# Evolution and science... **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 26, 2005, 5:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-and-science/291979 "2005-02-26T05:18:08Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/13edae/32.png) [@Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stranger_On_A_Train)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2005, 3:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-and-science/291979/61 "2005-02-27T03:00:52Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > Science doesn’t answer “Why is the sky blue” it answers “How is the sky blue”. It tells you the mechanics that go into it, but doesn’t answer any of the questions about what blue is. “Blue” is electromagnetic radiation of [a wavelength between 492nm and 455nm](http://www.glenbrook.k12.il.us/gbssci/phys/Class/light/u12l2b.html). If you are looking for some kind of metaphysical reason for the color blue, you need to go down the hall to Dr. Confonda’s Philosophy 207 class. Things are the way they are because physical laws dictate such. What dictates physical laws may be in question (and may be beyond the purview of science, M-Theory notwithstanding) but there is no supernatural reason “why” the sky is blue. That is strictly a semantic and/or ontological question, and debates like that end up in a tautological loop. > [@mswas](#): > > Humans AREN’T so much more intelligent than other species on Earth. That idea is predicated upon a notion of intelligence that uses humans as it’s bellwether and is not a logical conclusion. Ooft. Despite the fact that we do, in fact, have a somewhat distorted view of our own value and significance, it’s pretty clear that human beings have the greatest capacity for conceptualization, and that is the quality that has allowed us to escape our physical limitations. Certainly, other creatures have capacities that we can’t match, and may have mental facilities beyond our expectations (I think rather highly of the octopus in this regard) but none have demonstrated the capability to record and transmit information in a permenant sense in the way that humans do. Intelligence (in the terms of conceptualization) may not be the end-all, be-all of existance (and certainly isn’t an end goal of natural selection) but by that measure, and nearly that one alone, we are superior over any other species. We can’t run as fast, jump as high, or see as well as many, but we can count higher than “hrair”, a feat of which nearly any other creature (save, again, for the higher cephalopods) are certainly not capable. > [@mswas](#): > > You go through every day with faith. When you make plans to meet someone in a week, you do it with the faith that you are going to be able to complete your plans. Otherwise you wouldn’t even bother with the plans. Again, you are convoluting the concept of **assumption** with **faith**. I may assume that I’ll still be living and breathing come next Wednesday (I _hope_ so, anyway) but I have no expectation that this is a given. I make plans based on that assumption, but I know that something could happen between now and then to interrupt those plans. > [@mswas](#): > > The idea of “Supernatural” is rather silly. We go through our every day surrounded by what would have been supernatural to someone living 500 years ago. Supernatural is a word like “ultramodern” just because you add a prefix meaning “extra” to add emphasis it doesn’t really make it so. “Supernatural” [is defined](http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=supernatural) as “1. Of or relating to existence outside the natural world.” I dare say that no scientist believes that just because they can’t currently explain a phenomenon that the cause of it is beyond the rules of the natural world. However, religious leaders frequently invoke a supernatural intervention as the cause of an event. That people 500 years ago might have deemed life to be a supernatural event is of no consequence; today, we have the knowledge to recognize that actions that happen in the experiential world are the result of physical laws. > [@mswas](#): > > Intuition has validity, and just because someone hasn’t tested something they have intuited, that doesn’t make it false. Something can be true without a person being able to relate all the data that they have, to make them believe it is true. Just because something HASN’T been tested doesn’t mean that it CANNOT be tested. From a theory of mind standpoint, intuition is a pre-cognitive conception of experience; instead of being able to reason or calculate out the cause of a result, we use intuition (more specifically, inductive logic based upon past experience) to give us a result from incomplete data. Intuition works pretty well in the experience of day to day life, but serves poorly when we look into the nooks and cranies of the world that are beyond our normal experience, like quantum mechanics, relativistic physics, or geologic-timescale events like evolution; which is why we often find science contradicting our normal expectations. You are right in saying that because “something HASN’T been tested doesn’t mean that it CANNOT be tested”, and indeed, the very premise of the scientific method is