Evolution vs Creationism
76
A pinch of dust and a rib and BANG... man and woman
Which better explains how life develops on Earth? The idea that DNA is not fixed, that changes occur in the genetic code which alters a life form from one generation to the next and that the environment determines which of those traits is best suited for the growth of the species and those without those traits either migrate to a different environment more suitable for them or die out.. or the idea that God created all the plant, animal and human forms and then..... well.... and then nothing... That's pretty much it. From then on, everything was fixed and unchanging.
Of course there is the potential "third theory" that says "Forget the God stuff, and replace it with some kind of intelligent designer" but basically it is the same as Creationism. Whether it is God, or a super-smart alien geneticist doesn't matter. Whether you get the gist of your ideas from the Bible or not, Intelligent Design is the same as Creationism. The only difference is the designer. Both still claim that evolution doesn't happen, that it can't happen because life is way too complex for any sort of "natural process" to be behind it or because there isn't sufficient evidence supporting Evolution.
So which story is the "right" one? Which one is the truth? Which one is false?
The truth is, it doesn't matter. There is one thing continually overlooked by most people in this debate. It is an important thing that ends the argument before it begins, and it's really simple. It just doesn't matter if Creationism is somehow true or not. It still doesn't belong in a science class and should not be taught to children as science, because it's not.
Religion decides on an answer and doesn't ask any questions. Science doesn't settle on an answer until most of the questions we have have been asked and answered. This is how science works. This is how it is expected to work even by non-scientists; You bring in evidence until it begins to look like something. You make educated speculations about it and test each speculation until you're left with only one that fits all the evidence. Then you call that your theory and hope it stands up to the scrutiny of every other scientist in the world willing to take a crack at it. Theory is a BIG word in science, not to be tossed about lightly. It means more than "I have this idea...."
Evolution has gone through this process. Creationism hasn't. This means that right or wrong, Creationism does not belong in a science class.... not because it is wrong, but because it is trying to cut in line. It's trying to jump from being an idea to being the truth without having to go through the part about testing. It certainly hasn't earned the right to be called a "Theory"
But of course it can't be tested. There is no physical evidence supporting Creationism and there is no physical evidence of a creator. The whole of the argument for Creationism hinges on Evolution being wrong and that somehow makes Creationism right. The continual refrain from Creationists is "Bring me the evidence.. Where is the evidence?" and "There is not enough evidence supporting Evolution" but even if that were true, it does not elevate Creationism to the point where it can take the place of Evolution. Evolution is a tested theory and Creationism is still an idea. You don't switch to Creationism if Evolution suddenly turns out to be wrong. You go back to the evidence and find something that fits what you have observed and test THAT. Nothing can change Creationism from an idea into a theory except rigorous testing of the evidence supporting Creationism, but we can't even do that because there is no evidence.
Yeah... yeah.... "Irreducible Complexity"... That is not evidence for Creationism. That is just another attempt to say that Evolution is wrong on the basis that the supporters of Irreducible Complexity" don't understand how something like an eye can evolve without help. Not understanding something (especially when there are plenty of people willing to explain it to you) doesn't count as evidence. I guarantee you that an Egyptian peasant in 2000 BC could not understand Nuclear Physics, but that doesn't make nuclear power plants suddenly stop working, and if not comprehending something means it doesn't exist, why do religious people always say that we are incapable of understanding God? Doesn't that mean that God should cease to exist for EVERYONE? or maybe just that no one (even priests) can say that he does exist? Irreducible complexity is proof of nothing. It is a statement of ignorance. Nothing more. It is simply saying "I don't know", which is fine. Saying "I don't understand" is the first step towards knowledge, but when you use that argument to invalidate an idea you are making a statement not only that you don't know, but that no one else CAN know. That is arrogant stupidity, not just ignorance.
"Teaching the Controversy" doesn't work either, because the controversy isn't among scientists. The controversy is between scientists and non-scientists, or between biologists and non-biologists that have let their religion (or a political agenda) blind them to the demands of the peer-review process and what scientific evidence really means. That still doesn't earn Creationism a place in a science class.
