within your grasp, but to believe someone can't see science truth because they start with a preconception is rather bigoted. Science has been the reason some rejected religion and the reason others accepted it. Let's all try to be open minded and not rule out summarily a persons thoughts because they are sourced in religion. I don't agree with the religious nature of Columbus or his sponsors. Yet, it was religion of an acquaintance of his that lead him to believe the world was round. I am told the flat earth society still rejects this notion... and find that funny. Sometimes religion can even help science to open it's eyes.
Jul 01, 2008 at 9:22 PM
P.S.
Watch just the preview and you will see Mr. Dawkins stating that he is hostile to anyone with a 'rival' doctrine to his. The point of the video is the hostile nature of those who question scientific conclusions. They don't have to be religious, they just have to question Darwin's teachings to get shut out.
Jul 02, 2008 at 9:39 AM
The belief that the universe, and all things within the universe were created during a 6 day span 6,000 years ago has scientific implications far beyond a disbelief in the theory of evolution.
This one belief also dictates a disbelief in the sciences of geology, astronomy, and physics ( to name a few ), all of which date the earth, and pretty much everything else in the universe as a bit older than 6,000 years.
If one believes the earth is 6,000 years old, that person cannot also truly believe in the value of science at all.
As for the main premise of the post "Why can't we question science" , science is questioned all the time! It is the basis of science. Scientific theories are tested.... over and over and over. It is only when a theory survives rigorous, repeatable tests that a theory is generally accepted as valid by the vast majority of the scientific community. Even after this general acceptance, theories continue to be tested in order to learn ever more. This is the nature of science.
In fact, I would suggest a post on "Why can't we question religion?". The reality is if you present a scientist with enough evidence to disprove the theory of evolution, the scientist will reject evolution as a valid theory. (note: this does not necessitate an acceptance of the theory of ID, that would need to be proven on it's own.). However there is no amount of scientific evidence that will convince you, or other biblical literalists, that the earth is billions of years old. The scientific evidence is already there, you simply reject it.
Jul 02, 2008 at 9:53 AM
David,
You are claiming by this statement “You don't START a scientific endeavor with a stated answer : "We have known for some time that radiometric dating methods are unreliable."” That no scientist starts an experiment or research without an idea of what they think the outcome will be. In my experience ALL scientific research starts with a Hypothesis (or at least they is what they taught me since grade school). If you know something is unreliable you are testing to see if that is true or false.
C-14 can ONLY date living things NOT things like rocks or pyramids just for the record. You have to use radio-isotope dating to test the date of rocks. But there are problems with that which I will get into in a second.
How do you think scientist get published??? I ask this because there are peer reviews that must occur first. This is usually done to ensure that what they are claiming can be tested by other scientist and that they come up with the same results. When speaking of origin science it is fairly impossible to specifically test that hypothesizes so they come up with other ways to do so. C-14 dating is one method they have introduced to do this. It is not an “exact science” because the ONLY way to test the accuracy of something is to know ALL the variables and test it against a known truth. This being said the only way to test the validity of C-14 dating is to date something of a known age. Here the variables we know are the age of the material tests (remember it had to live at some point because the only way to absorb C-14 is through ingestion) and How much C-14 was in the atmosphere during its life. It is critical to know BOTH of these because if the C-14 concentration on earth was different over the life span of this animal then we would have to account for that in our calculations to get a accurate reading. Test have been done to test the validity where all of this was taken into account, to show that it work but ONLY if you know both of these things. So I state that if 65 millions years have past since the dinosaurs and we are using something that tops out at 80,000 years you are using a poor reasoning to “prove” that they are that old.
Applying these same assumptions to radio-isotope dating you should expect to be able to prove dates of tings but their rate of decay (correct?) Well there was a rock from the St. Helen’s eruption sent to a secular lab (this rock has a known date, approx. 10 years) with no information just asked it to be dated, and the lab came up with a date of MILLIONS of years. Well to me that is analyzing a system against a truth to test to see if the science you are doing is valid. It is an experiment and a valid way to test so how could you not call that science? I mean isn’t it using the same materials or “evidence” that secular scientist are looking at? It is science, and it is ignorant to say that it isn’t.
The problem with radiometric- isotope dating is that you cannot know the concentration of the product it is decaying into when the rock was originally formed OR if there were points in history where there was an abundance or lack of this substance on earth. There is no way to know that which makes this method inconsistent and unreliable. So you were referencing that there are other ways they use to date things. Most historians use historical documents to date things, and in my opinion I think that the Bible has a very accurate account of history. But if you are referring to dating methods, they use the radiometric-isotope dating and this has shown to have faults. If you are using rock layers to date you dinosaur bones but you are off on your calculations but the calculations you set up for this are based on you expecting your results to be around the 65 million mark then you are using a circular method for dating those bones. This is not scientific (or logical) and other methods should be investigated.
There are some scientist who are also creationist who have realized that helium is released into zircon crystals. This is a researched method of dating that could be more reliable please read this article it follows the C-14 on this page.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v1/n1/creation-research
This is science where they discovered another possible method of testing these things and they found this more reliable method does give younger ages.
Thanks,
Eric
Jul 02, 2008 at 10:04 AM
Steve,
You ask “Why can’t we question religion?” and I say that is ALL most people do. Religion is NOT allowed in schools anymore because if this fact. Most people who are religions would say it is more than them being told something is true they have entered into the realm of experiencing that their God is there and True.
By stating that the earth is young does not “dictates a disbelief in the sciences of geology, astronomy, and physics ( to name a few ),” It looks at the things we see on earth and in the rest of the universe in a different light. There are theories and models that are tested over and over and re-evaluated by creation scientists all the time but this money has to come out of their own pocket and is not funded by the government.
“The reality is if you present a scientist with enough evidence to disprove the theory of evolution, the scientist will reject evolution as a valid theory” I do not think this statement is true. The reason I think so many scientist have a problem with ID or the creation account is not because there isn’t evidence it means that they have to accept that there is a God. Most scientist (or at least most of their spokes people) will not accept that answer which is the entire reason Darwin decided to determine if life could happen without one. Therefore the biggest struggle is not providing enough evidence it is providing the evidence and them being willing enough to assume they COULD be wrong for long enough and be open minded enough to listen and realize there is another possibility but until they accept there COULD be a God they will not even take the evidence seriously. (and yes there is evidence)
Thanks,
Eric
Jul 02, 2008 at 10:30 AM
@Eric:
Wow! There is scientific evidence that there is a god? I've never heard that.
Does this scientific evidence prove the existence of a single god, or does it allow for the possibility of numerous gods as the ancient Romans and Greeks believed?
Would you accept the possibility of multiple gods if the evidence led to such a conclusion?
Jul 02, 2008 at 10:43 AM
Steve,
I guess form your sarcasm I was slightly unclear with my response to you. Obviously there is not scientific way I can prove the existence of a god or multiple ones for that matter. What I am supporting and indicating is that there is evidence of a young earth. There is evidence that shows the evolutionary belief may not be the correct one.
This has implications that if the biblical account is true. If the biblical account is true and the science supports that data (as I expect and have seen it does in many cases) I can make inferences that there is a god and this god is the God of the bible.
My personal belief is that there is one God and He is the God of the Bible but my proof is through the experiences I have had with him. I do understand that you would think that is phony which is why many believers who are also scientist will go and do the research to prove that His Word has truth and there is reason to believe what he says.
But what I was trying to say was that Evolutionary scientist don't accept ANY gods regardless. So before they will accept that there is a finger print on the way things are designed on earth they would first have to admit that there is a god. I do think that once they admit that it would bring them to the belief in the God of the Bible.
I hope that was more clear.
Thanks,
Eric
Jul 02, 2008 at 4:36 PM
Hey all,
I have to apologize for not taking the time to read all of the above posts, but my schedule (and wife) just won’t permit it. I see that the discussion has deviated towards the topic of creation versus evolution. I just want to take a step back and say a few things of intelligent design to clear up some misinformation.
