The debate between “evolutionists” and “creationists” has no bearing whatsoever on the truth or falsity of theism. The “evolution vs. creation” paradigm is a silly, worn out dichotomy that is grounded in faulty presumptions. If the earth is very old…or if man and some other species share a common ancestor, does that mean that theism is false? If we could proof beyond any reasonable doubt that the earth is only a few thousand years old or that every existing theory of evolution is dead wrong, would that prove that theism is true?
Too much discussion of evolution focuses on the very narrow question of whether a very narrow fundamentalist reading of an ancient text can be reconciled with modern science. The hard core atheists and fundamentalists who really get excited about the illusory evolution-creation dichotomy…they’re really peas in a pod operating under the same basic assumptions. Wouldn’t it just be a whole lot simpler to characterize the inquiry into the origins of life for what it truly is–a matter of scientific curiosity? I mean, we don’t get all excited about what Billy Graham might say about the merits of the wave vs. particle theories of light…and we don’t expect a Nobel Prize winner in chemistry to do a thorough exegetical analysis of the book of Leviticus.
The vast majority of evolutionary biologists are more than happy to completely ignore issues of theology. Furthermore, hardly anyone is maintaining that evolution somehow implies atheism, except of course for the creationists. In fact, the Internet Infidels in a recent call for papers were looking for a paper willing to make just such an argument, noting that to the best of their knowledge none existed.
It is the creationists who like to get their noses in everything. They want “equal time” for creationism in public schools. They are the ones who claim that evolution is a secular, atheist, communist whateverist plot to destroy American values and belief in God and Jesus. They are the ones who pander to the media and don’t do any real science.
He’s right. And at least evolutionists don’t go door to door asking you to join their religion, or have you believe what they believe. And at least they dont rub everything in your face. Like i’ll say something that condradicts religion or christianity, and my friend gets all up in my face about it. The funny thing is, i have evidence for what i think, he doesn’t.
I think many people here would agree. Evolution says nothing either way about the existence of a God. But the ‘squeaky wheel’ is the Creationist (Bible literalist) who tries to refute evolution with inaccurate rationales. Of course, evolutionists will quickly squeak right back. You’re just noticing the noise.
While I am not trying to be a creationist apologist, in some sense you do rub his nose in it. A home-schooler cannot take his kid to the zoo or a museum without being directly confronted with what they consider false science.
Every respected science show talks about evolution and common ancestors. Since I have members in my family who are “Omphalos” creationists, everytime they read or see it presented as fact it is like a slap in the face.
Ummm… I think you might want to clarify “A Home-schooler” to mean a home-schooler who happens to be a creationist, as this is certainly not an issue for all home schoolers.
The problem you are running into with your second paragraph is that while evolution does not prove or disprove the existance of god, it certainly does disprove the valididty of those religions precepts that espouse a different history than science has discovered there is evidence for.
It’s not just presented as a fact, it is a fact. We have artifacts, carbon dating and lots of other evidence to support that.
The laws of thermodynamics shows that the universe is running down towards what is known as “heat death”. Systems tend from order to disorder, from information to noninformation, and towards less availability of energy. This does not allow increases in complexity (at lease not for long). Can an unproven theory so easily usurp a law for which no contradiction has been observed?
What evidence/facts do you have that support evolution?
Mutations? From information theory, experiments, and observations, we know that mutations (copying mistakes) usually cause a decrease in information and functional complexity. Instead, they cause “noise” during the transmission of genetic information, in accordance with established scientific principles of the effect of random change on information flow, and so destroy the information. Many human diseases are now linked to mutations. Since observed “micro” changes–adaptations and natural selection–are downhill, they cannot accumulate to give the required changes for “macro” evolution.
Fossils? Where are the millions of transitional species? You only have a mere handful of disputable ones.
The age of the earth? There is also much scientific evidence for a (relatively) young earth, including but limited to the decay of the earth’s magnetic field, fragile organic molecules in fossils supposedly millions of years old, not enough helium in the atmosphere, not enough salt in the sea, carbon-14 in coal and oil supposedly millions of years old, inter-tonguing of non-sequential geological strata. Where is evolution without the required millions (billions?) of years?
The only reason the theory of evolution is still alive is because atheists need a reason to deny the existence of God. Thus, this scientifically infeasible theory is nothing more than a bad religion.
I agree, and you’re right, I should not have painted all home-schoolers with the creationist brush. I also agree that the standard mainstream science has the facts.
I am simply pointing out that a creationist may feel that an evolutionary point of view is presented to him whether he wants it or not, just like someone may come to your door and try to push some views on you that you do not want.
ImNotMad - Try reading through some of the old debates. The points you bring up have all been addressed several times. But, if it helps, here are some other links which address your points.
SDMB has never been a haven for fundies so I have to admire ImNotMad for trying though I can’t agree with anything he says.
ImNotMad, you may consider studying physics before you pronounce what is a violation of the second law of thermodynamics. It’s one of the most misused things in science as you have managed to prove. Learn what a closed system is and how it applies to ordered energy before you go spouting off again.
I’ve managed to break the bonds of fundimentalism while not compromising my faith. I don’t believe that my salvation is contingent on the world being created in 144 hours. Everything I learn in science actually reinforces my faith in God.
One of the lesser-known corollaries of the Second Law of Thermodynamics demonstrates that all fundamentalist witnesses will run down, sooner or later…
ImNotMad said:
Pretty fair summary of thermodynamics. You are aware that it speaks of a closed system, and that this planet is most emphatically not a closed system? Or haven’t you noticed the Sun recently?