If Evolution is a guess, it is still the best guess there is. However it is a lot more than a guess. Whole medical industries have grown up around it. Scientists are doing things in laboratories with DNA and conducting genetic research that wouldn't be possible if Evolution was false. Many of the medicines we have that have proven capabilities (ie people are cured of an illness or even their lives saved because those drugs work) couldn't have been created if Evolution wasn't true. Did they just happen to get lucky? Just happen to do everything just right, when the knowledge they based their research on going back maybe a hundred years or more was false? It would be like saying that electricity is a myth. If so, then what is it that we are using to power all of our technological devices? It would have to be something that looks and functions exactly like electricity, has all the same properties and is affected by all the same forces.... yet not be electricity. That would be quite ridiculous, as is the notion that all of the observable data we have acquired on the evolutionary process, all of the testing done, all of the biological mechanisms that support the evolutionary process are somehow describing an entirely different process, one that fits with the appearance of a natural process but is actually directed by an invisible, insubstantial intelligence.
Poking holes in Evolution is fine, as long as they are real holes, but the fundamental processes regarding Evolution work. You can call it whatever you want, but you can't say it isn't there and you can't say that how it works is still "mysterious" It's not. Are there still things we don't understand? Of course. That will most likely always be true, but the theory is still sound, and just because there are some people who don't seem to be able to understand it, that doesn't mean that those people can just replace it with whatever they want. That's not how science works. To debunk Evolution, you have to present something that fits the facts BETTER than Evolution. You have to top it.
vote upvote downshareprintflag
- Useful (1)
- Funny
- Awesome (1)
- Beautiful
- Interesting (1)
CommentsLoading...
Don't have to. That's an easy one. We still have monkeys because monkeys are an evolutionary branch. Humans and monkeys have common ancestry. We didn't come from them. They and we came from the same place (although you have to go back pretty far), and the species we both came from IS extinct.
And evolutionary changes don't require one species to die out unless they directly compete for food or living space. A species that changes significantly may migrate to a place better suited the its survival or it may take over a niche in it's present environment that is more suited to it's capabilities than the "old species" allowing both species to continue without competition from each other.
I think you can have god and evolution. I personally believe everything is not only made up of the energy and matter of science but also consciousness. I think it is the nature of the universe to want to find itself and on a micro level it does this by forming organisms that become increasingly more complex. I do not know what will happen after I die but I hope my conscious maintains awareness of this world so I can see where humanities journey takes it. If I fade into nothing it will be a bummer but at least I will not know it lol. Reincarnation does not seem like much fun because you do not retain memories but you have to pay for past transgressions, that is like going to prison with amnesia.
Cool hub Sword, take care.
I think this is a well written and well thought out hub - but I disagree with you. I don't beleive in evolution. If the world was not designed, then it certainly displays the illusion of design.
I don't really understand your statement that scientists couldn't use genetic research if evolution isn't true. No one is arguing that DNA and adaptation aren't real- just that they don't prove the species developed randomly. Consider this: If humans modify corn to make the plant more to our liking - does that "prove" intelligent design? Because we, intelligent beings (sometimes), were able to make a plant more suited to its environmnet (we hope). The fact that scientist are modifying organisms in the laboratory does nothing to prove evolution. If they wanted to do that they would have to stop developing treatments and wait for random selection to give us immunity to things like cancer and air pollution.
I think the problem that most creationists have with the teaching of evolution is not that it is taught - but that many teach it with the idea that it is the only logical explanation for how the life on this planet came into being. The fact that the existence of God can't be proved does not make believing in him or her illogical. Evolution may be the only logical explanation for the complexity for life on earth if there is no higher being, but if there IS a higher being - it seems far more likely that the world was designed.
Scientists aren't TRYING to modify organism. They've done it. People have been doing it to plants for at least hundreds of years and to animals for thousands, and we've been doing it to drugs for decades. We COULD wait for nature to give us immunity to things like cancer, but Evolution works on a very slow schedule relative to human life. People don't (and shouldn't) have to wait that long, but the genetic research that is generating progress on things like diseases depends on the mechanisms by which species develop (ie Evolution) If those mechanisms were different than what Evolution says they are, then the way these organisms are modified would not be possible, or it would happen differently. If some god designed people, animals, and plants, then he/she also designed a mechanism that seems to work as though Evolution were true.
Creationism on the other hand says that the fossil record shows no transitional organism when there are. It says that certain organic processes and features COULD NOT happen without some intelligence behind it, yet no one provides evidence that this is impossible, just that THEY don't understand it. It says that people were created and haven't changed for thousands of years, when we have medical history of humans far enough back to see this happening. You can't argue about what these things mean until you acknowledge that they do exist. Creationists haven't even got that far.