grounded in falsifiablity. A theory must be able to be tested in such a way that a failure of the theory renders it invalid (or at least in need of massive refinement). A large number of failures would indicate a bad theory, whereas a continued failure to fail when tested validates a theory as being accepted. “Truth” as applied to theories is a nonsensical proposition (though we often use the term in casual speech), but “validated” and “accepted” indicate that a given theory or model is an accurate predictor of events relating to the theory. > [@mswas](#): > > It’s not so much that science is a religion, but many people, and I think everyone that responded to me is included in this, treats it as one. To say you’re too smart or too “scientifically minded” for faith, is just a pretentious lie. You’re throwing out a strawman here, in assuming that people who accept science regard themselves as being smarter than religious people. In fact, I’ve known several very smart people who were strongly religious, and indeed, the Jesuits are known as great logical thinkers. I think that the premises they reason from are deeply flawed, but that doesn’t make them unintelligent. > [@mswas](#): > > Every time you accept what a scientist says because he SEEMS reputable, that is faith. \ Isaac Newton was an alchemist. He was pursuing many metaphysical pursuits, and would be considered a crackpot by today’s standards, yet his work is the fundamental basis for the physics we teach our children. Do you understand that you just blew your own argument out of the water here? The reason that Newton’s theories are so widely (practically universally) accepted aren’t because of his reputation; in fact, as you point out, he was a crackpot about alchemy, in addition to his legitimate work with physics and mathematics. His theories have endured because (until the 20th Century) no one was able to poke a hole in them, and continue to be used even today because they provide an accurate model of the macro, non-relativistic world that we normally experience. His reputation is bolsh; were someone to create a serious, validated argument aginst Newtonian physics (and that very thing happened when Einstein published his treatise on Special Relativity) the theory would be reviewed and revised in short order. > [@mswas](#): > > In otherwords to all of those “Scientists” that lack faith I say “Stop being such a snob.” You are attempting to brand as “snobs” people who ask for objective evidence instead of blind faith. This is, well, not a valid tactic (I believe philosophers would refer to this as an [argumentum ad hominem](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem)). You seem to be demanding that religion and/or intuition (which you are effectively equating) be given a place next to science on the mantle of human reasoning. The methods by which they offer up solutions are very different, though. Religion/intuition works by authority and “feeing”, without providing any substance with which to debate. Pat Robertson might be just as right about “what God wants his people to do” as Muhammad or Buddha or any other religous figure. Science, on the other hand, is predicated on the scientific method, which is (at least in principle) independent of the mouthpiece for a particular theory. Natural selection is valid (or not), regardless of whether it is espoused by Stephen J. Gould or Richard Dawkins, and their disagreements over specific mechanisms are resolved not by which one has more prestige or a more forceful personality but rather by which theory holds up better in light of observation or experimentation. Religious explainations are often the classic case of immediate gratification; event X happened because it’s God’s will, whereas science can only offer up tedious and methodical testing of hypotheses and a body of knowledge that is incomplete by its nature rather than known by some large, shadowy figure behind a veil of mist. The are not equivilent; rather, they are orthogonal, and often competing methods of explaining the natural world. You can choose religion or mysticism if you like, but the answers it offers seem to often dead-end in some kind of “it’s God’s plan” explaination, whereas science more honestly says, “We just don’t know yet. But we’re trying to figure it out.” I don’t intend for the previous to come off as degrading or insulting, but in trying to effectively co-opt science as a component to religious belief or intuition, you are suborning the entire princple (and difference) of science, which is to explore and explain without artiface. Certainly, one begins with assumptions, but the rule of science is never to allow those assumptions to overrule evidence to the contrary. Religion, on the other hand, begins by assuming that certain ideas are true, regardless of evidence, and then seeks to fit by whatever method necessary, the details of the natural world into the box created by those ideas. They are not one in the same, or complementary components, which is why they divereged during Enlightenment. Mysticism is a shroud for ignorance; a good scientist, on the other hand, will admit what he doesn’t know rather than to hide it behind a blanket of fabrications. Stranger ---
