# Assuming evolution is discovered to be junk science, would you believe in God? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 28, 2011, 12:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assuming-evolution-is-discovered-to-be-junk-science-would-you-believe-in-god/576194 "2011-03-28T00:39:14Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Strassia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e8c25b/32.png) [@Strassia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Strassia)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2011, 10:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assuming-evolution-is-discovered-to-be-junk-science-would-you-believe-in-god/576194/81 "2011-03-28T22:14:05Z")
> [@Galileo](#): > > You are using the word “observed” peculiarly. > > I have not “observed” mutations or antibodies. I have learned about them and I accept their validity in providing the best explanation of a variety of biological phenomena. I think he means you have observed the effects. Namely, you have experienced having a cold or influenza more than once. Just like looking at the [pretty glowing water](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherenkov_radiation) is away to observe a nuclear reaction without sticking my head in the core. In science many observations are indirect. ---
**Author:** ![Apollyon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/apollyon/32/4238_2.png) [@Apollyon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Apollyon)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2011, 10:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assuming-evolution-is-discovered-to-be-junk-science-would-you-believe-in-god/576194/82 "2011-03-28T22:31:20Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > Pandas, like many mammals, have paws with digits at the end. Pandas, however, unlike most mammals also have a seperate thumblike digit… Cheers **Little Nemo** ; nicely explained. > [@Revenant\_Threshold](#): > > That I, today, may be using my spanner to cut grass because it’s the best tool I have for that job doesn’t mean that tomorrow I won’t find myself in a room with lots of loose bolts. Well… if you could point to an example of this happening – having a clear and indisputable biological adaption ahead of the need, particularly an adaption that until that need appears is sub-optimal for the current biological niche – well, that might actually be useful as evidence in an argument for ID. It would have to be a clear adaption though… otherwise it would just be another example of selection and adaption over time. ID wouldn’t be demonstrated by having a population of proto-spanner-equipped grass-cutters who move into a loose bolts niche and over the generations select for those with the most spanner-like appendages (over those with the most shear-like; which would have formerly been the most successful). It also won’t be all that useful if there is archaeological evidence that the environment of the grass-cutters was originally a loose-bolts niche – that would suggest their current poorly adapted grass shears were previously adapted for bolts. It would be like claiming that seals are pre-adapted for the land because they have pseudo-feet; these are vestiges of their ancestry, not evidence for ID. ---
**Author:** ![Galileo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/85e7bf/32.png) [@Galileo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Galileo)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2011, 10:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assuming-evolution-is-discovered-to-be-junk-science-would-you-believe-in-god/576194/83 "2011-03-28T22:44:32Z")
> [@Strassia](#): > > I think he means you have observed the effects. Perhaps that’s what he means but that’s not what he said. In any case, I have not observed the effects of mutations and antibodies. I have read about them and I accept that their existence offers the best explanation > [@](#): > > Namely, you have experienced having a cold or influenza more than once. Yes, I have. > [@](#): > > Just like looking at the [pretty glowing water](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherenkov_radiation) is away to observe a nuclear reaction without sticking my head in the core. Would you say that, as a result of viewing photos of “pretty glowing water”, you have observed a nuclear reaction? Anyway, before this drifts too far away from the thread’s topic, I’ll just point out that practically nobody has “observed” evolution. If evolution was as obvious as some posters in this thread imply, scientific theories of it (genetic drift and natural selection) would have been formulated centuries ago, say around Newton’s time. A reasonable acceptance of it involves knowledge of quite a bit of more modern science. ---
**Author:** ![Musicat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/musicat/32/20189_2.png) [@Musicat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Musicat)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2011, 11:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assuming-evolution-is-discovered-to-be-junk-science-would-you-believe-in-god/576194/84 "2011-03-28T23:04:38Z")
> [@Galileo](#): > > Anyway, before this drifts too far away from the thread’s topic, I’ll just point out that practically nobody has “observed” evolution. By your definition, no one has “observed” anything in distant Galaxies, since all we are seeing is light waves, and those are millions of years old anyway. Maybe the Universe doesn’t really exist? ---