First, a definition. Intelligent design is the assertion that “certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.” This is their hypothesis. Notice there is no mention of the Biblical God. Just an intelligent cause. Period.
Now to those who think ID is not scientific. I challenge you to humor me of a second and forget your belief that ID is a creationism in fancy clothes or that it has something to do with religion. Imagine you walk into a cave and find a stone in the shape of an arrow head. This stone took that particular shape for one of 2 reasons:
1. An undirected natural process such a erosion/weathering/etc.
2. An intelligent cause (namely, some human being carved it that way)
Archaeologist, using natural cleavage plains in stone can (to a very high level confidence) determine whether the stone was indeed carved into an arrow head by a source of intelligence. Again, we are not concerned with who the intelligent cause is. But you and I and the archaeologist know that if the edges are carved against the grain of the natural cleavage plain it was carved by humans. We use this form of logic and reason all the time. That’s right folks. I just referred to ID as logical and reasonable.
Now stay with me. Imagine astrobiologists (which is a real field of science) find that same stone (carved into an arrow head) on Mars. I can guarantee that the Journals Nature and Science would have headlines saying that we have found life on Mars. Why? Because certain types of design can point to an intelligent cause (in this case aliens). So recognizing design is science after all.
If you’re still not convinced you should research the SETI (Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence). If you wikipedia SETI you’ll find,
“SETI is the collective name for a number of activities to detect intelligent extraterrestrial life. The general approach of SETI projects is to survey the sky to detect the existence of transmissions from a civilization on a distant planet – an approach widely endorsed by the scientific community as hard science (see, e.g., claims in Skeptical Inquirer [1]). The United States Government contributed to SETI early on, but recent work has been primarily funded by private sources.”
Notice the terms “hard science”. I didn’t write that. Who would have thought that scanning the skies for an intelligent signal would be considered “hard science”. I can also make another guarantee; a creationist did not write that. In fact, most creationist organizations do not support the idea of life on another planet. Millions and millions of dollars have been poured into this “research program” (it felt dirty to even type that) but not one intelligent signal has been detected. But what would said signal look like? I wonder. Well to separate it from the random signals they pick up from pulsars and such, it would have to have some sort of specified complexity. Not to be confused with order.
Ok. So here’s my beef. Astrobiology and the search for ET are perfectly scientific, but when microbiologists observe cellular machines at the nanoscopic level (a level Darwin could not have even begun to dream about) that scream of design and in some cases show signs of irreducible complexity, we simply dismiss them as being unscientific.
Still thinking about the religious implications? Or who the designer is? Because the ID proponents aren’t. ID isn’t a “well, we don’t know how it was formed so lets say god did it” hypothesis. If you think that then you have been mislead. ID isn’t a science stopper either. Just because something has an intelligent cause doesn’t mean we put our microscopes away. We keep exploring and discovering and using those discoveries to improve technology and life.
ID is not just an attack on neo-Darwinism. ID is a new explanation of the evidence. With the improvement of technology we are bound to find out new information about organisms. Theories are meant to be challenged. ID should be welcomed. Not dismiss outright. It is challenges to theories that make them stronger or destroy them. This is how science works. If Darwin was not allowed to challenge the paradigm of his day we wouldn’t been have this discussion.
I guess I’m done ranting.
Just consider what I’ve said.
And I do have a message for DAVID. You asked over and over for evidence for creation. I’ll list a few here. Anti-biotic resistant bacteria (like Heliobacter Pylori), the peppered moths, the fossil record (most of which were buried by flood sediment), all the dog variety we see today (over 202 domestic breeds), homologous structures, … oh the list could go on.
I know what you’re thinking. Those were your evidences. Actually, they are explained a lot better within the creation framework.