So which is "far more likely" again?? that the evolutionary process came into being and is being sustained by some creature we can't see, touch, hear or interact with for the apparently express purpose of fooling us into thinking it is a natural process or..... that it IS a natural process?
And I haven't yet heard a single argument against Evolution that doesn't get some part of Evolution wrong. It takes only a few minutes with Google to discover that Evolutionary theory doesn't make a single statement about the origins of life. That is a straw-man argument invented by the Creationists. Crack any science book on Evolution and you'll read that it describes the process by which species change and develop into new species. The origin of life is called Abiogenesis which IS an unproven idea that we're just now beginning to get real data on. If we find out that God was the one who pressed the Start button then so be it, but until you know what the Theory you don't believe in actually claims, how can you possibly pass judgment on it? Evolution describes an observed process. The process is there, whether God put it there or not.
However, as I stated: whether Creationism or Evolution is true isn't the real issue. You shouldn't teach music in a science class just because you think it should. It's been said that music shares some similarities to mathematics. But that doesn't make it science. Creationism isn't researched like science. It has no testable hypotheses, and it produces no evidence. It demands we either accept it or deny it. It requires that we discard what we see with our own eyes and accept an entirely different premise with no data to support that premise, just "Well it obviously can't be anything else." That isn't science, never mind whether it's true or not. Why should it get put in a science class?
Science requires evidence before acceptance. The fact that there is no proof of God matters a great deal to science. If you're given an empty box, it has to stay empty until you have some reason to say it isn't. That's how science works, and if you spend hours with every device known to mankind (including your own eyes) scrutinizing every inch of the box and finally find something that looks like a tiny figurine of a horse, and someone comes up to you and says "It's a three inch red ball. Can't you see it?" and doesn't say HOW he knows that OR why it looks like a small horse, then you have every right to call that person a loon.
I'm not sure you understood my point. I will try again.
The fact that scientists can use the ability of organisms to adapt and pass those adaptations along to offspring does not prove that evolution is true. It only proves that an intelligent being, ie the scientist, can guide a species in a given direction.
And yes, if an intelligent being created an ecosystem that was subject to random changes in environment it would have to develop a mechanism by which those organisms adapt. Otherwise, life wouldn't be around for very long.
You say that science requires proof and that is why creationism is not taught in schools and evolution is. But you have yet to offer proof of evolution. Scientists have spent a great many years documenting how the species may have evolved, and theorizing about what might have caused the adaptations that diversified the species. Yet the scientific process demands that in order to be accepted a process must be both observable and repeatable. We have yet to see the birth of a new species. They have yet to reproduce the crossing of a species barrier in the labratory. Until then, evolution is just as unproven as creationism.
In light of this, your last paragraph seems somewhat hypocritical. You are perfectly willing to accept a theory based on conjecture about how something might have happened. Forgive me, I don't see the horse.
I understood your point fairly well I think.
Genetic manipulation proves that there is a mechanism governing how organisms develop, and this mechanism is consistent and does not seem to be guided by any intelligence. This is all that Evolution claims. Geneticists don't just wave a wand and bam... they change a life form. They USE the mechanism of Evolution to do their work. If the evolution wasn't true, then THEIR RESULT WOULD BE DIFFERENT. We have edible banana's, hundreds of different kinds of dogs and cats, a whole truckload of medicines because Evolution works. Denying Evolution means you deny the existence of dog breeders, horticulturalists, half of all modern medical knowledge, vaccines, and probably a whole bunch of secondary processes I can't think of right now.
No proof of Evolution?? Me personally... here? No. The evidence would be a useless reproduction of many biology text books, articles on Evolution and various debates, some of which it might be against the law to reproduce here, but do you think all those scientific journals and textbooks are just empty? That's the evidence. You see the mountains of data compiled by biologists as either fake or something that has managed to mislead thousands of extremely intelligent people into falsely believing that there is a mechanism that governs how life develops on this planet. On the other hand, where is the evidence for Creationism? You're not trying to prove Creationism. You're just saying that Evolution has no evidence, and that is simply not true. You not understanding Evolution doesn't make it go away.