**Author:** ![Apos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/838e76/32.png) [@Apos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Apos)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2005, 7:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-and-science/291979/62 "2005-02-27T07:57:46Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > Science doesn’t answer “Why is the sky blue” it answers “How is the sky blue”. It tells you the mechanics that go into it, but doesn’t answer any of the questions about what blue is. You know, I hear this a lot, and it gets me thinking. Is it really true? I mean, when I come to a scientist to ask why, for instance, humans and gorillas have tiny testicles, relative to other primates, science can tell me exactly why, as well as how we can know that. When I come to an ID theorist, all they can tell me is “well, some being we don’t understand that did it in a way we don’t know did it for some reason we don’t know” which is just a really creative way of saying “I dunno.” And what are the questions about “what blue is,” exactly? Science seems to be able to tell us about why we see things as blue, as opposed to other colors, and why we see the sky as blue. What better answers could there be? > [@](#): > > You go through every day with faith. When you make plans to meet someone in a week, you do it with the faith that you are going to be able to complete your plans. Otherwise you wouldn’t even bother with the plans. I would simply that that’s a conditional inference. Given what we have come to know about that someone, we expect that they will keep their plans. We don’t claim that it is a hard and fast rule: something could delay them, they could forget, or the meeting place could explode. But it’s good enough as an actionable assumption. And indeed, going with such assumptions seems to work out pretty well, which means that we might as well stick to using them, seeing as the only other real option is simply never going anywhere, planning or doing anything. I don’t see how that is like faith in something untestable or even indescribable. > [@](#): > > Every time you accept what a scientist says because he SEEMS reputable, that is faith. Nope: another one of those conditionals, based on experience. It isn’t so much that we believe that scientists cannot be wrong or lie, but we know that there is a whole system of checks and balances that help to keep untrustworthy or sloppy people with bad ideas from amassing decent credentials. No one believes that scientists are infaliable, and the evidence must always be the ultimate check, but in the normal course of things, accepting scientific information when it comes with a number of guarantees seems like a pretty good pragmatic policy. > [@](#): > > Every time you hear about a new discovery do you try to replicate the results? Do you read through all of their methodology for every single thing that you accept as being true? Do you read everything they used in their bibliography? Sometimes. But no one has the time to do this for everything. > [@](#): > > If not then how do you know that it’s true? If you, yourself did not perform the experiment, how do you know it’s true? I’ve never seen a nuclear bomb explode, but I don’t doubt that they exist. I have FAITH that the history being passed to me through the grapevine is at least somewhat accurate. I have never been to Europe, but that doesn’t mean I don’t know some of it’s history. But how is that faith in a strict sense? You accept that those things are true based on what you know of the world, other people, how they behave, and so forth. For instance, fabricating the existence of nuclear weapons would require a conspiracy so huge and unweildy that it would encompass nearly everyone you know. Are you really saying we should take that possibility equally seriously as the one where nuclear weapons exist? > [@](#): > > So as I said, don’t conflate the meaning of faith in order to set yourself above the “religious yokels” and call it scientific, it plainly isn’t. Everyone needs faith, it’s a fundamental part of the human experience, one that cannot be extricated. Hell, you have to have faith that you even exist at all, let alone your faith in your ability to understand scientific principles. Trying to pretend that all meanings of the word faith are the same is the logical fallacy of equivocation. ---
**Author:** ![Apos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/838e76/32.png) [@Apos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Apos)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2005, 8:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-and-science/291979/63 "2005-02-27T08:08:59Z")
Just a question: if someone asked you all to prove that, say, the overall genetic diversity/variation of a population (different traits that aren’t just degredations or decay added to the genome) can increase over time, what evidence would you present? And how would you show that evolution can increase the information content of a particular gene pool over time? ---
