Evangelical war on evolution

[phoenix_fire]

Quote by: Athena The Genius is Muslim and he flatly denied evolution. Evidently, the literal interpretation of Genius is just as important to Muslims. On the other hand we have atheist Jews. If a Jew doesn't believe their part of the bible is the word of God, what continues to make them Jew? Jews excommunicated none believers. I sure wouldn't claim to be Protestant because my grandmother and mother were Protestants. Anyway- Instead of going round and round on the same old arguements, how about searching for the information needed for a broader understanding of religion? May be as we learn how ancient thought, we can better decide if we want to think as they did, or do we want to update our beliefs with better information?

Athena, being Jewish is first a matter of ethnicity and then a matter of religion.

Quote by: Fonceai @Osborn Are you trying to say that you think religious education should wait until later?

What I'm suggesting is that if people weren't subjected to religious teachings until they were over 21, religion would be far less pervasive. That most people believe the religions of their childhood is evidence that religious belief is more a function of indoctrination than education. People don't choose their religion, it's foisted on them when they are too young to think critically.

Regards
S.

[Fonceai]

@sdbest

I agree that children shouldn't be taught or told what to think about the nature of God. The problem is that children will have questions and will get answers from people who can't help but answer with their own opinion.

Quote by: Z Evolution specifically contradicts the literal creationism that stated the story of Genesis is literal.

In that sense, I agree. If someone takes Genesis literally (and not literalistically) then there is a problem.

Quote by: Z While it doesn't specifically contradict overlap creationism*, there is no evidence to suggest god exists nor any reason to insert him behind the scenes. It's as intellectually valid as stating "electrons are how Zeus causes electricity". There's no evidence to support this stance and is thus false.

But that's the problem with "overlap", as you call it.

The deeper we get into matters of atomic structure, the more mysterious things become.

A god-like force is just as valid a possibility as anything else suggested.

You're saying that there is no evidence to suggest a god, so it's false.

That's the argument from ignorance fallacy.

The only thing that proves something false is evidence of its precise opposite.

Consider something simple...

We are slowly identifying markers in DNA of simpler creatures. Once we identify all the markers, we can literally put DNA together in a way that will create a creature according to specifications, not to random chance.

Mutation is nothing more than a particle knocking a DNA protein out of sequence or altering it. That means that if we can identify what different proteins do in the place of certain markers, we can predict mutations as well.

Is it so hard to think that this has already been done?

That's the one thing that hints at creationism.

If DNA is so easy for us to manipulate (and it is) then why not someone smarter than us?

In that case, it's possible that both evolution and Biblical creationism are correct.

Quote by: Fonceai In that case, it's possible that both evolution and Biblical creationism are correct.

On the science side there is almost universal agreement that natural selection as theorized by Darwin and Wallace is a defensible explanation for the evolution of species.


On the religious side, however, there are more explanations than those contained in the Christian/Judaic Bible. I think that there is an onus on those who dispute the theory of natural selection on religious grounds to prove that it is their particular religion, rather than one of the many thousands of religions that are extant or have appeared and disappeared, that has the correct explanation for the existence of various species. Why is the Christian version of creation correct and the Hindu version or the early Greek version or the early Hopi version not?

Regards
S.

[Fonceai]

@sdbest

That's a popular anti-theist argument...

That since many religions disagree with each other, each religion is wrong.

Also, I agree that evolution as described by Darwin and Wallace is perfectly defensible.

But it also doesn't account for the fact that human evolution remains unexplained... we are very similar to certain species, yes, but they can't quite pinpoint where or when we first emerged.

If you consider my proposed "smarter genetic alteration" idea, one could argue that cro-magnons and other "sub" human developed stages aren't progressive stages in a single evolutionary chain, but are different failed experiments to achieve us.

[harami]

I really doubt that evolution has been verified by scientific experiment (i.e. "proven" in the usual way of science).. Small mutations (fatal) have been produced in the lab. The evidence seems to be in the fossil record or in examples of genetic drift (aka "adaptation"). The theory is thus speculative, since it cannot be reproduced and the fossil record is very incomplete.