We haven't seen the birth of a species because our lifespan is too short, and the lack of direct observations like that doesn't bring down all of Evolution, any more than the fact that no one has seen gravity or the wind or radiation means they aren't real and detectable by the effect they have on the things around us, and just because a scientist can't do something in the lab doesn't mean that they can't prove it occurs in nature... or do you think there isn't sufficient proof of gravity yet?
Considering you have already demonstrated a lack of understanding about the claims of Evolution, I don't believe you really know what it is that you don't believe in. You need to study some biology and then explain why you think the observed data doesn't show what the scientists say it does. Have you even read The Origin of Species? At LEAST give that a try, then come back and point out where it's wrong. I promise I will listen with an open mind.
As I said before. Evolution has passed the test of science. A lot of people went through a lot of effort to examine a lot of evidence. They put together the theory, and many other people went through a lot of effort to find a fault in their logic and their data. They failed.
You want evidence? It's in any of the multitude of biology text books out there. You have a better theory that stands up under the same scientific scrutiny? Please produce it or point me to it. Don't just say "I don't believe" because I'm not asking for your belief, and you're not required to "believe" anything. That's the great thing about science.
Well, actually, I have read a fair amount of biology books as well as Darwin's "Origin of the Species."
They don't present evidence, swordsbane, just an explanation of how evolution might account for the developement of species - no evidence that it is the only or even best answer.
You seem to believe that two observable phenomena, genetic mutations and natural selection, are the same thing as evolution. Just because components of a theory are scientifically demonstratable does not make the theory valid or prove it.
If I observe the sun, it certainly appears to orbit the earth. Every day - consistently. Many people accepted that as evidence for thousands of years. Yes, people wrote books about it. That didn't make it true.
If by using the phrase "how life on this planet came into being" was a demonstration that I don't understand the claims of evolution, I apologize. I was being figurative. Had I meant to address the origins of life I certainly would have elaborated, don't you think? Perhaps a better phrase would be "how the diversity of species in all their complexity and interdependence," serves my meaning better.
Cheers
"If I observe the sun, it certainly appears to orbit the earth. Every day - consistently. Many people accepted that as evidence for thousands of years. Yes, people wrote books about it. That didn't make it true."
But if you launched a probe to orbit the Sun under the impression that it orbited the Earth, your mission would fail. Consequently, if you were to launch a probe under the impression that the Earth orbited the Sun, and your probe DID orbit the Sun and return, even if it didn't take any pictures or carry any instruments, the fact that you were successful would prove that the Earth orbited the Sun. Not only that but it would also prove that your calculations for the mass of the Earth and the Sun and their relative distance apart were also true. The mission couldn't succeed otherwise. If someone were to say "That doesn't prove anything." They would be wrong. This is what you seem to be doing.
If enough of evolutionary theory is true to make genetic manipulation possible in all it's current forms, then it's beginning to look like evolution is true. The only difference between that and the natural world is that it is the environment that does the selecting, not people, but that doesn't change the mechanism any, and when two species have similar (sometimes almost identical) features yet one is completely vestigal, then which is more likely: that the two species are somehow related, or that some unknown invisible intelligent entity created a creature with a useless feature?
A Geneticist decides he/she wants to modify an existing organism to do something it wasn't equipped to do. If this scientist proceeds as if the foundations of Evolutionary theory are true and he/she's wrong, then he/she doesn't get the organism that was desired. You are under the impression that Evolution is not testable. It is tested every day.
Mankind has created Yorkys and Bull Mastiffs from the same original breeding stock. No drugs, no genetic manipulation by artificial means. These animals were created just by breeding. The only difference between this and the natural world was that the time scale was compressed because of selective breeding for non-environmental traits. Is there any reason to believe that this process wouldn't continue in the wild? Environments change, diseases spring up, food supplies change. When two forms of the same species become separate species, it occurs when the DNA of the two is so different that they can no longer interbreed. There is no "barrier" in the sense that some switch is thrown and a dog becomes a cat. The word was created by us to describe a condition. If the physical form of an organism can change so drastically over time and those changes are reflected in the organisms DNA, then how can you reasonably say that the process can't continue until the it barely resembles the organism it once was, that the process can't continue until it can't interbreed with the organism it used to be and you now have two distinct species? What's going to stop the process?
Darwin made a lot of hypothesis based on his observations. At the time he wrote his book, no one could prove him wrong or right, but no one had an idea that fit those observations as well as his hypothesis. Since then, we have built on those observations with more and more observations until virtually everything we discover seems to support his original hypothesis.
Now, does that mean he was 100% right? No. But NOTHING in science ever rises to that level. However, in order to come out and say that Evolution is wrong, you have to attack all the data since and including Darwin and provide an alternate explanation for most of it, not just attempt to cast doubt by saying "It doesn't look like that to me." You don't get to SAY Evolution is wrong. You have to SHOW it to be wrong, and not to me. I don't rate. You have to show it to other biologists, other people who study evolutionary theory. To do that, then you go through the SAME process that Evolution went through. You gather your data, make your conclusion, then submit it for review where everyone who wants to will take a shot at showing that you are wrong. If they can't THEN you get to call your idea a proven theory. You don't get to call Creationism just as valid as Evolution because that hasn't happened, and every time it is suggested there's a lot of huffing and bluster but no one seems to be able to produce anything supporting Creationism. I wonder why that is.
You can bitch about it all you want, but that doesn't change the facts. Evolution is science. Creationism isn't. If Creationism wants to be accepted by science, then it has to play by the rules of science. Until then, children will continue to be taught in science classes that Evolution is the best answer for how life develops on Earth, and that's how it should be.
Now if you're one of those people that say that there's a conspiracy of scientists to suppress the truth about Evolution and Creationism, I have nothing to say to you. Conspiracy Theorists think that evidence against their theory means the cover-up is working and but also say that evidence for their theory is everywhere if you'd only see it. There's no way to have an intelligent debate under those circumstances.
Your examples prove my point. How can you not see this? The fact that man - an intelligent being - is able to manipulate the gene pool in a positive manner toward a desired outcome only proves that an intelligent being can guide natural processes - exactly the point of the intelligent design camp.
Your argument that all the evidence gathered since Darwin supports his theory just isn't true. In the last thirty years there has been story after story of some new find in the fossil record that proves the theory, or even strengthens it and later is found to be incorrect. No worries, just throw it out and look for something else to support the theory. The biologists you speak of have very little interest in disproving the theory and this is what cheapens the science involved. You and others like you are very closed-minded and dogmatic in your beliefs.
It also proves that the natural processes EXIST.
"..exactly the point of the intelligent design camp."
No. If that was their point, then they would not be in opposition to Evolution. The point of the Intelligent Design camp is that an intelligent being is REQUIRED for species to evolve. It CAN'T happen any other way, and there is no reason to believe that. Intelligent Design is just another way of saying God did it, and they think that if they don't actually mention God, we won't think that's who they're talking about.
Your second paragraph is starting to sound a lot like a conspiracy theory. If you honestly believe that scientists are conspiring to keep only the evidence that supports Evolution, then you've jumped the shark. You're talking about perhaps thousands of scientists all working to perpetuate a lie and not one of them seeking to gain fame and fortune by breaking their silence. Science depends on being open minded, and not dogmatic. If even ONE scientist breaks this "code of silence" then the whole thing falls down. You are seeing a conspiracy that isn't there.
Who do you think has a better handle on the unknown: those who are taught to adjust their thinking when new data becomes available or those who's entire way of thinking depends on one book being true?
Sorry, but I think I'll put my "faith" in scientists. I have no reason not to trust them, and what's more.. I don't HAVE to trust them. They tend to explain themselves very well.
You ask how can I not see your point? Your only "point" is that almost every biologist on the planet is not only wrong, but deliberately so. That is an accusation, and a baseless one at that.
"In the last thirty years there has been story after story of some new find in the fossil record that proves the theory, or even strengthens it and later is found to be incorrect."
Explain one.... Just one. Remember, you have to show that the claims made about it are false and that what is left either supports Creationism or doesn't support Evolution.
Okay - just one. Let's take the fossil fragments named "Lucy." In the 1970's Johanson discovered the bone fragments and since then she has been touted as a transitional species between apes and humans. Renowned paleontologist, Richard Leaky, never accepted this theory. And yet, in my college biology evolutionary tree, she appeared as a descendent of Homo sapeins.
In 2007 three scientists from Tel Aviv University reported in "Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences" (Vol. 104, pp. 6568-72, April 17, 2007) that the jawbone of the Lucy species (Australopithecus afarensis) is a close match to a gorilla's, which in no way supports Lucy being a descendent of modern humans. Yet for years Lucy was promoted as a missing link. Of course, they were wrong -now they're finding new and different transitional species.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/10/09
I am not a conspiracy theorist, nor have my arguments depended on any sacred text. I don't believe scientists are in any way deliberately trying to fool people. They are sincere people looking for truth. My point is only that there is not the consensus you imagine surrounding the "proof" of evolution.