I challenge any of the evolutionists to give one example of a mutation causing NEW GENETIC INFORMATION. This is a reasonable request since you require many millions of them to get from the information in lets say an ameba to say a horse. (ie. DNA coding information to get eyeballs, hair, hooves, etc.) Just one. And remember anti-biotic resistant bacteria doesn’t cut it ?
Dinner time.
Tim
Jul 02, 2008 at 6:27 PM
David,
You said from the start you are a practicing Christian. I'll put aside the foul language because I know it isn't a sin to swear (although it does show a lack of respect for the forum and its host). I wonder if you have taken the time to consider how evolution and million of years contradicts your beliefs. I think you will agree that a follower of Jesus Christ, believes Jesus died and rose again for their sins. In fact, Jesus paid for the sins of the world with His death on the cross. But why did he have to die? I shouldn't have to tell you that it was in Genesis where God declared that because of Adams sin he would die.
Gen 2:15-17
15 The LORD God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it. 16 And the LORD God commanded the man, "You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; 17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die."
Gen 3:19
19 By the sweat of your brow
you will eat your food
until you return to the ground,
since from it you were taken;
for dust you are
and to dust you will return."
The New Testament sheds some light on this issue too.
Romans 5:12
"12Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned—"
! Corinthians 15:21-22
"21For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man. 22For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive.
So, death came because of sin. Makes sense. Death is a punishment for sin. However, if you believe in millions of years of death, disease, cancer (with find tumors in fossil dinosaur bones), before man's sin, then death is not a punishment for sin. This contradicts a clear teaching of Scripture. You must have a stronger faith than me because i would never be a "practicing Christian" if I believed the Holy Scriptures were filled with contradictions.
That's a big contradiction, too. If death isn't a punishment for sin, why did Jesus have to die? Genesis is foundation to the atoning work of our Lord Jesus Christ. Moreover, it indicates specifically why Jesus death on the cross was necessary for you and me.
In addition, at the end to the creation event God looked at His creation and called it "very good" (Gen 1:31). Does that mean God called millions of years of death, disease, cancer, bloodshed, "very good." Who would want to follow a God like that anyways. But if God made everything perfect in 6 days it make sense that He would call it very good. Then man's sin brings death into the world. Thus, death is our fault, not God's. He is a holy God that had to punish sin (disobedience).
Did God use evolution? Well besides the order of events being all wrong (the bible has birds before reptiles, whales before land animals, earth before the sun, plants before sun, etc) God calls death an enemy. Why would God use something he refers to as an enemy to create. Remember survival of the fittest requires the unfit to die.
1 Corinthians 15:26
26The last enemy to be destroyed is death.
Brother, I don't have to tell you how amazing it is that God took on flesh to become the Last Adam (1 Corinthians 15:45). A perfect sacrifice to cover the sin's of the world including mine and yours. If you (or anyone else) are a follower of Jesus Christ then it ultimately doesn't matter whether you believe in 6 days or millions of years. I'll see you in heaven either way. However, I think millions of years of death before sin (and human being for that matter) is inconsistent with the clear teaching of the Bible and undermines Jesus death of the cross. Just some food for thought.
Tim
Jul 02, 2008 at 7:11 PM
Steve,
To quote your earlier post
Creationist and ID science are not just focused on biology and evolution, they are focused on the entire spectrum of understanding how life and the universe began. A belief in a 6,000 year old earth does not dictate an across the board disbelief in other scientific theories, it simply menas that you don't neccessarily accept some theories in geology and astronomy, which are also open to debate. Even in the evolutionary model there is debate within and between the various sciences over the origins of life, the earth and the universe.
Here are some very interesting articles with regards to geology, astronomy and physics:
Geology
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/does-radiometric-dating-prove
Astronomy:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/510.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v15/i3/uranus_energy.asp
http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/35/astrodesign.html
Physics:
http://www.trueorigin.org/steiger.asp
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-thermodynamics.html
Derrick
Jul 02, 2008 at 7:59 PM
@Tim
You raise some valid points. You also raise some red herrings.
First let me address the arrowhead on Mars issue.
