Creation vs. Evolution

[Ben]

*Originally posted by johnny miles *
**Please, you need to read. Evolution is so a religious belief. Ever heard of “secular humanism”? It most certainly is an acknowledged religion, and evolution is most certainly one of it’s beliefs. You really should read before you go spouting off, cause you just end up sounding ignorant. **

You’re actually being quite snotty here, johnny miles. So some religion decided to enshrine evolution into its doctrines- so what? What difference does it make? Evolution is arguably a religious doctrine of evolutionist Christians, too, since they believe that God used evolution to create humanity. I could make a religion which holds, as a point of doctrine, that DNA is the carrier of genetic information. But what difference would that make to science?

The fact of the matter is that evolution is true. A tiny fraction of the evidence for evolution has been presented in this thread, and you haven’t even been able to overturn that.

Like I said, big words for someone on the side that lost. You thump your chest about how evolution is wrong, and you can’t even provide a creation “science” explanation for retrogenes.

[Ben]

Nomadic_One, perhaps you should just tell us what someone has to believe in order to be a “real” Christian?

[Darwin_s_Finch]

*Originally posted by johnny miles *
**Please, you need to read. […] You really should read before you go spouting off, cause you just end up sounding ignorant. **

Great advice! Here’s a book for you to read. Once you’ve done so, then you might be qualified to discuss what evolution (and specifically, natural selection) is or is not, and what it can or cannot explain.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

*Originally posted by johnny miles *
**Evolution does not conflict with a belief in god(if the god happens to be a false god). And no, it’s not possible that evolution is true. But yes, thank God, there is a God. **

1.) Why would that God turn out to be “false?”

2.) If it is “not possible” that evolution is true, how do you explain the fact that it’s already be proven true?

3.) You can’t just post baseless assertions in the Great Debates forum. You have to be prepared to back up your claims with evidence and reasoned arguments.

(And FYI, The Bible will not be accepted as evidence of anything in an evolution debate. You have to cite actual facts)

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

*Originally posted by johnny miles *
**Evolution does not conflict with a belief in god(if the god happens to be a false god). And no, it’s not possible that evolution is true. But yes, thank God, there is a God. **

1.) Why would that God turn out to be “false?”

2.) If it is “not possible” that evolution is true, how do you explain the fact that it’s already be proven true?

3.) You can’t just post baseless assertions in the Great Debates forum. You have to be prepared to back up your claims with evidence and reasoned arguments.

(And FYI, The Bible will not be accepted as evidence of anything in an evolution debate. You have to cite actual facts)

[Voyager]

*Originally posted by Nomadic_One *
**Voyager can I ask your source behind calling the bible “inerrant”. **

I’m not sure what the question is, but here is where I am coming from. I have a hard time understanding why acceptance of evolution has anything to do with religion, acceptance of god, or salvation. The only problem I see is that evolution clearly states that some parts of the Bible are not literally true. (But so does geology, cosmology, and a host of other fields.) If one believed that acceptance of a literally true, inerrant Bible were required for belief in God, then evolution conflicts with it. Otherwise it does not.

My understanding is that you do not have this belief. I am trying to understand why you see acceptance of evolution as being a problem.

I personally am an atheist, but evolution has nothing to do with this decision.

[luvtinayothers]

*Originally posted by johnny miles *
**Please, you need to read. Evolution is so a religious belief. Ever heard of “secular humanism”? It most certainly is an acknowledged religion, and evolution is most certainly one of it’s beliefs. You really should read before you go spouting off, cause you just end up sounding ignorant. **

LOL! Oh, man. This brought tears to my eyes. I haven’t laughed this hard at a
post on the internet in a while. Thank you.

[Dob]

Out of curosity…a small question to those of you well versed in the science of Evolution.

Has their ever been anything in your study that has made you scratch your head and question how evolution could have done that? I am not a creationist by any means, but I have read this thread and seen the responses by Evolution folks (im trying to be vague) and everyone seems just so damn certain. Hell im not even that certain im actually typing this and not dreaming it!!