To be honest, when I speak to creationist who belittle evolutionists and suggest that their arguments have no merit, I defend the evolutionists. I understand your arguments and why you believe as you do. But, after examining the evidence, I still don't believe in evolution.
I doubt that either of our arguments are likely to sway each other - but it has been very nice reading your views. And I appreciate all the time you have devoted to your responses.
That is another Creationist fabrication. The only problem with Lucy was that it was only 40% intact to begin with and there were a lot of unknowns in the beginning. There was controversy about it, but the scientists involved (the Leaky's included) were still of the opinion that it was a new form of man that was in many ways similar to apes, hence a new piece of the evolutionary puzzle, even if there were differing opinions on some of the details of the "Lucy" skeleton. That is hardly a controversy about what the skeleton means for evolution, and since then more evidence has come out supporting Johanson's original conclusions from other skeletons unearthed. The problems with having such an incomplete skeleton aside, it supports evolution and hardly makes Johanson "wrong"
Also keep in mind that media misquotes aside, all the honest controversy that DID develop in Johanson's discovery was coming from other scientists. Science is a self-correcting process. If someone does something wrong, you can bet that other scientists will find it out.
The "Lucy" controversy fails as a hoax and as a mistake. It is still regarded by the scientific community as an example of a classic "transitional form" including Richard Leaky, who just recently got all hot and bothered about the bones going on tour, calling it a "gross exploitation of the ancestors of humanity" Not something you'd expect from someone who thought Lucy was just a monkey. Of course there have been more discovery's of a similar sort. That would be what you would expect if evolution was real. You're starting to sound an awful lot like you're saying "they're covering up the truth" despite what you said about not being a conspiracy theorist.
As for scientists from the NAS saying that Lucy's jaw may indeed be a close match to a gorilla. Considering the many traits that Lucy shares with humans, that is the clearest evidence you could ask for that Lucy is similar to apes AND humans, which would support evolution unequivocally, unless you think that the rest of the skeleton is just an ape. If there is a lack of consensus about evolution, then this is a very poor example of it. Disagreement among scientists doesn't mean a difference of opinion about conclusions unless there are fundamental differences. This example is not one of them.
Your argument is just the standard arguments (although I admit that these are some of the better ones) that I've heard over and over again that have better people than me refuting them. You can't possibly be that well versed in the controversy without being aware of these counter-arguments, so I suggest you read some more. The evidence for evolution is in the multitude of scientific papers on the subject. Those are real. They don't depend on your opinion to exist. You may think that what is in them is a matter of opinion, but it is the opinion of quite a lot of people who have spent a lifetime studying this field, and they all pretty much agree. If you're saying that they are all wrong somehow, then the burden of proof now rests with YOU.
I suppose you're right and we won't sway each other, but that won't stop me from trying. However, I submit that you don't understand my position any more than I understand yours, otherwise one of us would have changed their mind. Instead we both stand unconvinced by the others argument. Still, I appreciate your thoughts on the subject anyway.
(Well, actually, I have read a fair amount of biology books as well as Darwin's "Origin of the Species.")
Temiprice,
(They don't present evidence, swordsbane, just an explanation of how evolution might account for the developement of species - no evidence that it is the only or even best answer.)
Here, here, Tamiprice! You understand science!
Science does not offer "proof". Science looks at physical phenomenon and poses a rational explanation for the observed occurence. There is no proof, belief, faith, evidence, or voting allowed. After many years and many different discoveries conform to the idea, it then may be elevated to the status of theory - but even then all it does is provide a rational explanation. Never a proof.
Swordsbane,
(The evidence for evolution is in the multitude of scientific papers on the subject.)
Evidence belongs in the courtroom where opinions put people behind bars. Science has no opinion.
(Those are real. They don't depend on your opinion to exist. You may think that what is in them is a matter of opinion, but it is the opinion of quite a lot of people who have spent a lifetime studying this field, and they all pretty much agree.)
This is a dumb argument for a scientist. There are thousands of pages written by theists who have spent a lifetime studying theology - their collective wisdom does not offer a shred of proof of anything - except their collective opinion.