**Author:** ![Lamia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/8e7dd6/32.png) [@Lamia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lamia)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2011, 11:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assuming-evolution-is-discovered-to-be-junk-science-would-you-believe-in-god/576194/85 "2011-03-28T23:28:33Z")
> [@clairobscur](#): > > Well, in fact we have some clues as to how doing the designing. We’ve “designed” creatures by selective breeding for millenias. Recently, we began to play with the genes (adding a gene so that an organism will produce something useful for us, for instance). We’ll probably be able to do better in the future. We might not be able to make watchs, but we’re already making clocks. > > Which of course makes “magic” (and gods) an even less necessary explanation. I was thinking about dog breeds earlier and how the OP might have better phrased his question. Let’s imagine that evolution is real, but that it’s somehow discovered that natural selection alone cannot account for the diversity of life on earth. I’m not sure how this could ever be proven, but I can imagine doggie scientists (like in a _Far Side_ cartoon) coming to the realization that natural selection is insufficient to explain how chihuahuas, Afghan hounds, Great Danes, etc., all evolved from wolves. Some dogs might conclude that a supernatural being was responsible for the many different breeds of dogs in the world…but they’d be wrong. Dog breeding is arguably a form of intelligent design, but it’s intelligent design by humans and not a divine being. If humans somehow discovered that natural selection alone could not explain how we evolved from ancient primates then I’m sure many would say “That proves it, God did it!” It wouldn’t prove any such thing, though. Selective breeding or genetic engineering by some unknown alien species (or hidden/extinct earthly species) would strike me as a far more likely explanation. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2011, 11:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assuming-evolution-is-discovered-to-be-junk-science-would-you-believe-in-god/576194/86 "2011-03-28T23:42:37Z")
[QUOTE=Galileo] Perhaps that’s what he means but that’s not what he said. [/QUOTE] I thought it was pretty much implicit in what I was saying there. > [@](#): > > In any case, I have not observed the effects of mutations and antibodies. I have read about them and I accept that their existence offers the best explanation Sure you have. Think of it this way. If you didn’t know anything about gravity, you would still have first hand observational knowledge of it if you fell off a cliff. 😛 Anyway, I don’t want to get bogged down in a semantics discussion. I was going for light humor there, not for precise definitions. The key point I was making has already been made by numerous posters, namely that evolution is both fact and theory at the same time, and that if this was somehow overturned or proven to be ‘junk science’ then that would mean that at a fundamental level how we observe the universe would be flawed. -XT ---
**Author:** ![The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/73ab20/32.png) [@The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Tao_s_Revenge)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2011, 11:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assuming-evolution-is-discovered-to-be-junk-science-would-you-believe-in-god/576194/87 "2011-03-28T23:52:56Z")
> [@Galileo](#): > > How have I “observed” evolution when I caught a cold? Yes, it didn’t kill you, so baring something else that filters you, you survive to reproduce. You happen to be the decedent of lots of other people who survived colds long enough to begot you and your ancestors. Those that didn’t have a responsive enough immune system to survive long enough didn’t, unless they were lucky, pass their genes on to you. Remember what killed the Martians in War of the Worlds? That was a story of evolution. If you infect other people you also observe the cold surviving to reproduce. If the cold failed to be contagious enough then it’s filtered making room for more contagious colds. Whenever you hear “man there’s something going around” that’s a success story in action. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2011, 11:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assuming-evolution-is-discovered-to-be-junk-science-would-you-believe-in-god/576194/88 "2011-03-28T23:54:40Z")
> [@Lamia](#): > > Some dogs might conclude that a supernatural being was responsible for the many different breeds of dogs in the world…but they’d be wrong. Dog breeding is arguably a form of intelligent design, but it’s intelligent design by humans and not a divine being. If humans somehow discovered that natural selection alone could not explain how we evolved from ancient primates then I’m sure many would say “That proves it, God did it!” It wouldn’t prove any such thing, though. Selective breeding or genetic engineering by some unknown alien species (or hidden/extinct earthly species) would strike me as a far more likely explanation. See post #73. I like cows even better as evidence of intelligent design - they are so badly adapted they can’t even run away from space aliens mutilating them. 😃 So we could probably find evidence of design if there was any, and then we’d have to figure out who did the designing. Does any religious holy book posit design over time? Genesis has it all done in one week. While I understand that God’s invisible hand is popular with more moderate religions, is it anything but an attempt to integrate God with reality? ---
**Author:** ![Apollyon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/apollyon/32/4238_2.png) [@Apollyon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Apollyon)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2011, 12:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assuming-evolution-is-discovered-to-be-junk-science-would-you-believe-in-god/576194/89 "2011-03-29T00:13:18Z")
> [@Galileo](#): > > If evolution was as obvious as some posters in this thread imply, scientific theories of it (genetic drift and natural selection) would have been formulated centuries ago, say around Newton’s time. A reasonable acceptance of it involves knowledge of quite a bit of more modern science. Yes, but not all _that_ modern. To quote T. H. Huxley: > [@](#): > > Refuse to accept the creation hypothesis, and what have you to propose that can be accepted by any cautious reasoned? In 1857 I had no answer ready, and I do not think that anyone else had. A year later we reproached ourselves with dullness for being perplexed with such an inquiry. My reflection, when I first made myself master of the central idea of the ‘Origin’ was, ‘How extremely stupid not to have thought of that!’ In 1857 Huxley rebuked himself with: “How extremely stupid not to have thought of that!” Over 150 years later there are still numerous people who cannot or will not grasp the concepts involved and look with rational objectivity at the mountain of evidence accumulated in the century and a half since Darwin (and Wallace) proposed natural selection. (And even then the concept of changing species didn’t originate with Darwin and Wallace and may be traced earlier in the Enlightenment. But, yes, the mechanisms of evolution do require more modern science, and as our science improves we gain more understanding and proof). ---
**Author:** ![The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/73ab20/32.png) [@The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Tao_s_Revenge)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2011, 12:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assuming-evolution-is-discovered-to-be-junk-science-would-you-believe-in-god/576194/90 "2011-03-29T00:13:48Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > Does any religious holy book posit design over time? Genesis has it all done in one week. While I understand that God’s invisible hand is popular with more moderate religions, is it anything but an attempt to integrate God with reality? Not sure but this looks like a good place to start: > **[List of creation myths](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_creation_myths)** > > A creation myth (or creation story) is a cultural, religious or traditional myth which attempts to describe the earliest beginnings of the present world. Creation myths are the most common form of myth, usually developing first in oral traditions, and are found throughout human culture. A creation myth is usually regarded by those who subscribe to it as conveying profound truths, though not necessarily in a historical or literal sense. They are commonly, though not always, considered cosmogonic... Have fun. A lot of mythology stories are pretty cool. I’m pretty sure they were the comic book stories before comic books. ---
**Author:** ![zoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/zoid/32/336_2.png) [@zoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/zoid)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2011, 12:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assuming-evolution-is-discovered-to-be-junk-science-would-you-believe-in-god/576194/91 "2011-03-29T00:18:06Z")
If **abele derer** never came back to this thread, would you belive in God? ---
**Author:** ![cerberus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/71e660/32.png) [@cerberus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cerberus)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2011, 12:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assuming-evolution-is-discovered-to-be-junk-science-would-you-believe-in-god/576194/92 "2011-03-29T00:30:47Z")
**False Dichotomy** A hypothetical failure of evolution under proper scientific process would shift the focus on an alternate scientifically evaluable process. Science is a process, not a destination. ---
**Author:** ![clairobscur](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/839c29/32.png) [@clairobscur](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/clairobscur)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2011, 12:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assuming-evolution-is-discovered-to-be-junk-science-would-you-believe-in-god/576194/93 "2011-03-29T00:38:11Z")
> [@Blaster\_Master](#): > > While I can agree that nature appears to be designed poorly, I don’t think it follows that it isn’t intelligently designed. No, but it’s a valid counter-argument to a very common statement that goes like “The world is so wonderful that he has to have been created. No random process could result in such marvels” or “Look at the beauty of the world, and you’ll see god’s hand”. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/73ab20/32.png) [@The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Tao_s_Revenge)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2011, 12:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assuming-evolution-is-discovered-to-be-junk-science-would-you-believe-in-god/576194/94 "2011-03-29T00:42:19Z")
> [@clairobscur](#): > > No, but it’s a valid counter-argument to a very common statement that goes like “The world is so wonderful that he has to have been created. No random process could result in such marvels” or “Look at the beauty of the world, and you’ll see god’s hand”. It’s a counter to perfect intelligence but not intelligence in general. I mean you should have seen of the hack-job, jury rigged, duct tape loving, WD-40 marinated things I’ve done, and I’d like to think I was at least sort of intelligent. ---
**Author:** ![Galileo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/85e7bf/32.png) [@Galileo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Galileo)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2011, 1:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assuming-evolution-is-discovered-to-be-junk-science-would-you-believe-in-god/576194/95 "2011-03-29T01:07:51Z")
> [@Musicat](#): > > By your definition, no one has “observed” anything in distant Galaxies, since all we are seeing is light waves, and those are millions of years old anyway. Maybe the Universe doesn’t really exist? My definition of “observe” includes seeing. Where can I see evolution as clearly as I can see a galaxy? Science is an interpretation and explanation of observations and not the observations themselves. And science is “true” to the extent that it can adequately explain those observations. Disputes about religion and science are centered on what it means to “adequately explain”, and, ultimately, on what is considered the “best” explanation. For me, there is no explanatory power in postulating a god. Others disagree. I am interested in understanding why they disagree. ---