By the way, you might look up what “inductive reasoning” means before you debate science with anyone. It’s the standard for scientific analysis, and one of the two ways in which human beings interpret data. The phrase “Unproven theory” indicates you do not have a clue what you’re attempting to debate.
There is a major difference between an overall trend and specific events occurring within it. Physical processes do tend to move from order to disorder, to be sure, but the expenditure of work or the natural processes of chemistry and crystallography, e.g., allow for the superimposition of order, at the cost of effort elsewhere.
Please consult every journal of paleontology, comparative zoology and botany, historical geology, and genetics published since 1859. When you have completed reading these, come back and we’ll talk.
See above on thermodynamics. Most mutations produce deleterious or neutral effects. Some produce beneficial effects. The theory of evolution suggests that the latter are conserved. The analogy with information theory is nicely done but not quite to the point.
In your research above, take careful note of the work of Stephen Jay Gould, Niles Eldridge, and a few of their colleagues on “punctuated equilibria.” This tends to account for the paucity of “transitional forms” – but there are plenty of them in the fossil record.
There is very little evidence for a relatively young earth, and what there is, is selectively cited by those for whom maintaining its existence becomes a quasi-religious duty. There is ample evidence for an old earth, far in excess of your selective (and partially erroneous) list above.
That is absurd. The predominant reason the theory of evolution is accepted by most thoughtful, intelligent people in the world is that it fulfills the requirements for a properly formed scientific theory and explains the phenomena observed. Hence most scientists, whatever their religious beliefs, accept it as the best functional working theory for explanation of the diversity of life on the planet. Those of us who are Christian or otherwise believe in an active God substitute for the randomness implicit in a mechanistic understanding of evolutionary processes a teleology based on God’s ongoing Plan unfolding.
There are absolutely no religious doctrines in the theory of evolution. Which means it can be held by Christians, Jews, theists of other persuasions, polytheists, agnostics, and atheists.
There are, admittedly, a few atheists who find the idea of a personal God to be scary and bolster arguments to refute it. The majority of atheists, including the thoughtful ones posting to this board, reject the idea of God because they see no evidence for his existence – and I would note to you that the evidence for God is seen through the eyes of faith. You cannot prove God to a non-believer; all you can do is show Him to him. Which is what we are commanded to do (see John 14-16, for example).
You have not asserted any alternate view, but I suspect strongly that you hold to a Creation Science view of how the world and its living creatures came to be. And “Creation Science” is a poor excuse for science that attempts to turn the myth recorded in Genesis 1 into straight science/history narrative. (And if God had created the world in six days in October 4004 BC and peopled it with a couple named Adam and Eve on the sixth day, it would still be myth – that’s the literary style for it, not an analysis of its truth value.) To me, Creation Science betokens a lack of faith in God, where you absolutely have to prove His existence to yourself and the world around you by whatever devious means are available.
This board, which tends not to accept any allegation of the supernatural acting on the natural world, may be the worst possible place for you to continue investigating what you have had to say. Because I am loath to destroy your faith, just your ignorance. You may find a more balanced evaluation of the questions at hand at a Christian board where honest people are trying to determine whether there is any validity to the sorts of absurd claims put forth by “creation scientists” and what God may have been up to in Creation.
As one who asserts that Evolution theory
stands on firmer ground than Creation theory,
I offer some suggestions to those of you arguing
in favor of Evolution:
Creationists tend to cite sources that lack
citations,(eg-The Bible). Books without citations
are generally categorized as: “fiction”, or
“memoirs”.
When referring to sources [backed by “science”] that
support Creationism, Creationists often cite:
a) pseudoscientific garbage
b) Michael J. Behe (author of “Darwin’s Black Box”)
and others like him…
–or–
c) well established laws of science,
(that they do not fully comprehend),
in conjuction with other mathematical
theorems and scientific laws, with
no understanding of the resulting
implications.
(There may be others, but these are the big points in my
observation.)
Rather than engage in debate against
Creation theory,(which is unfalsifiable),
or argue in favor of Evolution in a
direct manner,(which is futile), consider
a technique termed “Proof by Contradiction”.
This is a method of proving (or disproving)
a hypothesis by citing at least one one case
that contradicts the original statement.
So, for you fellow evolutionists out there,
this means: find one well-founded case in which
evolution is demonstrated.
You only need ONE CASE to prove that the statement:
“Evolution does not occur” is false.
This is a technique that is used frequently in
number theory when dealing with infinite sets
and their behavior. The method is used when an
exhaustive direct proof would require entirely
too much time and effort, (much like the Evolution
versus Creation debate).
In closing, if you need any help understanding the technique or require references of any kind, please be
sure to reply with specific questions and requests.
What is an “‘Omphalos’ creationist”? The only omphalos I know of is the holy stone in the temple of Apollo in Delphi, considered by the ancient Greeks to be the center of the universe.
Are you saying they worship the gods of ancient Greece?
This is, quite frankly, an obscene statement that libels the faith of millions of Christians who believe that G-d is not limited to the puny imagination of man as captured in the writings of a semi-nomadic people approximately 3000 years ago. (No offense intended to said semi-nomadic people. We all have puny imaginations.)
Your G-d is omnipotent. Let Him be that. Let Him work in His “mysterious ways”, and don’t let His creation of the Universe be reduced to the Tinkertoy description in Genesis.