Or are you asking for a definition?
I’m special because I’m better than all of you.
Wait, that wasn’t much of a contribution was it?
Oh yes, creationists are silly.
Oh yes that’s right. There are a lot of steps from a mess of amino acids to RNA to DNA. And you contend that each and every one of those steps have to have been a purely random occurence, notwithstanding that the resulting DNA structure is so complex that a human genome took years to be unraveled. Hmm, does that mean that man is so simple that at best he is replicating purely random patterns?
When I saw the title for this thread, the last thing I expected was to be running to the defence of the Creationists. I mean, watching Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson, I have become firmly convinced that we do share a common ancestor with apes.
Yet, there’s something I’ve been thinking about, lately. Science is faith-based, too. Faith in Reason. Faith in the scientific method. Faith in the value of inquiry.
Science tries to understand the world through the use of the five sense, but if, as the poet William Blake suggested, there are six, then science is blind to something. Occam’s Razor says the simplist explanation is the best, but to a Creationist, the simplist is, ‘God made it.’ Even such central maxims as ‘Nothing that cannot be proven exists’ are under fire from some branches of science and mathematics.
I’ve been wondering this because I’ve been reading a lot medieval literature lately, and I was surprised to find that, contrary to my image of all medieval Christians as supersitious lunatics, many of them believed in a sort of Chrisitian physics, but based in the assumptions of theology, not scientific method. I’m thinking Aristotle’s theories, here, elaborated on by Thomas Aquinas. Now we laugh at them.
Will future generations laugh at the assumptions we made?
Hamish, science does not depend on faith. Results obtained by the scientific method are independently and objectively verifiable and repeatable. by anyone who uses the method.
Religious faith is none of those things. It does not exist outside the self. They cannot be equated, even though creationists often try to do so. Why?
I’m not trying to be offensive, but you’re going to be more persuasive in your arguments if you learn the basic facts of what it is you’re talking about. Amino acids are the building blocks of proteins; that is, proteins are formed out of long chains of different amino acids. DNA and RNA are formed from chemicals called nucleotides; adenine, guanine, thymine, and cytosine in the case of DNA; RNA has a slightly different “backbone” and urasil stands in for thymine. In modern organisms, DNA is the master copy of the genetic program; RNA, in several forms, reads off the information from DNA and converts it into proteins–DNA and RNA are both long chains of nucleotides, and there is a genetic alphabet which uses groups of three nucleotides to code for different amino acids. Proteins in turn are the basic building blocks of cells, and are used to carry out the chemical reactions which allow living things to move, sense their environment, reproduce, and so forth. The earliest organisms might have used RNA alone instead of the more complicated DNA to RNA system of information storage; and researchers have found that RNA under some circumstances may be able to catalyze its own reproduction; to, as it were, act as its own protein.
Note that abiogenesis–how life began–is a much more uncertain question than evolution–how you get from bacteria to people. Once the whole system of DNA and RNA and proteins is set up–and that is certainly a big “once”–there’s really nothing to keep evolution by natural selection–not “random chance”–from turning single-celled organisms into redwoods, whales, termites, zebras, and people. Especially if you allow three and a half billion years to do it.
The definition of “faith” has probably been kicked around more than once around here, but you might start with this thread. Briefly, though, science assumes certain things–for example, that there are regular natural laws, which operate the same everywhere (though they might give different results under different circumstances–things behave differently at the center of the Sun than they do in your living room, but if you subjected your living room to the same temperatures and pressures, the matter in your living room would behave basically the same way as the matter at the center of the Sun). These assumptions are made in part because no one can really function without them–you kind of have to assume a certain consistency in things, like the persistence of objects when you can’t see them anymore, because otherwise you’ll go mad–but they are assumptions. As long as our basic assumptions about the consistency of the Universe hold true, then we can make predictions and gain an understanding of things by repeatable experiments, verifiable observations, etc. They are operating assumptions. They aren’t the dogmas of a religious faith. And what are you going to replace them with? Maybe God made everything 6,000 years ago to look like it’s billions of years old. Maybe God made everything 6 seconds ago to look like it’s billions of years old, including this half-completed post on my computer screen. Maybe nothing really exists behind me–whenever I turn around, God (or “They”) cause things to spring into existence as they come into view. This includes reflections on mirrors or shiny surfaces.
Yet, they aren’t always repeatable. For instance, when we get into the realm of Heisenburg’s Uncertainty principle. The act of shining a light on an electron for instance. The act of observing changes the observed.
Besides, saying “by anyone who uses the method” brings us back to the point I was making. Methods tend to be self-verifying. To say “scientific method is the most objective because its the most scientific” or “reason is the best system of thought because it’s the most rational” is unsatisfying. It disturbs me, because it sounds, eerily, like “the Bible is right because it says so in the Bible.”
This thread began, more or less, with the question, of whether there was any basis for Creation beyond faith. But it strikes me, too, that science is self-justifying.
To clarify my own position in this, I’m not a Creationist, or even a Christian. And I believe that most of what science has discovered is accurate, if limited. Yet, I’ve come to realize that my belief in science simply comes down to faith.
I’ve never personally seen the outcome of any of these experiments. Most of us haven’t. Do I really know what I know? If nothing beyond science verifies science, than would I be any different than the creationists? The question disturbs me. It’s the reason I raised it.
**
As has already been pointed out, DNA and RNA are made up of nucleotides, while amino acids make up proteins.
