A big problem for Evolution?

[evilbutterfly]

I don't see why people have such a hard time not at least considering that maybe evolution is just God's vessel for intelligent design. Hell, there is no scientific anything explaining why anything exists, so it's not like they're trying to disprove God. Science and faith don't have to be mutually exclusive. =\

I'd say a huge problem is that most religious people completely shut down in biology class when they're taught about evolution. The majority of Christian people I've talked to don't seem to understand at all the basic concepts of evolution that they should've learned early in high school. I heard a senior in high school say "well if evolution is real, then you'd see apes giving birth to human babies!!" I was shocked that anybody could know so little about what evolution is. =\

[GuidoHunter]

Originally Posted by evilbutterfly

Science and faith don't have to be mutually exclusive. =\

They aren't. By definition, they cannot overlap.

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com

[Tisthammerw]

Originally Posted by Squeek

By the way, I feel the need to mention this anytime someone talks about Evolution. Evolution is a fact. It merely denotes that species have changed over time, which is incredibly obvious to even the youngest of children.

If that is how you define evolution, then even creationists accept evolution. The debatable part is if macroevolution (evolution of new basic types) can happen. Everyone accepts microevolution (evolution within basic types).

This is where Natural Selection and Intelligent Design come into play.

The reason scientists continue to pursue the truth is because accepting Intelligent Design means there's no reason to study anything.

That's not true at all. Intelligent design says that intelligent causes are necessary for the creation of some aspects of biology (e.g. origin of life, the creation of basic types--it varies depending on the theory). Whether ID (intelligent design) is a true theory in biology, there's clearly nothing inherently wrong with the concept of design itself. Many artifacts are certainly designed, but that doesn't imply "there's no reason to study anything." Similarly, if ID were true in biology (e.g. origin of life) the "there's no reason to study anything" wouldn't hold true either. The best way to falsify ID theory is to demonstrate (or argue) that natural processes can do the job and thus a designer isn't needed.

Science is the study of things. To say "well, the solution is that it's something we can't understand no matter how hard we try" is against the rules of science. So, no matter what, this is going to stick around for a long, long time.

Sometimes naturalistic processes have to be rejected in favor of design. Imagine a geologist claiming the design theory for Stonehenge "goes against the rules of science" and thus we should instead accept the natural-origins theory instead.

[Tisthammerw]

Originally Posted by evilbutterfly

I don't see why people have such a hard time not at least considering that maybe evolution is just God's vessel for intelligent design.

You have to understand that some people are intellectually convinced that evolution (in its current form) is not a scientifically satisfactory theory. Take for instance the biochemist Michael Behe. He is a Catholic and used to accept evolution, until he did some digging after he read an anti-evolution book and became intellectually convinced that certain aspects of evolution did not hold water. I'm not a biochemist and thus cannot evaluate the soundness of his arguments, but Behe is hardly alone in rejecting evolution on the basis of (perceived) scientific reasons, instead of religious ones (as a Catholic, Behe has no religious objection to evolution at all). Some of those in the minority (who accept intelligent design over orthodox evolution) have advanced degrees from prestigious universities in relevant areas. They are the minority however, and we might have to wait a while to see where this goes.

Some people have the image of scientists who are willing to immediately abandon a theory if it's shown to be defective. In real life that doesn't happen if the theory in question is a deeply rooted paradigm. That's why I say we might have to wait.

I'd say a huge problem is that most religious people completely shut down in biology class when they're taught about evolution. The majority of Christian people I've talked to don't seem to understand at all the basic concepts of evolution that they should've learned early in high school. I heard a senior in high school say "well if evolution is real, then you'd see apes giving birth to human babies!!" I was shocked that anybody could know so little about what evolution is. =\

It is indeed unfortunate. However, there are a very large number of misconstruals of creationism as well. I recommend you read Del Ratzsch's Battle of Beginnings: Why Neither Side is Winning the Creation-Evolution Debate. It's probably the best available book on the controversy.

[TheTypist]

O come on... I mean, maybe I just went to an awesome public school, but I thought it was pretty easy to listen in biology and learn what they had to say, even if I don't go for macroevolution.

Combining God and evolution would mean that the six days represented a really long amount of time. Except, it says on the seventh day, God rested. It indicates that Creation was finished. Yet, evolution is on an ongoing thing, so...

[GuidoHunter]

Originally Posted by Tisthammerw

That's not true at all. Intelligent design says that intelligent causes are necessary for the creation of some aspects of biology (e.g. origin of life, the creation of basic types--it varies depending on the theory). Whether ID (intelligent design) is a true theory in biology, there's clearly nothing inherently wrong with the concept of design itself. Many artifacts are certainly designed, but that doesn't imply "there's no reason to study anything." Similarly, if ID were true in biology (e.g. origin of life) the "there's no reason to study anything" wouldn't hold true either. The best way to falsify ID theory is to demonstrate (or argue) that natural processes can do the job and thus a designer isn't needed.

The problem with creationism is that it's not science. If we reject mountains of evidence in favor of a scientific construct, then what's next? Reverting back to geocentrism?