Are their no questions left? Does evolution truly explain the who and why we are what we are and how we got here? Are their absolutly NO blanks or gaps anywhere?? Everything makes sense when applied against the evolution model?

[Mangetout]

*Originally posted by Dob *
**Are their no questions left? Does evolution truly explain the who and why we are what we are and how we got here? Are their absolutly NO blanks or gaps anywhere?? Everything makes sense when applied against the evolution model? **

'Course there are gaps - the gaps and questions/unknowns are exactly what spurs science onward.

But I’m sure you’ve heard it said before that just because there is a gap in some theory or other, that doesn’t make it acceptable to insert our favourite supernatural explanation, indeed to do so only increases the chance of our looking stupid at some point in the near future.

[hansel]

*Originally posted by Dob *
**Are their no questions left? Does evolution truly explain the who and why we are what we are and how we got here? Are their absolutly NO blanks or gaps anywhere?? Everything makes sense when applied against the evolution model? **

The certainty you’re perceiving isn’t certainty that evolution answers all questions; it doesn’t, and nobody with a good understanding of evolution would claim that it does.

The certainty you’re perceiving is that evolution is far, far closer to the truth of the matter than the close-minded, literalist interpretations of the Bible and Christianity that Nomadic_one and Johnny Miles have been articulating.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

There are gaps but there is nothing that challenges evolution as a viable theory. There are still some questions about how evolution happens but there is no question that evolution did happen and continues to happen.

[BrightNShiny]

but I have read this thread and seen the responses by Evolution folks (im trying to be vague) and everyone seems just so damn certain.

You are confusing what people are certain about. What people are certain about is what a particular scientific theory says or what a particular scientific definition means.

There is a general agreement about what things mean in the scientific community. If there wasn’t, two scientists would not be able to debate whether a particular theory is valid.

The problem is that creationists keep making false statements about a particular theory. So, when a creationist says something like "according to the 2nd law of thermo, blah, blah, blah, we can be very certain that they are using not using a correct definition of the 2nd law.

Now, the next part people are certain about is to what the actual observed data is. And this is another place that creationists keep making false statements. If a creationist says that the sun is shrinking by 5 meters/year, we can be very certain that it is not, in fact shrinking, because there is ample observational data to support that it isn’t.

Are their no questions left? Does evolution truly explain the who and why we are what we are and how we got here?

Remember, science is about modeling physical processes using experimental data. It’s not an attempt to answer questions about the meaning of life. If you want to draw some meaning from a scientific theory, that’s your choice, but that is not inherent to any part of science.

As to whether the collection of theories and data commonly referred to as evolution is valid, Mangetout’s explanation is very well put.

[Ben]

*Originally posted by Dob *
**Are their no questions left? Does evolution truly explain the who and why we are what we are and how we got here? Are their absolutly NO blanks or gaps anywhere?? Everything makes sense when applied against the evolution model? **

Of course there are questions left. But that doesn’t mean you can say “Jesus” every time that “I don’t know” would be more honest.

I mean, think about the theory of universal gravitation. Newton didn’t know what made gravity work. We’re still not entirely sure about it. And you know something? The people of Newton’s day attacked gravitation as an atheistic theory promulgated by a villainous heathen in order to displace the UNQUESTIONABLE BIBLICAL TRUTH that God is pushing the planets around with his bare hands. Now, when I tell this story, even fundies laugh at how stupid Newton’s opponents were. But you know something?

You don’t really know how gravity works, do you?

Like they say, those who cannot learn from the mistakes of history…

[iampunha]

*Originally posted by edwino *
Rereading your question, I’m not sure that is really what you were getting at. Let me attempt another answer if this is the case. There are a number of multifactorial medical conditions with very long names which involve too much or too little clotting. There is certainly a genetic component to these. Three which come to mind with too much clotting are hemolytic uremic syndrome (HUS), thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura (TTP) and disseminated intravascular coagulation (DIC). These are all very, very bad things.