Yes, many of the life science people publish papers on evolution, but it is not the same as say, quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics is a theory with many useful applications and predictions which can be tested. It has been a very productive tool. Evolution has no "applications". The theory cannot be used to produce anything useful, nor can it be used to predict anything, since the time scale of evolution is in the millions of years. So, in my opinion, evolution is an attractive theory simply because it pleases the world view of many people, and keeps them busy in their biological labs (e.g.). Modern bioengineering has no foundation in evolution, and no relation to it. It concerns itself with "making things work" in a reproducible way as do all real sciences. I suspect that nearly all important biology (relevant to producing things of benefit) can be done without the slightest reference to "natural selection" or evolution.

Quote by: Fonceai @sdbest That's a popular anti-theist argument... That since many religions disagree with each other, each religion is wrong.

Actually the argument is this: since many religions disagree with each other they can't all be right. Therefore which one is the right one? It follows then that the majority of people making religious claims must be wrong. It also follows that religious thinking does not give people the competency to determine which religion is the correct one.

While there are disagreements in science, they pale in comparison with those in religion. And, in the matter of the evolution of species, the disagreements are slight and do not disagree with the central premise.

Regards
S.

Quote by: harami I really doubt that evolution has been verified by scientific experiment (i.e. "proven" in the usual way of science).

Evolution by natural selection has been "verified' by the evidence available. There are many phenomena that cannot be proved or disproved by experiment, for example, climate change or continental drift. We can only go by the evidence. Laboratory experimentation is only one tool available to scientists.

Of course on the religious side, there is not only no possibility of experimentation to defend the claims, but also there is no evidence, and the fossil record, as incomplete as it is, disputes the Biblical story of creation.

Regards
S.

[Jack]

That's a popular anti-theist argument... That since many religions disagree with each other, each religion is wrong.

I think it addresses credibility. It doesn't indicate that disagreement shows that each religion is invalid, but rather that disagreements over interpretations of essentially the same text indicates a lack of a unified response to evolution and creation. Science offers one basic theory while religions counters with many creation stories, each claiming to be the absolute truth.
Thus creationists have a single theory to try and discredit, while those of us who support evolution have hundreds of theories to argue against.

[Fonceai]

Good points, Ish and sdbest...

Then here is another problem with religious creationism; how many of them "made up" their version of it?

Very few of them will admit their version is contrived; all will probably claim divine inspiration or something like that.

The reason I toy with my own blended ideas is because they address both sides equally and aren't isolated to a single religious or scientific point of view.

[Gods_Mercenary]

Genesis is derived largely from babylonian creation myths, as well as parts added to emphasize the author's message.

[gallo]

Quote by: harami I really doubt that evolution has been verified by scientific experiment (i.e. "proven" in the usual way of science)..

Two points. 1st, it is not the "usual way of science" to prove anything. Science explains observations. 2nd, evolution has been observed and it is the theories of evolution that explain the mechanisms that caused it.

Quote by: harami Small mutations (fatal) have been produced in the lab.

Yes. As have other mutations that aren't so "small" (whatever that means), many of them beneficial. Some mutations can be fatal, but most are not. Of course, the meaning of "fatal" is a bit doubtful in this context too. Do you mean a mutation that is lethal? Or possibly a mutation that is non-adaptive in a given environment. There are both kinds.

Quote by: harami The evidence seems to be in the fossil record or in examples of genetic drift (aka "adaptation").

Genetic drift is not adaptation. Genetic drift is a term used to refer to random change in allele frequency in small populations. Adaptive changes are usually the result of natural selection.

Quote by: harami The theory is thus speculative, since it cannot be reproduced and the fossil record is very incomplete.

Actually, the theory isn't speculative. I think that if you actually learned what you were talking about, you might see that. Evolution has been observed and it has bee predicted. But even predictions have been made about fossils that should exist that were later found.

Quote by: harami Yes, many of the life science people publish papers on evolution, but it is not the same as say, quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics is a theory with many useful applications and predictions which can be tested.

Actually, quantum mechanics is more speculative than evolutionary biology. Further, it is intentional blindness to imply that evolutionary biology hasn't been useful.