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com

[Squeek]

I swear I said this before.

Intelligent Design and Natural Selection are in the same category: explanations of HOW evolution took place.

EVOLUTION IS A FACT. CREATIONISTS AND SCIENTISTS ALIKE AGREE ON THIS. THE MEANS BY WHICH IT OCCURRED IS WHAT IS UNDER DEBATE.

Also, why are you trying to disprove it? What is there to study with Intelligent Design? Seriously, what? Wanna find out who the creator was? Too bad since they all exist outside of our concept of existance. Intelligent Design just means "ok we give up lets just assume it was divine intervention" Pursuing something else (science) means "ok maybe it was divine intervention and maybe it wasn't. let's look into this and see what we can find out"

[T3hDDRKid]

Alright, I don't have time to formulate a full response, but I guess I have to make a few things clear.

1. I know that there wasn't really an in-between creature with legs, no arms, and gills. I was kidding, because I was getting to the end of a tiring response and wanted a mental image to make me smile [just the thought of that thing running around, trying to scream with no mouth makes me laugh.]

2. I know the basis of evolution isn't "fish evolving into humans", I was just generalizing and apparently shouldn't have. My point in that respect was that I can't see how single-celled organisms with minimal life processes could gain information to become complicated organisms.

3. Squeek: Evolution is a fact, but we're talking macroevolution here, which is a theory and not proven [just as Tist said.]

[Tisthammerw]

Originally Posted by GuidoHunter

The problem with creationism is that it's not science.

Is creationism science? Or put it more precisely, is creationism a genuinely scientific theory? It might depend on how you define creationism. Some forms of creationism make no reference to deities or the supernatural. Why think those versions are not genuinely scientific theories? The best reason to reject is that creationist theory fits the category of being “scientific” but the evidence does not support it as well as orthodox evolution.

If we reject mountains of evidence in favor of a scientific construct, then what's next?

What's interesting about the debate is that empirical evidence does not announce what it is evidence for—the empirical data has to be interpreted. So the question becomes, who wins the game of inference to the best explanation? Oddly, both sides can look at the same set of data and both creationists and evolutionists will say the data overwhelmingly support their side (e.g. fossil evidence--apparent fossil order versus systematic gaps).

[Tisthammerw]

Originally Posted by Squeek

I swear I said this before.

Intelligent Design and Natural Selection are in the same category: explanations of HOW evolution took place.

Well, it depends on the form of intelligent design. Some ID adherents (like probably Behe) probably would combine the two. Others, like Gary E. Parker, might fall into the other extreme.

What is there to study with Intelligent Design? Seriously, what?

One could analyze why intelligent causes are necessary to create the said aspect of life that allegedly needs artificial intervention, e.g. catalog irreducibly complex biochemical machines (if any exist), labeling their parts, and conduct tests to see if they really are irreducibly complex (remove a part, see if the system effectively ceases to function). Alas, one of the weaknesses of the intelligent design movement is the paucity of experimental research.

Intelligent Design just means "ok we give up lets just assume it was divine intervention"

Why think that artificial intervention entails the supernatural? Surely we could some day artificially create life without the need of the supernatural.

[T3hDDRKid]

Originally Posted by Tisthammerw

What's interesting about the debate is that empirical evidence does not announce what it is evidence for—the empirical data has to be interpreted. So the question becomes, who wins the game of inference to the best explanation? Oddly, both sides can look at the same set of data and both creationists and evolutionists will say the data overwhelmingly support their side (e.g. fossil evidence--apparent fossil order versus systematic gaps).

That is very true, actually. Evolutionists will look at coal and say it takes millions of years to form, whereas creationists will point out that it is possible [and has been observed] for coal to be created in a matter of days under extreme pressure [such as the pressure that would be produced by a worldwide flood, for example.

[Armadegon]

Well If you think about it this random mutation generator is not a good representation of evolution observe:

If you change 1 gene then a sentence

Evolution is not a myth
turns into
Evolution is no a myth

and if it's a reccesive gene it will change back anyway. My point is that it does not make as signifagant difference. And if you ignore the gramatical error in my sentance then it even means the same thing!

[lord_carbo]

You know, I haven't been taking this thread seriously up until now... and I'm still not. I do have a semi-serious question for DDRKid, though:

If random mutation and natural selection aren't the backbone of evolution, what is? What caused single-celled organisms to evolve into such awesome creatures? I'm pretty sure you left that out of your analysis, eh? I mean, if you're going to dismiss one extremely accepted theory in the scientific field as bull****, you might as well state what you think is the thing that drives evolution.

I could go on for an hour on why I think that article is bull****, but working inversely and staying lax is so much more entertaining and easier 8)

Also, I forgot to say this but I love you Jewpin. Every time you bless CT with your presence, Jesus smiles.

[Squeek]

Originally Posted by Tisthammerw

One could analyze why intelligent causes are necessary to create the said aspect of life that allegedly needs artificial intervention, e.g. catalog irreducibly complex biochemical machines (if any exist), labeling their parts, and conduct tests to see if they really are irreducibly complex (remove a part, see if the system effectively ceases to function). Alas, one of the weaknesses of the intelligent design movement is the paucity of experimental research.