**Author:** ![Siege](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/dbc845/32.png) [@Siege](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Siege)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2005, 11:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-and-science/291979/64 "2005-02-27T11:21:26Z")
> [@Cuckoorex](#): > > I spent 9 years as a born-again Christian and enthusiastic Creationist, … > > It wasn’t because I believed that the science behind evolution was faulty, although much of the creationist literature makes that claim. It was because if evolution was a truth of history, and fish and reptiles and mammals and all the rest evolved over the vast eons of time, then the inescapable conclusion one must reach is that humans also evolved, including their brains, their bodies, their behaviors, etc., and we’re “just another brick in the wall.” Not only that, but it also means that, contrary to Genesis, humans are not the “goal” of creation or evolution or the “culmination” of anything. In other words, acceptance of evolution means acknowledging that the world wasn’t made just for man, and man wasn’t created to rule over it and subdue it. > > The Catholic church has officially “accepted” evolution as a biological reality, but maintains that Catholics should believe that at some point God infused man with an immortal soul, presumably meaning that other animals do _not_ have souls, or at least souls that are like human souls. Again, the real issue here is maintaining the belief that Humans are not just _special_ – one can easily argue that bats are just as “special” – but that Humans alone are _specially loved by God._ > > I believe that is the real issue with Creationism versus Evolution arguments. Attempts to reconcile creationism with evolution almost always rely on reassuring the creationist that God still has a special kind of love for humans that surpasses His love for dogs and cats and fish and insects and trees. Which is where my particular part in this cycle of debate comes into play. As I’ve said, I’m a devout Christian who does figure evolution is the best explanation for how the world came to be. This doesn’t mean to me that human beings are any less special in God’s eyes. It certainly doesn’t mean that we don’t have immortal souls. Human beings are different from other creature on this earth – among other things, other creatures don’t waste ridiculous amounts of time sending electrons into the void amd scanning the void hoping to find evidence of intelligent life (I’m thinking of the internet, although the SETI project will also do). Christ didn’t die that cats may be forgiven their sins and have life eternal; He did so that human beings may continue their special status in God’s eyes. Despite what I’ve been told far too often, acceptance of evolutionary theory _doesn’t_ mean one has no faith in God, nor does it mean mankind wasn’t given stewardship over the earth. It just means the mechanism by which mankind came about was far more beautiful and complex than a mere wave of a divine magic wand. CJ ---
**Author:** ![Twoflower](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/twoflower/32/22_2.png) [@Twoflower](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Twoflower)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2005, 4:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-and-science/291979/65 "2005-02-27T16:03:47Z")
I agree with the general idea that there shouldn’t be any real conflict between science and religion. I have no problem at all with the philosophies espoused by \*\*Polycarp \*\*and **Siege** , or even the official Catholic position. I even believe that the majority of Christians, if they really stopped and thought about it, know better than to insist on the literal truth of Genesis. My personal belief system does not include a conscious creator or immortal souls, but we can agree to disagree and there is no need for conflict. I can even accept people who believe in a literal Gensis, and who simply dismiss all the scientific evidence to the contrary. Their ignorance is their loss. But when people like our esteemed **OP** come along and try to twist science to claim that it discredits evolution, they are essentially claiming that the majority of the accumulated scientific knowledge of the past several centuries is a pack of lies. As far as I’m concerned, that is a conflict created entirely by the religious faction. I see no reason at all by scientists should somehow accept part of the blame for this. BTW, the sky is blue because of [Rayleigh scattering](http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/atmos/blusky.html) ---