I suggest you read the FAQ:
http://psyche11.home.mindspring.com/molevol2.html
**
Actually, it wasn’t “unraveled.” It was sequenced. The time involved had to do with length, not complexity. Sequencing the lily genome would take a lot longer than the human genome, if you used the same technology, because it’s a lot larger.
Anyway, there’s abundant evidence that the human genome was evolved by natural selection. If you want to discuss this further, then we already have a thread for that:
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=81157
I’ve presented ample evidence to prove evolution in that thread, but curiously not a single creationist has even tried to make a serious attempt at addressing it.
-Ben
- What is the most compelling and incontrovertible piece of solid evidence to support the creation stance? (and I mean a single piece of evidence, not ‘the universe, it’s clearly designed’ or some such.
The Bible.
- What is the shakiest element of the theory of evolution. (or perhaps the piece of evidence which has been most significantly misinterpreted)?
The Odds.
Whose? Which translation? Whose interpretations? What languages? And on what basis? (For that last, if the answer is "because it’s from God, I expect some evidence.)
[quote]
The Odds.**
Please be more specific. The odds of what? Based on what?
Please elaborate, and please tell me you’re not going to drag up the ‘Bible code’ or some other such embarrasment.
Very very unlikely does not equal impossible, ask any lottery winner.
Why do I get the feeling that if I answer these questions of yours, you would immediately snap back asking for further clarification, then again, then again, until I have exhausted myself trying to explain it in which case you would stand up and go, “AHA! Gotcha!”
Nonetheless…
"Whose? Which translation? Whose interpretations? What languages? And on what basis? (For that last, if the answer is “because it’s from God, I expect some evidence)”
I can not claim to know which translation is to be more accurate, as I can not read the original scriptures. Point is, the Bible was constructed from a plethora of sources over a comparatively large timespan. Yet the writings are interlinked. Many, many different people all wrote on similar things. Were they all in on the same conspiracy, were they? Despite living miles apart and living in different generations? At a time when travelling large distances was hard to do and communication systems were little more than word-of-mouth? Highly convincing scenario, Andros…
"The Odds.
Please be more specific. The odds of what? Based on what?".
The odds of life coming from nothing. We’re not talking toss of a coin type of stuff here. If you want to tell me that the universe was created from the big bang, then well done and good on you. Just first tell me where the materials came from that caused the big bang. Of course you won’t be able to, but you’ll bounce back saying where did God come from, to which we will hit a stalemate, that no doubt, you, like all evolutionists, will claim a victory for. So unless you can come up with clear cut arguements about where the materials came from that created the big bang, don’t question me on where God came from. These two arguements cancel each other out, and DO NOT further advance the evolutionary arguement. But, let’s pretend for one amazing moment here that the materials of the universe materialised out of thin air. Don’t your science books say this is impossible? Show me one scientist who backs the evolutionary theory that will categorically go on the record and claim that materials can appear from absolutely nowhere, that new matter can appear from nothing. Your search will come up dry. Yet those same scientists say the universe evolved from… wait for it… nothing!. A MASSIVE contradiction on their part, and one they fail to explain or justify.
Good enough, Andros?
And for those of us who don’t accept the Bible as literal truth? I think the OP was asking for scientific evidence (ya know, from geology, or physiology, or genetics, or something like that).
Ah, yes. It’s so unlikely that event A would happen that it must not have happened. Despite the absurdity that you get if you apply this line of reasoning to dealing 13 cards out of a full deck, let’s consider it. The flaw is that as you increase the number of times an event can happen, the probability that said event doesn’t happen decreases. IOW, assuming X is distributed as binomial(n, p), P(X = 0) -> 0 as n approaches infinity (and rather quickly, too–P(X = 0) = p[sup]n[/sup]).
Shrug.
You have the idea that I’m going to attack you.
Fair enough. I have the impression that you are unwilling to listen to a single word I say.
So I won’t say anything, beyond suggesting that you have an extremely poorly founded and shaky understanding of science.
YBIC
-andros-
Of course, all these people came from the same culture, in the same region of the world, with the same history.
Psst…big bang cosmology isn’t part of evolutionary theory! And see my post above for an explanation of why I don’t buy the argument about “the odds”.
Attempting to respond as a creationist, which I am not:
The Bible. Axiom 1 is that the Bible is plain, clear, literal, and absolutely true. Lemma: My determination (not interpretation) of what the Bible says is correct and anyone who disagrees is ipso facto incorrect.
Other evidence is interesting but unnecessary, and cannot (by the definition of “axiom”) contradict Axiom 1.
It’s hard to choose. There are so many. Any of the many elements of the theory that contradicts my determination of what the Bible says is prima facie not just shaky, it’s known to be incorrect. It may be interesting, for curiosity’s sake if for no other reason, to determine where the error occurs and the nature of the error, but the fact that there is an error is unquestionable (logical derivation from Axiom 1).
I know that, but it is because of the Big Bang (so the story goes) that the universe was created and… as the story goes… allowed life to evolve on it.
The point I was trying to make is that there are some pretty big holes in your “theory”.
Maybe I have a poor understanding of science, but science IS a poor understanding. Seeing as you are an evolutionist, I am betting that the reason you believe in evolution is because of science. Seeing as science is all theory, and none of it can be proven conclusively, present arguements to me, in favor of evolution, that involves something other than science.
Ahem!
I’m afraid you’re disqualified on two counts:
1: You’re ranting
2: I said this: