# Do you need more faith to believe in evolution than in intelligent design? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 17, 2004, 8:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-need-more-faith-to-believe-in-evolution-than-in-intelligent-design/250836 "2004-06-17T08:05:19Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 14
**Author:** ![Starving\_Artist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/aeb1de/32.png) [@Starving\_Artist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Starving_Artist)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2004, 6:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-need-more-faith-to-believe-in-evolution-than-in-intelligent-design/250836/261 "2004-06-23T18:01:15Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > How do creationists explain the origin of God? The concept of God simply pushes back one step further the point where we say “we don’t know how that came about”. It does absolutely nothing to explain the “ultimate question”-- all it does is rephrase it. I seem to have a vague recollection concerning this question, I think in regard to some of Stephen Hawking’s work. It requires some pretty abstract thinking and I suppose upper-level math to be able to understand, but there are several things we think of as having to have boundries, and there simply aren’t. Included in this would be the fact that there is no end to space, time and space are dimensions of the same thing, that time and space did not exist before the big bang (although as my beloved step-father used to say: “What banged?”), and that there has never been a time when God did not exist. These are difficult concepts for most of us lay people to get our heads around. It’s like trying to envision a coin with only one side. But for some reason this has been relatively easy for me to accept, if not to understand. Perhaps, whether we understand it or not, there has simply never been a time when God did not exist. ---
**Author:** ![Starving\_Artist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/aeb1de/32.png) [@Starving\_Artist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Starving_Artist)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2004, 6:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-need-more-faith-to-believe-in-evolution-than-in-intelligent-design/250836/262 "2004-06-23T18:05:19Z")
A superb post, **Diogenes**. Thank you. ---
**Author:** ![quelquechose](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/6f9a4e/32.png) [@quelquechose](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/quelquechose)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2004, 6:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-need-more-faith-to-believe-in-evolution-than-in-intelligent-design/250836/263 "2004-06-23T18:21:07Z")
> [@](#): > > Also, and if this has already been covered I apologize, but talk of evolutionary process aside once life had begun, how do non-creationists scientifically explain life coming into being in the first place, even in the most primitive one-celled animal? It seems to me this is the key question in regard to creationism vs. evolution. Life itself has to come into being before evolution can even begin. A useful analogy here is meteorology. Meteorology explains changes within the atmosphere (weather), but says absolutely nothing about the origin of the atmosphere. Likewise, evolution explains changes within life, but says absolutely nothing about its origin. Meteorology is equally valid whether the atmosphere was created in a single instant, or gradually developed over an extremely long period of time. In the same way, evolution is equally valid whether life arose from nonliving matter, or if it popped into existance at the command of God. In fact, even if we had no idea whatsoever as to how life came into being, evolution would remain a valid description of the way it changes over time. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2004, 6:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-need-more-faith-to-believe-in-evolution-than-in-intelligent-design/250836/264 "2004-06-23T18:26:53Z")
> [@Starving Artist](#): > > A superb post, **Diogenes**. Thank you. Thank you. I found the language analogy extremely helpful to my own comprehension of evolution. ---
**Author:** ![Starving\_Artist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/aeb1de/32.png) [@Starving\_Artist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Starving_Artist)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2004, 6:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-need-more-faith-to-believe-in-evolution-than-in-intelligent-design/250836/265 "2004-06-23T18:32:50Z")
**quelquechose** , **John Mace** , thank you. I understand what you mean in that the creation of life itself is outside the realm of the discussion of evolution. I’m afraid I have to confess to misconstruing by the title of this thread that the discussion here was in relation to evolution vs. creationism, not only with regard to life as it currently exists, but in regard to the creation of life itself. My apologies. ---
**Author:** ![Starving\_Artist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/aeb1de/32.png) [@Starving\_Artist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Starving_Artist)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2004, 6:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-need-more-faith-to-believe-in-evolution-than-in-intelligent-design/250836/266 "2004-06-23T18:38:16Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > I found the language analogy extremely helpful to my own comprehension of evolution. Indeed it is. I feel in some ways as though a veil has been lifted in terms of answers to questions that have puzzled me for a long time. Thank you again. ---
**Author:** ![qcomdrj](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/a6a055/32.png) [@qcomdrj](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/qcomdrj)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2004, 6:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-need-more-faith-to-believe-in-evolution-than-in-intelligent-design/250836/267 "2004-06-23T18:49:52Z")
Notwithstanding the evidence present for evolution, there is a bit that cannot be explained, even to this day. Most of it is molecular. As in, how did the clotting cascade come about? It is not as if all 13 factors sprang up at the same time, and I am disinclined to believe an organism would be more fit by having part of them, either clotting spontaneously without activation or having activators without clots. So there is some “because I said so” still going on in the field. Look in the Journal of Molecular Evolution. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2004, 7:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-need-more-faith-to-believe-in-evolution-than-in-intelligent-design/250836/268 "2004-06-23T19:02:01Z")
> [@Starving Artist](#): > > **quelquechose** , **John Mace** , thank you. I understand what you mean in that the creation of life itself is outside the realm of the discussion of evolution. I’m afraid I have to confess to misconstruing by the title of this thread that the discussion here was in relation to evolution vs. creationism, not only with regard to life as it currently exists, but in regard to the creation of life itself. My apologies. Don’t worry about it. It’s an extremely common misconception that the subjects are related and non-theists make that mistake just as often as theists. Trust me, if someone came into GD and said that “evolution proves there’s no God,” or that “evolution proves that God did not create the universe,” an avalanche of corrections would immediately descend from those who are defending evolution. ---
**Author:** ![BrianJ](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/54ee81/32.png) [@BrianJ](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrianJ)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2004, 7:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-need-more-faith-to-believe-in-evolution-than-in-intelligent-design/250836/269 "2004-06-23T19:02:48Z")
> [@David Simmons](#): > > Talk about bad design! How about teeth? As Mark Twain so aptly pointed out, they are usually developed with quite a bit of pain and then when fully developed, fall out and are replaced by another set. And this set is subject to all sorts of ills. The notorious shark, on the other hand, was the recipient of the Great Designer’s grace in having teeth that are continuously replaced, sort of like a converyor belt. > > Maybe it was “designed” that way because the shark makes a living with teeth whereas humans don’t, at least not entirely. However Dr. Bergan Evans in _The Natural History of Nonsense_ maintains that problems with teeth are a significant cause of death in wild predators. And, of course if the Great Designer designed the shark’s teeth that way because the shark is a meat eating predator, why not the teeth of all meat eating predators? [This site](http://www.freewebs.com/oolon/SMOGGM.htm) has many examples of substandard design. It’s a great list. ---
**Author:** ![BrianJ](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/54ee81/32.png) [@BrianJ](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrianJ)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2004, 7:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-need-more-faith-to-believe-in-evolution-than-in-intelligent-design/250836/270 "2004-06-23T19:08:19Z")
> [@qcomdrj](#): > > Notwithstanding the evidence present for evolution, there is a bit that cannot be explained, even to this day. Most of it is molecular. As in, how did the clotting cascade come about? It is not as if all 13 factors sprang up at the same time, and I am disinclined to believe an organism would be more fit by having part of them, either clotting spontaneously without activation or having activators without clots. So there is some “because I said so” still going on in the field. Look in the Journal of Molecular Evolution. Search for ‘Blood Clotting’ on Talk origins. They have quite a few articles on this. A quick summary: Some of the articles suggest that the individual components evolved through sharing functions that had originally had other uses. [This](http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/DI/clot/Clotting.html) seems to be a good resource for explaining it as well. ---