I don’t think I was sufficiently clear (English major to education major to, before long, general studies major. My days of science are behind me;)). What I meant was basically “are there any other traits that occur in conjunction with clotting irregularities or any that should occur but are absent?”

[king_of_spain]

*Originally posted by Diogenes the Cynic *
**Upon being asked what God was doing before he created the universe St. Augustine retorted, " He was busy creating Hell for people who ask questions like that!"

Augustine would not have done well as a Doper. **

I dunno, I’d say he had some pretty good advice for Christians on the SDMB:

Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he hold to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods and on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion.

With the Scriptures it is a matter of treating about the faith. For that reason, as I have noted repeatedly, if anyone, not understanding the mode of divine eloquence, should find something about these matters [about the physical universe] in our books, or hear of the same from those books, of such a kind that it seems to be at variance with the perceptions of his own rational faculties, let him believe that these other things are in no way necessary to the admonitions or accounts or predictions of the Scriptures. In short, it must be said that our authors knew the truth about the nature of the skies, but it was not the intention of the Spirit of God, who spoke through them, to teach men anything that would not be of use to them for their salvation.

…appropriately, those are both from Augustine’s work De Genesi ad litteram or “On the Literal Meaning of Genesis.”

[Dunderman]

*Originally posted by Dob *
**Are their no questions left? Does evolution truly explain the who and why we are what we are and how we got here? Are their absolutly NO blanks or gaps anywhere?? Everything makes sense when applied against the evolution model? **

Oh yes, there are questions. A bunch of them. That’s why it’s still interesting. I see a sawfish and wonder how the heck that thing evolved. Or the human eye. Or a bird’s wing. But evolution still explains these things several orders of magnitude better than any other theory there is, and furthermore, evolution has not only science behind it but plain logic as well.

[Siege]

Sorry, I’d been overlooking this thread for a while. Since I was asked this question, I’d like to answer it.

Originally posted by Nomadic_One
I think if someone truely saw God in their lives and in His word. Why would they need evolution?

Just in case you’re wondering if I truly see God in my life, the answer is an emphatic, and at times defiant “YES!” For the record, I believe that my faith in God has saved my mortal, physical life and healed serious damage to my immortal soul.

Technically, I don’t need evolution. In one of the Sherlock Holmes stories, Watson is appalled at Holmes lack of knowledge in some areas. Holmes’ reply was something like “Whether the earth revolves around the sun or the sun revolves around the earth makes no difference to me.” So it is with me and evolution. In terms of every day living, it makes no difference to me whether man evolved from apes, or the story of man’s creation in Genesis is true, or the ancient Egyptian beliefs about man’s creation are true.

The reason I like evolution is because it suits the way my mind works. In my case, reason and my habit of asking questions enhances and deepens my faith. As a little girl, I remember thinking and possibly saying, “OK, so yellow and blue make green. But why should they make green instead of purple or brown or something? Who said it should be that way?” I still find water to be rather amazing. Three simple atoms combine in a way that makes life possible, that can dissolve or wear away incredibly hard substances, that can refresh and heal or harm and kill. I am terrible at unquestioning obedience. Try to force me into it, and I will rebel. Insist upon it, and I will walk away any way I can.

To me, the idea of evolution, of an intricate, beautifully crafted Plan starting from the simplest building blocks and moving toward and perhaps beyond the diversity of life which explodes on and beyond my balcony gives evidence and Glory of God’s presence and His wisdom in the universe. My faith is deeper and more profound than it would be if I merely had to accept unquestioningly creation as it is described in one of the two versions of Genesis. I am not a biologist or a theologian, so there are people around here who are far better equipped than I am to address specific arguments. Instead, as a programmer, a poet, and a Christian, I am content to give praise to God for the marvelous complexity of the plans he set to make this world as He did.