(If you're saying that they are all wrong somehow, then the burden of proof now rests with YOU.)
Then you both need to put your arguments into systems of logic, as that is the only place where words like proof and truth reside. Fossils are PROOF of NOTHING.
Science does NOT PROVE! Science explains.
(End of rant.) :-))
AKA Winston: "There are thousands of pages written by theists who have spent a lifetime studying theology - their collective wisdom does not offer a shred of proof of anything - except their collective opinion."
And I would not presume to debate the nature of scripture with a theologist (theologian?) but they study the nature of scripture in-house. They do not "debate" or "study" the possibility of it being true. That decision is made before they begin their studies (or in the academic world it is irrelevant to their studies)
Whereas science studies only that which is observed (ie "real") and makes evidence-based judgments on what those observed phenomena mean. The point I was making is that you can disagree with Evolution if you like, but you can't say it doesn't have any scientific validity, and having a problem with Evolution because "scientists are fools and don't know what they're talking about" yet take their word for all the other technology we get is kind of silly, because it is the same process for both. By the same token, you can't say that Creationism (or Intelligent Design) has any scientific credibility because no one who supports the idea has offered ANY evidence AT ALL for it. They have merely said that Evolution is wrong, so that somehow means that Creationism has equal credibility by default, which is demonstrably not true.
There's no "proof" in science, but as I said: "Theory" is a big word in science. Evolution didn't get to be a Theory because some scientist thought it would be cool. It got that way through decades of research by a lot of people trained to sort fact from fiction. If you want to go up against that, you better have more than "I don't believe it" otherwise no one is going to take you seriously, and they shouldn't.
Swordsbane,
I am glad you clarified. There is nothing wrong with strongly selling your scientific position (see The Blind Watchmake, for example), but when you do you should make clear that you have crossed the line into belief systems (as Dawkins clearly explained) and are not arguing on behalf of the scientific community.
You are quite right that ID cannot compete with Darwinian evolution. But when you start arguing "proofs" you have abandoned science in lieu of the Creationists' playing field of common usage language.
The goal of the Creationist is not to elevate ID to the level of science, but to lower science to the standards of a belief system. When you argue on their terms, you are helping them make their case.
As to the young lady you were talking to, this statement of hers is most telling and damning: (But, after examining the evidence, I still don't believe in evolution.)
As you can see, she is conferring the religious concept of "belief" onto a scientific "explanation".
What she doesn't seem to understand is that belief has nothing to do with evolution - evolution is simply a rational explanation for an observed natural phenomenon. After 150 years, there has been no fact uncovered that falsifies that explantation, and many facts appear to be consistent with the idea.
Great Hub and a fascinating discussion. I think AKA Winston hit the nail on the head: "The goal of the Creationist is not to elevate ID to the level of science, but to lower science to the standards of a belief system." ID/Creationism and Evolution are operating in two different sets of metaphors and to try to use one one set to deny or falisfy the other is dishonest and wrong. Let the IDers believe what they wasnt to believe and let those of us who accept the scientific basis of evolution continue to do so. There are so many facts which show that evolution is the best possible explanation we have of the origins of the life we are part of and see around us, and absolutely no facts which support ID/Creationism. There is only belief.
What I fail to understand is why those who believe in a creator can't see the creation story in Genesis as a beautiful creation myth which is a story to teach some moral, not a factual account of how creation came about. It is a myth, a metaphor, which, if you like, can be said to have been inspired by God, but that is a belief, not science. A beautiful belief, perhaps even an uplifting belief, but a belief, using the metaphors of a belief system.
Evolution on the other hand is science, using the metaphors of science to explain phenomena. And very successfully too, in my humble opinion. Which is why I accept evolution as a scientific theory. I don't "believe" in it as it does not require "belief" - it is there for all to see and use. And, in contrast to to ID/Creationism, it is indeed useful, having brought about many practical and useful things. ID/Creationism has brought about what, exactly? Belief in a metaphor, which might be nice and uplifting, as I said, but not practically useful.
Love and peace
Tony
Tonymac04,
(What I fail to understand is why those who believe in a creator can't see the creation story in Genesis as a beautiful creation myth which is a story to teach some moral, not a factual account of how creation came about.)
Terrific observation. Quite impressive, especially if you do not read the original languages, as the poetry is clearly evidenced in the original texts.