**Author:** ![Musicat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/musicat/32/20189_2.png) [@Musicat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Musicat)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2011, 1:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assuming-evolution-is-discovered-to-be-junk-science-would-you-believe-in-god/576194/96 "2011-03-29T01:34:01Z")
> [@Galileo](#): > > My definition of “observe” includes seeing. Where can I see evolution as clearly as I can see a galaxy? Where can you see gravity as clearly? You can’t “see” gravity, only the effects of it. You can’t “see” radio waves, you can only detect their existence. Do you doubt their existence because your senses are inadequate? You can’t “see” a lot of things in science, because your senses are not made to detect them. You can’t “see” evolution because you don’t live long enough. You will have to use your brain to make up for your pitiful shortcomings. Evolution is clearly seen in the fossil record and can be tested in the laboratory. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2011, 1:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assuming-evolution-is-discovered-to-be-junk-science-would-you-believe-in-god/576194/97 "2011-03-29T01:40:38Z")
You can’t see atoms either, but you still have direct observational evidence that they are there. If you don’t believe me, close your eyes and run head first at a wall and see what happens… -XT ---
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2011, 2:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assuming-evolution-is-discovered-to-be-junk-science-would-you-believe-in-god/576194/98 "2011-03-29T02:37:42Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > You’ve reached the point where your hypothesis has gone beyond proof. If the evidence supports intelligent design, then it’s acceptable at face value. If the evidence doesn’t support intelligent design, you theorize that there may be more unknown evidence which changes the meaning of the known evidence in a way that supports intelligent design. Well, I personally don’t, because i’m not a believer in intelligent design. Evidence that supports intelligent design is, you’ll probably not be surprised to hear, not acceptable purely on face value. My point is that these are possibilities, not that these have evidence behind them such that they are likely or reasonable possibilities. As far as i’m concerned, there is by the very nature of the idea that we may not be observing the true purpose of something a lack of evidence, because we aren’t observing it. [QUOTE=Apollyon] Well… if you could point to an example of this happening – having a clear and indisputable biological adaption ahead of the need, particularly an adaption that until that need appears is sub-optimal for the current biological niche – well, that might actually be useful as evidence in an argument for ID. It would have to be a clear adaption though… otherwise it would just be another example of selection and adaption over time. ID wouldn’t be demonstrated by having a population of proto-spanner-equipped grass-cutters who move into a loose bolts niche and over the generations select for those with the most spanner-like appendages (over those with the most shear-like; which would have formerly been the most successful). It also won’t be all that useful if there is archaeological evidence that the environment of the grass-cutters was originally a loose-bolts niche – that would suggest their current poorly adapted grass shears were previously adapted for bolts. It would be like claiming that seals are pre-adapted for the land because they have pseudo-feet; these are vestiges of their ancestry, not evidence for ID. [/QUOTE] There’s also the difficulty that some adaptions might be a matter of needing to be less perfect in some area in order to improve on another. In which case even a later discovered sub-optimal adaption might well end up being optimal in contextual terms. ---
**Author:** ![komolono](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/komolono/32/532_2.png) [@komolono](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/komolono)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2011, 3:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assuming-evolution-is-discovered-to-be-junk-science-would-you-believe-in-god/576194/99 "2011-03-29T03:06:18Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > Another point: Even if Darwinian evolution were, somehow, disproved, that still wouldn’t make it junk science. My understanding of the word “junk”: it’s tasty, not nec·es·sar·i·ly healthy - but people still love it. So count me as Darwinian and pro-Newton kindafellow. A BigMac (Mmm mm) ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2011, 7:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assuming-evolution-is-discovered-to-be-junk-science-would-you-believe-in-god/576194/100 "2011-03-29T07:10:20Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > You can’t see atoms either, but you still have direct observational evidence that they are there. If you don’t believe me, close your eyes and run head first at a wall and see what happens… Nitpick: With the right equipment (a magnetic trap, a laser and a telescope mirror IIRC), you actually can see atoms - and electrons too. The scientist who first set up that experiment mentioned that he did it in part because he was always told when he was a student that you can’t ever see atoms or electrons - so he built something to let him do just that, and even gave the atoms and electrons pet names. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assuming-evolution-is-discovered-to-be-junk-science-would-you-believe-in-god/576194.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assuming-evolution-is-discovered-to-be-junk-science-would-you-believe-in-god/576194.md?page=6)