**Author:** ![Twoflower](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/twoflower/32/22_2.png) [@Twoflower](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Twoflower)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2005, 4:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-and-science/291979/66 "2005-02-27T16:16:57Z")
> [@Apos](#): > > Just a question: if someone asked you all to prove that, say, the overall genetic diversity/variation of a population (different traits that aren’t just degredations or decay added to the genome) can increase over time, what evidence would you present? And how would you show that evolution can increase the information content of a particular gene pool over time? Probably the most readily visible example is to point to the last 10,000 years of human domestication of plants and animals. Until the recent invention of genetic engineering, the entire panoply of human domestication consisted of identifying favorable mutations and selecting those individuals to contibute to the next generation. The only real difference between natural selection and domestic breeding is the type of selection pressure. Natural selection favors individuals which are differentially more successful at surviving and reproducing under natural conditions. Domestic breeding favors individuals which are more successful at meeting the desires of the humans who are in control of their reproductive opportunities. It’s all evolution, based on accumulated natural genteic variation. ---
**Author:** ![David\_Simmons](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9de053/32.png) [@David\_Simmons](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David_Simmons)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2005, 11:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-and-science/291979/67 "2005-02-27T23:40:47Z")
> [@Twoflower](#): > > Probably the most readily visible example is to point to the last 10,000 years of human domestication of plants and animals. Until the recent invention of genetic engineering, the entire panoply of human domestication consisted of identifying favorable mutations and selecting those individuals to contibute to the next generation. The only real difference between natural selection and domestic breeding is the type of selection pressure. Natural selection favors individuals which are differentially more successful at surviving and reproducing under natural conditions. Domestic breeding favors individuals which are more successful at meeting the desires of the humans who are in control of their reproductive opportunities. It’s all evolution, based on accumulated natural genteic variation. Of course the Creationists will respond that in that 10000 years not one single new species has arisen. Even the famous peppered moth remains a pepperd mothe and the dark colored ones mate with the light colored ones and produce fertile offspring. I think that I recall that there is evidence of new species on the levels of simple life forms, but what constitutes a species at that level becomes a problem. Maybe some biologist can help. The theory of evolution/natural selection is accepted in the scientific community, I think, because it best explains the data within a context that it makes predictions that can be tested and points the way to further discovery. Of course the explanation that best satisfies Ockham’s Razor is, “God did it.” However that is a sterile theory in that there is nowhere in the biological world to go from there. ---
**Author:** ![Apos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/838e76/32.png) [@Apos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Apos)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2005, 11:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-and-science/291979/68 "2005-02-27T23:52:10Z")
Twoflower: a creationist might simply reply that the variation from which these domesticators selected was already “there” in the populations. They could even argue that an ID added new varieties. How do we show that the variations arise naturally? > [@David Simmons](#): > > I think that I recall that there is evidence of new species on the levels of simple life forms, but what constitutes a species at that level becomes a problem. Maybe some biologist can help. Speciation has indeed been observed. With bacteria, it’s easy: the only thing that can define bacteria is the accumulation of genetic differences anyway! My favorite example are diatoms, which die and then fall into a sort of graveyard that creates complete strata of their dead bodies you can dig through. If you track the sizes of their bodies through the layers, plotting all this on a graph (i.e. going forwards in time) you can actually watch two species diverge from each other (based on the sizes of their hard outer bodies) in a complete ongoing record of gradual change. Pretty neat stuff. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2005, 11:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-and-science/291979/69 "2005-02-27T23:55:01Z")
> [@Cuckoorex](#): > > It was because if evolution was a truth of history, and fish and reptiles and mammals and all the rest evolved over the vast eons of time, then the inescapable conclusion one must reach is that humans also evolved, including their brains, their bodies, their behaviors, etc., and we’re “just another brick in the wall.” Not only that, but it also means that, contrary to Genesis, humans are not the “goal” of creation or evolution or the “culmination” of anything. In other words, acceptance of evolution means acknowledging that the world wasn’t made just for man, and man wasn’t created to rule over it and subdue it. That’s nonsense to me. And I don’t mean by that that you’ve made your point weakly or have used confusing terms. I just mean that the concept — a popular one to be sure, and as you would no doubt acknowledge, not yours originally — is nonsense. For one thing, man is no