**Author:** ![qcomdrj](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/a6a055/32.png) [@qcomdrj](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/qcomdrj)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2004, 7:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-need-more-faith-to-believe-in-evolution-than-in-intelligent-design/250836/271 "2004-06-23T19:23:09Z")
Precisely my point. Your link, while fun, states itself that this is only likely. And in some ways to me much less likely than ape=\>man. He points out Behe’s work, which I am mildy familiar with, it holds a nice place in the study (_read_ bathroom). Gene duplication seems odd, why would a cell make two proteins that do the same thing. I know there are multiple pathways for each molecule, and most of the factors are serine proteases, but to me its a bit of a stretch to say “factors I and II both activated III, until II mutated and started activating I”. Just my slight little rant. I will admit I haven’t read all of the previous arguments about this pathway in the board. But evolutionists, like all scientists, have a modicum of faith in their paths. They have to, at least in my sense of the word, or their would be no point in doing experiments. To put in another way, why would I spend time setting up an electrophoresis gel if I thought there were no chance the outcome would be what I want. Ergo, I have faith that it might work, and if it doesn’t, I figure out an error or scrap it and move on. ---
**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:** [June 23, 2004, 7:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-need-more-faith-to-believe-in-evolution-than-in-intelligent-design/250836/272 "2004-06-23T19:33:57Z")
> [@Starving Artist](#): > > Actually, when I think of the chicken or the egg question, I don’t think in terms of other animals at all. I wonder how the egg itself came into being with no chicken to lay it; and if the chicken came first, how did the chicken come into being without an egg for it to hatch from? Eggs are an advanced feature of life. Even fertilization inside the body is advanced. Some fish, and many less advanced life forms, have the mother dump unfertized eggs outside, to be fertilized by the father. I’d advise you to run out and buy _Dr. Tatiana’s Sex Advice to all of Creation_ by Olivia Judson, the spiciest, raciest, juiciest book on evolution ever written. ([Amazon page](http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0805063323/qid=1088018932/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/102-9575430-6137764?v=glance&s=books) ) She gives an incredible range of ways creatures reproduce. It’s educational, and fun too. ---
**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:** [June 23, 2004, 7:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-need-more-faith-to-believe-in-evolution-than-in-intelligent-design/250836/273 "2004-06-23T19:50:33Z")
> [@qcomdrj](#): > > Precisely my point. Your link, while fun, states itself that this is only likely. And in some ways to me much less likely than ape=\>man. It’s all bloody unlikely. Any particular outcome is unlikely. It was damn unlikely that either you or I would ever get born, right, but it happened. > [@](#): > > But evolutionists, like all scientists, have a modicum of faith in their paths. They have to, at least in my sense of the word, or their would be no point in doing experiments. To put in another way, why would I spend time setting up an electrophoresis gel if I thought there were no chance the outcome would be what I want. Ergo, I have faith that it might work, and if it doesn’t, I figure out an error or scrap it and move on. The difference between scientists and creationists is what happens when their “faith” gets shattered. Creationists find some argument to explain away everything, since they have the answer. Remember some have to sign pledges that creationism is true. Scientists (painfully often) dump stuff that doesn’t work. I had a friend who was doing a PhD in physics, when he discovered that an equation everyone accepted as being correct wasn’t. Unfortunately, this discovery wasn’t good enough for a dissertation on its own, so he had to scrap a lot of his work, and got delayed a year. That’s science. So I bet if your gel didn’t work for some new setup, and you found out it wasn’t a mistake, or an error, you’d investigate the cause, come up with an improved theory of gels, and become famous. If you were a gel creationist you’d say god hates that setup. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![qcomdrj](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/a6a055/32.png) [@qcomdrj](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/qcomdrj)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2004, 7:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-need-more-faith-to-believe-in-evolution-than-in-intelligent-design/250836/274 "2004-06-23T19:55:21Z")
A low self-esteem gel creationist would say “god hates me.” ---