The creation story is exacly as you say: A Morality Poem. It was never meant to do anything but teach.
Your premise that Creationism hinges on disproving the theory evolution is completely in error. God doesn't need anybody's approval or proof to be. He is. He has done what the Bible says he has done. Evolution was a lie that was invented later and misinforms and misleads people. It has no bearing whatsoever on the Bible or God.
Verities: What I said was that the only tactic the supporters of Creationism use is to try to poke holes in Evolution. They don't provide any evidence FOR Creationism. You may not be interested in providing evidence, but science need evidence before something can be accepted as true. Both Evolution and Creationism can't be true. Each one proposes contradictions to the other. Scientifically, the one that has the most evidence behind it is considered the one most likely to be true. It is the one that belongs in science books and the one that should be taught in public schools as science.
Creationism does not meet this criteria. It does not belong in science. It has nothing at all to do with the existence of God. It has to do with testable evidence and falsifiable data. Creationism has none of this. Evolution has a whole lot... ergo Evolution is science.. Creationism isn't. If you want to continue to teach science to students in public schools, then Creationism is false. Evolution is true.
If you want to home-school your kid or start a religious school, you can pretty much teach the students there anything you want. No one will stop you, but if you want to make Creationism taught in public schools, find some evidence for it first. You can't just say "It's in the Bible. Therefore it's true."
"Science doesn't settle on an answer until most of the questions we have have been asked and answered."
Not modern mainstream science: it assumes that everything can be explained naturally. That's the foundation of most scientific research, for better or worse.
nicomp: It would be closer to the truth to say that science accepts a premise that everything real is explainable, and anything not explainable is not real. Explaining something naturally is logically redundant. If it exists, it is part of the natural universe. Science is describing observations made inside that universe without using opinion. Nothing more and nothing less.
But regardless, that is a far different thing than the practical problem of calling something a scientific truth. Technically, there never is something that is 100% true or 100% false. There is only that which has more supporting evidence than all the other theories, but at some point you have to say "This is true" and move on to the next thing. Those things have such a large mass of evidence in their favor that it would be practically impossible to disprove it all. The scientific community has a higher standard of proof than most people. Anyone can stand up and say "I have a theory about that" but in the scientific world, "Theory" is a big deal. It means something that already has at least a little evidence supporting it. Various parts of an idea have been rigorously tested and found to have passed, then many other scientists get a crack at disproving those test results, questioning the data, carry out their own tests to see if the results can be duplicated. After they fail to tear down the evidence, they say "Looks like this was true after all."
Now does that mean that it's 100% true? No. It doesn't mean that research into the theory stops or even that no scientist will come up with a real zinger that makes the whole thing fall down again. It's happened before and it will happen again.
Nothing is ever really "settled" in science. It is only "settled for now" But if you tried to live your life that way, you'd never get out your front door.
Thank you for the thoughtful hub. When the intelligent design argument first popped up it really bothered me (it still bothers me) because it represents two different teaching methods. Science and evolution teaches children about problem solving, about looking for evidence and making meaningful conclusions. These are valuable life skills that put us in a position to be productive and successful adults. Where as intelligent design wouldn't even take up a fraction of one class period. All the teacher would have to say is "god did it" and bam; lesson over. The written test is one question long and all you have to do is write those three words to get an A. It's an easy way out of a tough question and equates to cheating. This whole argument about teaching intelligent design scares the hell out of me, because the moment we stop believing in evidence and rational thought, is the moment our society starts to degrade. Suddenly, everything we know is called into question and intelligent people are chased out of the city with torches and pitchforks because people can't understand them. So, rather than learn, they choose to fear and persecute them. Our world is walking on a razor's edge between advanced society and madness. I suppose that's a bit melodramatic, but it sends a chill down my spine when I hear the head of the Texas school board saying that we can't trust experts. (I'm paraphrasing). Anyway, great hub!
American Romance Level 7 Commenter 23 months ago
Scientist are not super computers who we look to for all the answers! If we did then we would believe in global warming, and now we discover that scientist world wide hid pertinent information that refuted the global warming claims that most scientist wanted to believe is happening! Therefore I have one question for these so called great scientist, If we came from monkeys why do we still have monkeys? Maybe the ones left were mentally challenged or maybe their hair just never fell out, or maybe The God I love created me in his image. Sleep on that one.