Let me give it one more shot. One of my hobbies is knitting. I can appreciate a nice, simple, plainly knit shirt, but I am much more intrigued by and more impressed with the skill it takes to create one which, while just as simple at first glance, instead turns out to be comprised of an intricate, complex pattern, and that’s the one I’ll aspire to make, and the one who made it is one I’ll go to learn from. For those who like and make plain shirts, more power to you. Because of the way God made me, I’ll go for the intricate one.

Respectfully,
CJ

[Dob]

I appreciate the responses to my question…they were all well said and thought out! I still did not see an answer to my first question and wonder if anyone had any input on it…

Has their ever been anything in your study that has made you scratch your head and question how evolution could have done that?

Im not asking to try and disprove evolution or advance creationism, but I would have to think that in all the rehotric from the creation side that at least ONE argument might have to be valid. I mean not all creationists are backward country folk marrying cousins and such! heheh…Seriously, alot of them are well learned, educated people. They must have a point somewhere? Dont they??

[Ben]

No, they have no point at all. The only argument they can present is God of the Gaps, as far as I can tell.

As for a lot of them being well learned, educated people, I’m not so sure. A book came out recently full of interviews with creationists who were scientists. The problem is that none of them were scientists in relevant fields, so you get a synthetic organic chemist recycling old arguments about geology, because he knows too little about geology to know how obviously wrong they are to anyone who knows what they’re talking about.

Gish is, IIRC, a biochemist with a PhD from Berkeley. Nonetheless, in interviews and debates he comes across as being shockingly ignorant. (The best explanation I can come up with is that he got his degree in the 1970’s and hasn’t learned anything new about biochemistry since.) I read a transcript of a radio debate in which the evolutionist ran rings around Gish because Gish knew nothing about immune recombination. That might sound obscure, but if you’re a biochemist these days you’ll read about it over and over again in textbooks. (I’ve seen immune recombination given prominent coverage in about five or so textbooks from as many fields- immunology, molecular genetics, cell biology, evolutionary biology, etc.)

Behe is typically pointed to as being the smart anti-evolutionist, but he’s not. Many evolutionary biologists have pointed out that he seems to know nothing whatsoever about the field he’s chosen to critique. He gave a technical talk on Intelligent Design and Irreducible Complexity at my school, and he so clearly didn’t know what he was talking about that all my colleagues thought he was a joke. (Bear in mind that none of us are evolutionary biologists- we just use evolutionary biology in our work. That makes it all the more remarkable that Behe made so many basic errors.) It’s not clear to me how Behe managed to become a Professor at Lehigh. It’s not even clear how much of his spiel he believes- he carefully tailors his description of his own beliefs depending on the audience. To an audience of scientists, he gave the impression that he believes in common descent, and bemoaned the fact that people confuse him with creationists and think he has a political agenda. For a creationist audience, he’ll claim that the transitional fossils used to prove common descent don’t exist, and he’ll go on about how we need to get evolution out of the schools and replace it with God.

[Ben]

Let me put it this way: do you think the flat earthers have a point? What about the “the hand of God is pushing the planets around” people?

There are always a bunch of Christians who will claim that the latest scientific advance is absolutely incompatible with the Bible. It used to be geocentrism. Then it was gravity. Then it was the germ theory of disease. Right now it’s evolution. In a few decades it will be neuroscience.

The reason they accept one belief and move on to the next isn’t because the evidence piled up. Evolution is as well proven as round-earthism, universal gravitation, or heliocentrism. It’s just that right now geocentrism is unfashionable, and creationism is in fashion.

So could the creationists have a valid point? Not really. Behe is right in pointing out that we don’t know yet how certain complex biochemical systems evolved, but so what? That’s just a GOTG argument. Similarly, there’s a lot we don’t know about gravity, but I don’t hear Behe claiming that God is pushing the planets around. (Then again, maybe he hasn’t found the right audience yet.)