Why? Because. Supernatural being (god in most cases) felt like it one day.

Why think that artificial intervention entails the supernatural? Surely we could some day artificially create life without the need of the supernatural.

The whole argument fueling Intelligent Design is that our universe is so complicated that there's no way it happened by chance. The theory is that something on a higher plane must've (for one reason or another) created it.

The reasons why something felt like making the universe are impossible to study. The way they did it is impossible to study. All we can study is the end result of what we had and try to work our way backwards to find a source.

[T3hDDRKid]

Originally Posted by lord_carbo

You know, I haven't been taking this thread seriously up until now... and I'm still not. I do have a semi-serious question for DDRKid, though:

If random mutation and natural selection aren't the backbone of evolution, what is? What caused single-celled organisms to evolve into such awesome creatures? I'm pretty sure you left that out of your analysis, eh? I mean, if you're going to dismiss one extremely accepted theory in the scientific field as bull****, you might as well state what you think is the thing that drives evolution.

I could go on for an hour on why I think that article is bull****, but working inversely and staying lax is so much more entertaining and easier 8)

Also, I forgot to say this but I love you Jewpin. Every time you bless CT with your presence, Jesus smiles.

That is precisely why I don't like posting in threads involving religious beliefs. While sometimes people will go to the trouble of backing up their posts with articles or something of that nature, too often people like Carbo will post a few things asking questions about what I said. I'll then write about it and five or six people will proceed to call me stupid for having a religion.

And as for random mutation and natural selection: I've said many times that DNA does not create new information, even though mutation. I've been searching through the internet, not only Christian sites, but through Wikipedia and Google search, and I haven't been able to find a mention that DNA can in fact add information to itself, only comments and studies that say it cannot.

Originally Posted by Squeek

The reasons why something felt like making the universe are impossible to study. The way they did it is impossible to study. All we can study is the end result of what we had and try to work our way backwards to find a source.

This makes the whole debate futile, at least for now. This debate cannot be "won", exactly. I cannot remember where I saw it, but I recall the quote "If everybody waited until they had all the relevant details, nobody would have an opinion." I may never be able to convince people like Jewpin and Carbo. They're firmly set in their beliefs. I choose, however, to continue stating the facts, because if I don't, then those who are on the threshold of deciding what to believe will only see the facts from one point of view. This way, they can choose what they think is more believable and make an informed decision.

[talisman]

obviously carbo, he feels that the answer is god.

[T3hDDRKid]

Hehe.. This isn't very critical thinking here, but I go to a Lutheran high school. My friend sucks at math, and we had a killer math test one time. He answered for perhaps 50% of the questions, and filled the rest in with "Jesus!" At the top, he scrawled "My religion teacher says Jesus is the answer to everything" Though he still failed, the teacher gave him five points for that ^^

[talisman]

I've said many times that DNA does not create new information, even though mutation. I've been searching through the internet, not only Christian sites, but through Wikipedia and Google search, and I haven't been able to find a mention that DNA can in fact add information to itself, only comments and studies that say it cannot.

Really? You must not be searching hard enough.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insertion_%28genetics%29

Insertion can and has been observed to occur in DNA.

[jewpinthethird]

NO WHERE IN MY PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY TEXT BOOK DOES IT MENTION "RANDOM MUTATION"

Evolution is NOT fact. Due to the tentative nature of science, scientists do not make such claims.

Evolution is a Theory in that it has neither been proven nor debunked, but has withstood the test of time.

I believe in evidence and the pursuit of knowledge. Those who fear and deny science are only afraid of the truths it reveals. If the Theologians had their way, the Earth would still be flat. I don't understand this resistance to scientific inquiry, if you don't like it, move in with the Amish or shut up.

Darwinian Evolution isn't perfect. No one ever said it was. Our only proof of evolution can be found in the fossil record. And unfortunately, the conditions for fossilization are rare and thus, the record sporadic. But remember, a lack of evidence does not disprove a theory.

[Squeek]

Jewpin, read.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introdu...misconceptions

Evolution is not something that has happened, resulting in the species we see today. It is a basic process of biology and is continuing.

The use of the word "theory" in the "theory" of evolution does not imply that evolution is any less well accepted or less supported by evidence than any other scientific theory, including the theory of gravity or the theory of quantum mechanics. A theory is a well-supported explanation for a given set of data, not a mere hypothesis.

There is no serious disagreement among biological scientists about the validity of evolution. Though some aspects of evolution, such as the mechanisms and processes that drive it, are subject to some professional debate, more than 99.9% of all professional biological scientists support evolution,[10] as it unites the disciplines and is foundational to the research conducted in all fields of biology.

Ok, just like how gravity is a theory, evolution is a theory as well. However, I cannot imagine anyone who can see a fossil of a trillobyte and go "well that species exists today, thus disproving evolution". The fact that trillobyte fossils exist is enough to prove that evolution as a basic rule of "change over time" is true. If nothing changed, then there would still be trillobytes.