I actually think you have this exactly backwards! You are wrong about scientific journals having headlines saying "We have found live on Mars". Why? Because they haven't found life on Mars. The headlines would more likely read "We have found evidence of life on Mars". This is a subtle but significant difference. The former makes a leap of faith that since an arrowhead ( a designed item ) was found on Mars, there must have been an intelligent being on Mars. The later actually begins a process of scientific investigation, which may or may not lead to the conclusion that there was intelligent life on Mars at some point. Another possible conclusion of this scientific investigation may be that it was sent up on the Mars rover by a rogue NASA employee!
This illustrates one of the differences between accepted science and ID. ID looks at the arrowhead on Mars (or the complexity of an eye on earth) and concludes it could only exist because a designer made it. There are no other possibilities. I guess in the case of the arrowhead arriving on the rover this would be true, it's just that the designer may have been a human with an evolved sense of humor!
Let's move on to the dogs. You state all the dog variety we see today is better explained by the creation framework. This baffles me. Most scientists believe the domestic dog is descended from wolves. The variety in breeds is due to.... you guessed it... BREEDING! Now I guess this my Border Collie could be considered the creation of an intelligent designer, but in the case of the Border Collie, the designer has been traced back to a human name Adam Telfer who bred two of his dogs "Roy" and "Meg" giving birth to Old Hemp... of which virtually all modern Border Collies are descended. See the Border Collie Museum for more information: http://www.gis.net/~shepdog/BC_Museum/Permanent/BC_History.html.
Dog breeds do not spontaneously appear, they evolve due to careful breeding for desired traits. I know of no dog breed that spontaneously appeared! Same is true with cows, chickens, horses and just about every other domesticated animal.
Now, you asked an evolutionist to give one example of a mutation causing new genetic information. Here's two:
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=129803
http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=2767537
And finally, perhaps you can better understand why most scientists, and lay-persons who accept the science of evolution believe ID is creationism in disguise. You yourself start with a defense of intelligent design, and evolve into saying "Actually, they are explained a lot better within the creation framework.
When ID stands for something other than "I don't know how it happened so it must be Designed", it may find it's way into the broader scientific community, but until then, it sure looks like theology wearing a scientists jacket.
Jul 02, 2008 at 8:24 PM
Derrick,
The reason I made the statement regarding the incongruity of a belief in a 6,000 year old earth and the other sciences is that they all show the age of the earth as being far greater than 6,000 years.
This has been shown in different disciplines through many different means, not just carbon dating. In fact carbon dating has only been around since 1949, yet scientist certainly had evidence the earth was more than 6,000 years old prior to that.
Because a website such as answersingenisis.org publishes an article, does not make it scientifically valid.
You are welcome to your belief in genesis, and your belief in the scientific validity of answersingenesis.org but it is theology and not science.
I think if you were to be honest with yourself, you would admit that there will never be any scientific evidence which will convince you that the account in genesis is not an absolute truth.
When the preponderance of scientific evidence points to a 6,000 year old earth, I will happily accept the science.
Jul 02, 2008 at 10:08 PM
Steve,
The Mars headline wasn’t my point. But we will have to agree to disagree. For my experience reading media articles and even science journals is that they like to print eye catching exaggerated headlines. That’s the nature of headlines. But again this is besides the point. Here’s a quick example I found:
Signs of current life on Mars, researchers claim
Methane signatures seen hinting at possibilities underground
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6981361/
Science is about find the BEST explanation or possibility. I’m not yelling when I use caps, I just want to emphasize. Your counter argument doesn’t change the fact that we can logically recognize design in different areas of life.
Again, ID is not concerned with the designer. You immediately started trying to indicate the designer such as a NASA employee or whatever. But that is not a concern of ID. They simply look for evidence of design. They leaving the masses to sort out who the designer is. Actually one of the reason I don’t (ya, I said don’t) like the ID movement is because they don’t specify the designer. I believe it’s the Biblical God. My neighbor might think it’s Alf (remember that show), or Allah, or something else. But that is not ID’s concern. They are after the BEST explanation just like the archaeologist in the cave looking at the stone. It might be natural processes, instead. ID is prepared to except that. It’s the naturalists/material who can’t allow even one example of ID into the field of biology. Why? Well, the elephant in the room. Who is the designer? But that shouldn’t close our minds on ID, because it’s NOT out to find the designer.
I don’t see how I got anything backwards. And as far as a red herring, well I don’t think so either. I gave you more than one example of how we rationally use ID outside of biology.
Just because I believe in creation doesn’t means anything in regard to my arguments. Steve, you need to combat my argument on ID, and not being my beliefs about creation or anything else for that matter. It will make your case stronger. I haven’t once said, “well, you’re an agnostic or an atheist, so obviously you would reject design if it smacked you in the face (pardon the expression)”.
Again I don’t like ID because they don’t say who the designer is. But I’ve read some of its proponents work. And I think its sound methodological science. Williams Dembski uses one type of explanatory filter that is quite intriguing. I think I read it in the Design Revolution. Good read if you haven’t read anything on the subject. Most of the ID movement is not young earth creationists from what I can tell. In fact, I couldn’t name one that is.
“”When ID stands for something other than "I don't know how it happened so it must be Designed", it may find it's way into the broader scientific community, but until then, it sure looks like theology wearing a scientists jacket.””
That is not it at all. This is total propaganda and I think you know it. It’s not “we can’t explain it by a natural process right now, so let’s say it’s designed”. It’s more like “using our explanatory filter the best conclusion is that this biological machine is design”. Did you right-off ID before reading about it?
I am going to read your example of a mutation causing new genetic information. I do find it funny that you didn’t tell me anything about it. This is usually the case in my experience. Did you even read the site? No heads up on what it’s about or anything, eh? Was it easy to find? I am skeptical but I’ll do my best to keep an open mind.
I believe God created the Dog Kind (to reproduce after its kind as stated in Genesis). The Dog kind would have the genetic potential to change into all of the dogs we see today through natural selection and mutations. Thus, when I go out into the world I would expect to see dogs changing into other dogs but not into another “kind” of animal. This is exactly what we observe when we study the dog kind. But this is not evolution. Actually it’s the opposite. I have God creating 2 Dogs (probably something similar to a wolf) with genetic variability. Natural selection (and in the case of breeding, Artifial Selection) reduces that information to get dogs with specific characteristics. Mutations also play apart in this but again its always a reduction in information, the opposition of what evolution requires. Think of the Bull dog. It has a mutation that causes his legs not to grow as long. And a mutation that causes his snout not to grow out. However the skin is meant for the long snout so it hangs over.
Now think about this. I start with 2 robust (genetically speaking) dogs and work my way down to the poodle and bull dog with less genetic information. You need to get all the new genetic information specific to wolves and work your way down from there.
Which fits the evidence? I submit that it’s the creation model. I hope that was clear.
So I guess you could say the original dog had a intelligent cause. But EVERY ID proponent would agree its through natural processes that we get all the animals we see today. So your statement “There are no other possibilities.” is false. They do indeed except natural explanations when they are the BEST explanation.
The creation model is actually observed and we just tested a statement from the bible using observation of natural selection, adaptations, and mutations. As far as the evolutionary model, we have never seen a dog change into anything other than a dog. We have big ones and small ones but they are still dogs. In addition, we have never observed a dog increase his genetic information. (i.e. If you breed dog that is hairless (Mexican Hairless)with another of the same, that information for hair is lost). And I talking actually gone, not hidden in some recessive allele. You can say “oh, it could evolve it back given million of years” but which model is more scientific. Your speculations or my observable data. Ultimately you are free to decide? That’s why I said it fit better with a creation framework. If this is the first time you have heard it presented like this take some time to consider what I wrote. I’ve taken much consideration on your position.
Tim
Jul 02, 2008 at 11:13 PM
@Tim
Firstly let me say that I appreciate the respectful nature of this discussion.
Secondly, I absolutely agree that media articles will go for the headlines. The link you point to is a good example. However the scientists referenced in the article are saying "they have found strong evidence that life may exist today on Mars" (fluctuating methane levels) and they want to find the cause.
Next as to the articles i pointed you to (note: these are articles published in scientific journals, they are not websites - the articles are just available online), yes I read the first article, and the abstract of the second as that was all that was available at the time. I admit that most of the article is over my head, but i was certainly able to get the gist of the articles which is that the genetic mutations observed carried over through multiple generations.
As for the dogs. Your reasoning just doesn't work for me. You are first making the assumption that god created two dogs as stated in genesis. With that as the founding premise, you lose me the rest of the way as I don't believe it to be a valid premise.
The scientific literature tells a different story. That dogs began evolving from wolves roughly 15,000 years ago.
Here are two articles on the subject:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn3099-dogs-evolved-from-handful-of-wolves.html
and
http://mathildasanthropologyblog.wordpress.com/2008/05/08/the-first-dogs-were-from-china/
Here is an interesting question regarding ID and one of it's favorite arguments the eye. If there was an intelligent designer, wouldn't it make sense that all creatures would have the best eyes available to the designer? Why not give a hawks superior eyes to humans? Why not give humans the superior olfactory senses possessed by dogs?
The fact that I need glasses to read this post is indicative of a highly flawed design!
We won't likely ever come to a meeting of minds on these matters, but I've enjoyed the discussion.
Take care and keep thinking!
Jul 07, 2008 at 5:55 PM
Steve,
I am sorry about not getting back to you for so long. I had a “creation talk” to give last Thursday night and then it was straight to the cottage for the weekend.
I have to agree that I have enjoyed our discussion and your respectful opinions.
In response to the articles you posted as evidence for mutations causing an increase in genetic information. I carefully read through each (the article and the abstract) and you were bang on. I quote:
“I admit that most of the article is over my head, but i was certainly able to get the gist of the articles which is that the genetic mutations observed carried over through multiple generations.”
The articles were indeed about genetic mutations observed carried over through multiple generations. However, this is not the same as a mutation causing a net increase in net genetic information. A hypothetical example (on a more macro scale) might be a beetle gaining the information to make wings. Something like this is never observed. What we do observe is beetles (with wings) on a windy island tend to be blown into the ocean and die. However, when a mutation caused the wings not to form, those wingless beetles were able to better survive. Natural selection coupled with a mutation caused a lost of genetic information. It lost the information for wings. This genetic information is corrupted (mutated) and is no longer available to form wings. This is a big change in the beetle, but not evolution. You see it’s in the wrong direction. Losing information never will add up to a net gain.
The broom salesman buys his brooms for 10 dollars and sells them for 8 dollars. He’s never going to make a profit no matter how many he sells.
Evolution requires a net increase in new genetic information to get from say a bacterium to say a human-being. But we (scientists) can’t even point to a mechanism for this is happen. Natural selection (a conservative force) doesn’t create new genetic information. It only selects upon information that is already there. Mutations are shown time and again to also reduce the amount to NEW genetic information. It definitely changes information. But this almost always destroys the information (like in the beetles on the windy island example).
I need to make a comment on this statement.
“As for the dogs. Your reasoning just doesn't work for me. You are first making the assumption that god created two dogs as stated in genesis. With that as the founding premise, you lose me the rest of the way as I don't believe it to be a valid premise.”
You are exactly right about this starting assumption. I start with the assumption that the bible is true. Therefore, God created two of the dog kind in the beginning. However, as I have shown, observational science agrees with this statement. In fact, the two articles you pointed me to agree with all dogs coming from essentially two dogs (I’ll be it in East Asia). Didn’t Noah’s Ark land somewhere around there?
“The similarities among the DNA sequences of New and Old World dogs indicate that all the dogs share a common ancestor”.