more just another brick in the wall than Benitoite is just another gemstone, or water is just another compound. Man is a creature uniquely suited to shape his own evolution, and has the potential to give evolution something it has never had — a guiding hand, an intelligent design, and a plan. And he is the only creature that philosophizes about things like God and science. The notion that man ought not to be proud of what he is, but instead ought to consider himself of equal stature to a bacterium is Schopenhaurian fatalist aesthetics run amok. Man is orders of magnitude above his nearest evolutionary kin in sheer worth, and is deservedly at the helm of earth’s stewardship. But more importantly, there is far more wonder and awe about a God for Whom a wait of untold countless eons spanning who knows how many universes, giving rise to the single most eloquent and simple mechanism for the emergence of a sentient being capable of awareness of Him — it is indeed an awesome Being for Whom this is not even a moment of time. He is far more impressive than any dullard god of the cave that made the universe in a week like Dagwood making a sandwich, as a place for man to exist like pickles to spice up its treat. It is knowing that I have actual significance in this breathtaking illusion of time and space that assures me all the more that the God Whom I have known is the One worthy of worship. It is in fact not necessary for me that He created the thing at all. He is not about atoms and energy; He is about morality. Whether He created the world or not, it serves His purpose all the same. No one need become unconvinced of God by becoming convinced of evolution. “Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.” — Albert Einstein, _Science, Philosophy and Religion: a Symposium_, 1941 ---
**Author:** ![David\_Simmons](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9de053/32.png) [@David\_Simmons](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David_Simmons)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2005, 12:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-and-science/291979/70 "2005-02-28T00:11:23Z")
> [@Apos](#): > > Speciation has indeed been observed. With bacteria, it’s easy: the only thing that can define bacteria is the accumulation of genetic differences anyway! This is getting close to GQ territory, but what does species mean on the level of bacteria that reproduce by dividing? > [@](#): > > My favorite example are diatoms, which die and then fall into a sort of graveyard that creates complete strata of their dead bodies you can dig through. If you track the sizes of their bodies through the layers, plotting all this on a graph (i.e. going forwards in time) you can actually watch two species diverge from each other (based on the sizes of their hard outer bodies) in a complete ongoing record of gradual change. Pretty neat stuff. Same question. After all, the size of the shell might just indicate different varieties, sort of like the difference in size and type of coat between a Peke and a Great Dane. When I will the lottery I’ll establish a trust fund to finance someone to produce two different species of fruit flies (or some other creature that goes through generations real fast). We could isolate two strains, keep mutating them until finally the strains were no longer interfertile. So what if it takes a hundred years, the trust fund wouldn’t care. ---
**Author:** ![Apos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/838e76/32.png) [@Apos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Apos)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2005, 12:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-and-science/291979/71 "2005-02-28T00:15:11Z")
> [@](#): > > Man is orders of magnitude above his nearest evolutionary kin in sheer worth, and is deservedly at the helm of earth’s stewardship. Or undeservedly, as it just as easily prove to be in the end. ☹ I don’t know about the “worth” thing though. The fact that we don’t have Lucys and other ancestral hominids leading all the way back to the apes still around today is a mere happenstance of extinction. If they were still around, I imagine that our feelings about whether we were truly different would look a lot more problematic. Just as anti-abortion people feel that there is no way to draw the line ina good place during fetal development, I’m not sure many people would be able to draw the line at where one of our ancestors ceased having as much “worth” as us. ---
**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:** [February 28, 2005, 12:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-and-science/291979/72 "2005-02-28T00:34:42Z")
> [@Cuckoorex](#): > > I spent 9 years as a born-again Christian and enthusiastic Creationist, jumping back and forth between young-earth, old-earth, ID, you name it…including belief in the Noachian flood. Although a decent chunk of my life was devoted to dinosaurs and dinosaur art (and should therefore have broken me of my creationist ideas, or vice versa) it wasn’t until I got away from the pervasive Christian influences in my life and allowed myself to question the validity of my beliefs that I bothered to actually _learn_ about evolution from something other than Creationist propaganda. After I did that, it seemed like a light switch had been turned on somewhere; I sometimes have a hard time remembering why in the world I once believed so strongly in creationism…but I _do_ remember why. I get from your post that you never read any books on evolution not written by creationists during this time. Could I ask why? Was it considered sinful in some way, or were you scared of what you would find out? I’m curious about why people like **nolies** know so little about evolution while disparaging it. If there is anything I learned from debating, it is that you need to understand both sides to argue well. ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2005, 1:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-and-science/291979/73 "2005-02-28T01:18:42Z")
FWIW, there was a debate in, IIRC, 2000 on evolution here (well, a Creationist rant refuted, if you want to call that a debate), in which **David B** and another member posted links to specific instances of speciation within modern times. Someone with time and speedy enough connection to do a search might want to try and locate that and link to it or copy the links forward to this thread. ---
**Author:** ![treis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bc79bd/32.png) [@treis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/treis)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2005, 1:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-and-science/291979/74 "2005-02-28T01:41:17Z")
Are you speaking of this monstrous 15 page thread \*\* Polycarp\*\*? [For David B, the good Doctor and others who are knowledgable about Creation debate](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=22165) I’ll provide the link but there is no way I am slogging through a 15 page thread spawned from a few links to the left behind series. > [@Liberal](#): > > But more importantly, there is far more wonder and awe about a God for Whom a wait of untold countless eons spanning who knows how many universes, giving rise to the single most eloquent and simple mechanism for the emergence of a sentient being capable of awareness of Him Why can’t an omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent being make himself aware to a dog? I can make myself aware to a dog by merely walking within a hundred yards of it. ---
**Author:** ![Cuckoorex](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ad7895/32.png) [@Cuckoorex](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cuckoorex)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2005, 2:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-and-science/291979/75 "2005-02-28T02:11:36Z")
**Liberal** Just to be clear here: I was articulating the fear that I (and many of my Christian friends) felt. The idea is that if we were a result of natural processes, the same as every other animal, then we would lost some aspect of “specialness.” Now, you mention that humans are special in many ways, and that’s true. But as I noted, an argument can be made for equal but different “specialness” for bats: I mean, they’re flying mammals that use echolocation! Dogs are “special”, bears are “special”, etc. They’re each special in their own way. That being said, I don’t consider bacterium to have equal value to humans because, well, I’m a human. I’m more than a little biased. I consider the life of a shark to be worth more than that of bacterium, I consider a human life worth more than that of a shark. If I have to choose who lives or dies between a human and a shark, generally speaking I’m going to choose life for the human every time (assuming that the human isn’t Hitler or something ridiculous like that). I don’t bestow this privileged status on humans because I think that humans are more worthy of life or “higher” on the evolutionary ladder (which itself is a ridiculous notion) but because I’m also human. I agree with you that humans have a unique capacity for influencing the course of their own evolution and perhaps evolution in general. However I strongly disagree with the idea that man is _deservedly_ in a position of stewardship over the earth. The ghosts of countless ecosystems might protest that the earth was doing just fine before humans came along, and the only reason it _needs_ careful stewardship now is _because_ of humans. And we’ll just have to wait to see if humans have as successful a run at being “stewards” of the earth as the dinosaurs had. Seriously; stewards of the earth? We’re doing a pretty shitty job of it, don’t you think? **Voyager** : It’s probably because I had been indoctrinated to believe that secular science was deliberately lying about evolution; the only source that I felt I could trust was Christianity. After all, Christians are warned to “See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ.” ---
**Author:** ![Darwins\_Finch](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/darwins_finch/32/20304_2.png) [@Darwins\_Finch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Darwins_Finch)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2005, 2:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-and-science/291979/76 "2005-02-28T02:43:00Z")
> [@David