**Author:** ![Jon\_the\_Geek](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/bbce88/32.png) [@Jon\_the\_Geek](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jon_the_Geek)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2004, 8:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-need-more-faith-to-believe-in-evolution-than-in-intelligent-design/250836/275 "2004-06-23T20:54:41Z")
> [@Starving Artist](#): > > I seem to have a vague recollection concerning this question, I think in regard to some of Stephen Hawking’s work. It requires some pretty abstract thinking and I suppose upper-level math to be able to understand, but there are several things we think of as having to have boundries, and there simply aren’t. Included in this would be the fact that there is no end to space, time and space are dimensions of the same thing, that time and space did not exist before the big bang (although as my beloved step-father used to say: “What banged?”), and that there has never been a time when God did not exist. > > These are difficult concepts for most of us lay people to get our heads around. It’s like trying to envision a coin with only one side. But for some reason this has been relatively easy for me to accept, if not to understand. Perhaps, whether we understand it or not, there has simply never been a time when God did not exist. Why multiply entities? Couldn’t the universe (or, well, the “multiverse” to use the sci fi term, or “nature” to stick to reality) have always existed? Maybe not the universe as we know it (which may have begun at the big bang), but the “wrapper” we’re putting it in. Why couldn’t that “wrapper”, including some fundamental laws of physics, have always been around? Why does there have to be a creator? Note: I don’t have any _faith_ that this is the case. It’s just one of the “maybes” that makes it impossible for me to worship a deity. Sure, maybe there’s a God, but maybe there isn’t, and maybe if there is, He gets pissed off when people assume He exists. Why believe in this one thing I don’t have evidence for, when I don’t believe in other things that I don’t have evidence for? ---
**Author:** ![Jon\_the\_Geek](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/bbce88/32.png) [@Jon\_the\_Geek](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jon_the_Geek)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2004, 9:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-need-more-faith-to-believe-in-evolution-than-in-intelligent-design/250836/276 "2004-06-23T21:27:13Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > It was covered. Evolution has absolutely nothing to say about how life began-- only about how life changes once life exists. Right now, no one has a well accepted theory about life began-- we simply don’t know for sure. But all that means is that the state of our science right now is missing some key information, not that there is something wrong with science itself. We do know there are self replicating molecules out there, and we do understand what the basic building blocks of life are (amino acids), but we just don’t know how it all came together to make life. I don’t think this statement should be made so strongly. Sure, biological evolution doesn’t care how life began, but the core tenets of evolution (variation, competition, and natural selection) work before true “life” actually existed. If molecules are randomly forming (which will happen in any system, especially when energy is being added, such as at an oceanic vent or sitting in sunlight), and some of these molecules catalyze the formation of similar molecules (essentially “survive to reproduce”), those molecules will be selected for. We don’t know exactly when or where these molecules were going through this process, but there are some pretty good hypotheses. The current leader is the [“RNA world”](http://www.panspermia.org/rnaworld.htm) hypothesis. In this hypothesis, RNA molecules (which we already know are capable of both storing genetic information and acting as enzymes) formed (see next paragraph), and some were randomly able to catalyze their own replication. Fast forward 4.5 billion years or so, and you have an organism sitting in front of a machine created by his species, wondering about the origin of life. How did these seemingly complex RNA molecules form? This is the current probable point of “abiogenesis”–anything after the formation of the RNA molecules is evolution, anything before is simply chemistry. One theory holds that some sort of membrane self-organized (which surfactant molecules commonly do) around a bunch of chemicals, including nucleotides. This held the nucleotides in a high enough concentration to allow for some “experimentation” (random combinations, with the self-replicating surviving). It is also possible that the origin took place on clay, which has been [shown](http://www.origins.rpi.edu/clayandtheoriginsoflife.html) to catalyze polymerizatoin of nucleotides. Still others contend that the origin took place near deep-sea ocean vents, iron and nickel sulfides might catalyze some of the necessary reactions (I’m not certain, but I think the intense pressures might also make chemistry that’s difficult at the surface more likely; I can’t remember how water behaves at such pressures, and whether its state is different enough from normal “surface” water to make a difference). The review article on the RNA world that I linked to above touches on some of the other ideas (and gives references). ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2004, 11:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-need-more-faith-to-believe-in-evolution-than-in-intelligent-design/250836/277 "2004-06-23T23:04:06Z")
> [@qcomdrj](#): > > Gene duplication seems odd, why would a cell make two proteins that do the same thing. By mistake; it happens all the the time. ---