Quote by: harami It has been a very productive tool. Evolution has no "applications".

That you know of, anyway. Perhaps it's because you haven't looked.

Quote by: harami The theory cannot be used to produce anything useful, nor can it be used to predict anything, since the time scale of evolution is in the millions of years.

No. It has been observed in periods much shorter than that. And as I mentioned, evolution has been predicted and then observed on more than one occasion.

Quote by: harami So, in my opinion, evolution is an attractive theory simply because it pleases the world view of many people, and keeps them busy in their biological labs (e.g.).

Unfortunately, your opinion isn't very educated.

Quote by: harami Modern bioengineering has no foundation in evolution, and no relation to it. It concerns itself with "making things work" in a reproducible way as do all real sciences. I suspect that nearly all important biology (relevant to producing things of benefit) can be done without the slightest reference to "natural selection" or evolution.

"Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution" - Theodosius Dobzhansky. You seem to be quite uneducated in the matter.

[Jack]

Here's a site that has two flowcharts, one that shows how science deals with new ideas and the other how faith deals with them. I think they sum up the difference pretty well.

[StrongHeartsWin]

Great chart! Bookmarked it.

[Gods_Mercenary]

You need a chart?

[StrongHeartsWin]

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary You need a chart?

Not I. I don`t believe in Fairy God King stories. Those followers do, however, seem to need a visual look at the querky route which causes them to believe, or want to teach others, what they profess in regards to science or their Fairy God Kings.

[Zhavric]

Quote by: Fonceai The only thing that proves something false is evidence of its precise opposite.

That's certainly true of things that have been established. However, it takes evidence to prove things are possible and / or true. As you've agreed to several times, things which contradict proven claims are false.

The concept of overlapping has absolutely ZERO supporting evidence contradicts too many claims to be taken seriously.

Consider something simple... ... That's the one thing that hints at creationism.

God of the gaps reasoning. Your ability to conceptualize a thing does not evidence that thing, Fonceai.

[Fonceai]

Quote by: Z The concept of overlapping has absolutely ZERO supporting evidence contradicts too many claims to be taken seriously.

One... overlapping doesn't contradict everything. The overlapping, by its very nature, prevents contradiction.

Two... evolution through random mutation and natural selection has been proven.

It has absolutely not been proven that humans evolved.

From June 2005, stating a theory of how humans evolved:
Did humans evolve in fits and starts? - being-human - 17 June 2005 - New Scientist

An interesting video on PBS:
Evolution: Library: Evolving Ideas: Did Humans Evolve?

Some quick Q&A:
Evolution: Frequently Asked Questions

Still theories.

Your repetition of "contradicting evidence" is nonsense.

Why is it when an explanation is solely natural you agree with it, but when it involves something beyond our natural understanding (supernatural) you call it god of gaps?

[Zhavric]

Quote by: Fonceai Still theories.

Misconception: “Evolution is ‘just’ a theory.”

Scientific theories are explanations that are based on lines of evidence, enable valid predictions, and have been tested in many ways. In contrast, there is also a popular definition of theory—a “guess” or “hunch.” These conflicting definitions often cause unnecessary confusion about evolution.

Misconceptions: Evolution is “Just” a Theory

There is no valid alternative to explain how we got here and it's absurd to acknowledge evolution and 180 to imply humans didn't evolve.

Your repetition of "contradicting evidence" is nonsense.

How quickly you forget:

Quote by: Fonceai You're right, I agreed that your "existing proven claims" ... is valid in logic and science.

Why is it when an explanation is solely natural you agree with it, but when it involves something beyond our natural understanding (supernatural) you call it god of gaps?

When reworded: "Why is it when an explanation is evidenced you agree with it, but when it involves something unevidenced and obviously invented to fit a specific gap in our understanding (supernatural) you call it god of gaps?"... It becomes quite clear why I take the stance I do.

[Gods_Mercenary]

It's funny that many conservatives reject evolution when the thery fits their polititcal ideaology so nicely, we are savage animals that need the traditional institutions to keep us from slitting each other's throats.