Simmons](#): > > This is getting close to GQ territory, but what does species mean on the level of bacteria that reproduce by dividing? > > > [@](#): > > > > My favorite example are diatoms, which die and then fall into a sort of graveyard that creates complete strata of their dead bodies you can dig through. If you track the sizes of their bodies through the layers, plotting all this on a graph (i.e. going forwards in time) you can actually watch two species diverge from each other (based on the sizes of their hard outer bodies) in a complete ongoing record of gradual change. Pretty neat stuff. > > Same question. After all, the size of the shell might just indicate different varieties, sort of like the difference in size and type of coat between a Peke and a Great Dane. You might be interested in [this article](http://thalassa.gso.uri.edu:16080/rines/systmtcs/species.htm), which discusses various species concepts, as well as how they might apply to diatoms. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2005, 2:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-and-science/291979/77 "2005-02-28T02:43:52Z")
> [@David Simmons](#): > > Of course the explanation that best satisfies Ockham’s Razor is, “God did it.” That’s actually the explanation that _least_ satisfies Ockam’s Razor, since it requires additional complex debate on the nature of God and how the various laws of physics can be casually ignored by him/her/it. ---
**Author:** ![roger\_thornhill](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/d9b06d/32.png) [@roger\_thornhill](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/roger_thornhill)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2005, 3:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-and-science/291979/78 "2005-02-28T03:18:39Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > Oh, you are right and I was wrong. I presumed that you were right when you corrected me. I just noted that my error was based on a faulty memory of Gonick’s _History of the Universe_ and that I was relieved to discover that it was bad memory and not bad source material that led me astray. More of a question for Finchie. Is it important whether dinosaurs or mammals came first? If so, why? ---
**Author:** ![David\_Simmons](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9de053/32.png) [@David\_Simmons](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David_Simmons)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2005, 4:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-and-science/291979/79 "2005-02-28T04:22:03Z")
> [@Darwin's Finch](#): > > You might be interested in [this article](http://thalassa.gso.uri.edu:16080/rines/systmtcs/species.htm), which discusses various species concepts, as well as how they might apply to diatoms. Interesting article although much of it was over my head. The main thing I got is that the origin of species is fuzzy because the concept of species changes depending upon the purpose of the particular investigation. I’m quite sure that the various approaches to “species” are all useful concepts to biologists and other specialists. However, they leave us open to a Creationist charge that we are manipulating the concept of species in order to “save the failed Theory of Evolution Through Natural Selection.” I don’t believe that, but I think the cited article could be paraphrased and selectively quoted in order to show that biological scientists don’t have the slightest idea of what a species is. We scorn the Creationists “kinds” because they have no fixed definition for it, but … > [@Bryan Ekers](#): > > > [@David Simmons](#): > > > > Of course the explanation that best satisfies Ockham’s Razor is, “God did it.” > > That’s actually the explanation that least satisfies Ockam’s Razor, since it requires additional complex debate on the nature of God and how the various laws of physics can be casually ignored by him/her/it. This whole thing is a sort of hijack but I disagree. To the simplistic True Believer comples debate on the nature of God is a pile of nonsense. The nature of God is that He can and does do whatever needs doing and natural laws are meaningless to Him. Anything else is nit picking sophistry by a bunch of Seclar Humanists, Darwinists and, if the truth be told, Goddam Pinko Commies and Democrats soft on terrorism. But if you think otherwise that’s sure OK by me. That’s why they make ice cream in all those different flavors. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2005, 4:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-and-science/291979/80 "2005-02-28T04:57:57Z")
> [@David Simmons](#): > > This whole thing is a sort of hijack but I disagree. To the simplistic True Believer comples debate on the nature of God is a pile of nonsense. The nature of God is that He can and does do whatever needs doing and natural laws are meaningless to Him. Anything else is nit picking sophistry by a bunch of Seclar Humanists, Darwinists and, if the truth be told, Goddam Pinko Commies and Democrats soft on terrorism. Well, I’m Canadian… [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-and-science/291979.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-and-science/291979.md?page=5)