The only problem I had with the articles was the timeline and since neither explained where they obtained the date of 15,000 yrs approx. I can’t directly refute its dating method of choice. Excluding the date the science we use to show all dog are related CONFIRMS the bible. This is what I have found over the past 4 years I’ve been a young earth creationist. This bible is confirmed over and over again.
Grant me a second to share one of my personal favorite confirmations of the bible. The bible says in 11 different places “God stretches of the heavens”. This book was written thousands of years ago yet it is clearly referring to the expansion of the universe. We didn’t know anything about the expansion of the universe until Hubble came along in the early to mid-twentieth century. In fact, an expanding universe ran counter to the scientific knowledge of the day. (namely, a infinite static universe).
“Here is an interesting question regarding ID and one of it's favorite arguments the eye. If there was an intelligent designer, wouldn't it make sense that all creatures would have the best eyes available to the designer? Why not give a hawks superior eyes to humans? Why not give humans the superior olfactory senses possessed by dogs?”
Great questions! I’ve often wondered why I don’t have the ability to see through walls or fly, or some of the other cool abilities I see in Hollywood cinema. It God could do whatever He wanted then these things are that far off. However, I always keep in mind that God is omniscient (all-knowing) and I sure he has His reasons for creating exactly how he did.
I should point out that your question(s) are in a sense self-refuting. If human evolved from a common ancestor than why not evolve a hawks superior eyes to humans? Why not evolve humans the superior olfactory senses possessed by dogs? I could go on. Why not evolve a tail like a monkey, the wings of a bird, etc??? I believe the answers is you would give is similar to mind. Those features of the best for those organisms. My eyes, ears, nose are perfect for me as a human. I’m sure there are advantages to having the eyes we have over the eyes of a hawk. Could I read a book 24 inches from my face if I had the eyes of a hawk? I don’t know. They seem to be designed for spotting prey a great distance away.
“The fact that I need glasses to read this post is indicative of a highly flawed design!”
Here is a huge point of contention and misunderstanding. The human eye was created perfect in the beginning “God saw everything he had made and called it very good”. You eyes (as are mine) are the result of mutations which are the result of the curse. Adams disobedience (sin) caused everything to change. So the eyes you have (and mine, which also have glaucoma (the second leading cause of blindness)) today are not “highly flawed design”, but are the result of many genetic mutations over many generations. My dad has glaucoma and, most likely, so will my son. But this wasn’t the way God intended. Not at all. It is a constant reminder to me that we live in a sin cursed world.
“We won't likely ever come to a meeting of minds on these matters, but I've enjoyed the discussion.”
I concur. They discussion has got me thinking a lot about starting assumptions. I have shared mine. Do you recognize yours?
Unprovable starting assumption (or axioms) aren’t something we can avoid. Everyone has them whether they recognize it or not.
I like math so let me give an analogy.
Let x = y.
If x = 5, then y = ?
Did you say 5. Why? Let x = y is just a starting assumption that is unprovable. But by saying “let” we assume it’s a true statement.
I “let” the bible be true and the God of the bible exist.
What do you “let”? I think you let God not exist and the bible not be true. Or let only naturalistic explanations be true. Either way, they are your starting assumptions that can not be proven.
You were right on the money when you said to Derrick:
“I think if you were to be honest with yourself, you would admit that there will never be any scientific evidence which will convince you that the account in genesis is not an absolute truth.”
This is because this is an unprovable starting axiom that both Derrick and I share. But does that mean were wrong? All we can do is show evidence is consistent will our presuppositions. You can only do the same.
I’d like to finish this post with this statement.
I think if you were to be honest with yourself, you would admit that there will never be any scientific evidence which will convince you that the account in genesis is absolute truth. How could it right? You said yourself
“As for the dogs. Your reasoning just doesn't work for me. You are first making the assumption that god created two dogs as stated in genesis. With that as the founding premise, you lose me the rest of the way as I don't believe it to be a valid premise.”
I hope I’ve given you something to think about.
Again, I am sorry about the