**Author:** ![qcomdrj](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/a6a055/32.png) [@qcomdrj](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/qcomdrj)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2004, 1:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-need-more-faith-to-believe-in-evolution-than-in-intelligent-design/250836/278 "2004-06-24T01:05:40Z")
While my wording would have been construed, my implied message was “Why would a cell with two copies of an identical gene be more fit than a cell with one copy” I know gene duplication exists. As does noncoding duplication. Think Huntingdons. However, to say duplication, then mutation is a stretch, to me. Plus, most cells, if they have a duplication of something, either limit expression of said device or bad things happen. IE tumors from overexpressed MDR proteins, or mental retardation from multiple X Chromosomes (more than two, specifically in men). Why would this have not been true in primordium? And yes, I know not all duplications are bad, but with limited energy, almost all of them would be (energy wasted on 2 A’s versus 1 A and 1 U). See my point? ---
**Author:** ![bodswood](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/e68b1a/32.png) [@bodswood](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bodswood)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2004, 1:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-need-more-faith-to-believe-in-evolution-than-in-intelligent-design/250836/279 "2004-06-24T01:34:53Z")
Good morning from Hong Kong. One problem with living in a different time zone to most of the posters here is that we’re out of synch for all but a few hours and questions inevitably get missed. Anyway, for those of you returning from work on the West Coast, perparing to go to bed on the East Coast (or insomniacs elsewhere), here are the two questions I raised yesterday. Implicitly the first question seems to have been answered in the negative by intermediate posts, but the second hasn’t been touched on. The talkorigins site: “[O]ur species and chimpanzees are both the descendants of a common ancestor that was distinct from other African apes. This common ancestor is thought to have existed in the Pliocene between 5 and 8 million years ago, based on the estimated rates of genetic change.” A couple of questions that came to mind as I read this. Are there any fossils of this common ancestor? Do fossil records for chimps show a similar number of intermediate forms as is deemed to exist for humans? ---
**Author:** ![Blake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a9a28c/32.png) [@Blake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blake)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2004, 1:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-need-more-faith-to-believe-in-evolution-than-in-intelligent-design/250836/280 "2004-06-24T01:36:56Z")
> [@](#): > > “Why would a cell with two copies of an identical gene be more fit than a cell with one copy” That much at least is easy to answer. More copies of a gene means that more of the protein is produced. One of the simplest techniques for genetically moidifying crops is simply to insert multiple copies of existing genes into the genome, often oin different chromosomes. Each copy of the gene gets expressed at the same rate leading to an increase production if the protein. > [@](#): > > Plus, most cells, if they have a duplication of something, either limit expression of said device or bad things happen. IE tumors from overexpressed MDR proteins, or mental retardation from multiple X Chromosomes (more than two, specifically in men). Why would this have not been true in primordium?. That may be correct, but bad things usually simply consists of expending energy unnecessarily, it only very rarely means tumours or mental retardation. And as you say, cells have numeorus mechanisms to prevent over-expression if proteins that are harmful. The point here is that all cells do indeed have multiple copies of most genes, so the idea of a multiple copy of a clotting factor is hardly improbable is it? > [@](#): > > And yes, I know not all duplications are bad, but with limited energy, almost all of them would be (energy wasted on 2 A’s versus 1 A and 1 U). See my point? Quite frankly, no. Most cells do have multiple copies of most genes and it causes no problems whatsoever. There may be a slight energy increase but the again gene expressionmay be controlled by a negative feedback system and there is no negative outcome whatoever. The fact is that duplicate genes is the mnorm for most eukarotic cells so clearly there is no major disadvantage. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-need-more-faith-to-believe-in-evolution-than-in-intelligent-design/250836.md?page=13) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-need-more-faith-to-believe-in-evolution-than-in-intelligent-design/250836.md?page=15)