Do You Believe in Evolution?

[Swaggs]

I just read that under 50% of Americans believe in evolution, so I wanted to see what the folks here think.

Please keep the discussion clean.

[rkmsuf]

Hopefully this evolves into something productive.

HAR!

*rim shot

[Flasch186]

Yes

[Crapshoot]

Should have made this a public poll...

[Raiders Army]

It is obvious the correct answer is the trout option.

[MrBigglesworth]

Evolution isn't something to 'believe' in. It's a constantly evolving, testable theory to explain observations of the world. There's no matter of faith involved.

[heybrad]

What if evolution and creation were the same thing?

[Swaggs]

Evolution isn't something to 'believe' in. It's a constantly evolving, testable theory to explain observations of the world. There's no matter of faith involved.

I agree, but this is the way it was phrased in the survey I saw. I am interested to see how people respond to the question phrased.

[st.cronin]

Evolution isn't something to 'believe' in. It's a constantly evolving, testable theory to explain observations of the world. There's no matter of faith involved.

See, now if it were always explained that way, there wouldn't be anything to fight about. Faith and science are not in the same arena, and are not competing with each other for our affections. I, for one, wish everybody would stop placing them in opposition.

[Abe Sargent]

It depends on how you define evolution. As a process, I agree with it. As the reason, I do not.

-Anxiety

[Kodos]

Darwin rocks!

[SnDvls]

It depends on how you define evolution. As a process, I agree with it. As the reason, I do not.

-Anxiety


my thoughts too.

[Emiliano]

Yes.

[CamEdwards]

yes, but i don't see evolution and belief in God as mutually exclusive things.

[Honolulu_Blue]

yes, but i don't see evolution and belief in God as mutually exclusive things.
Neither do I, but there are many people who do believe they are.

[Crapshoot]

yes, but i don't see evolution and belief in God as mutually exclusive things.

Agreed- but you've seen (and probably heard on your show) the hordes that do so.

[Daimyo]

Poor question. While no evidence has emerged to disprove the theory yet, if something did come up tomorrow I wouldn't cling to the idea like I think "belief" implies.

[JonInMiddleGA]

yes, but i don't see evolution and belief in God as mutually exclusive things.

Nor evolution & intelligent design for that matter.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Poor question. While no evidence has emerged to disprove the theory yet, if something did come up tomorrow I wouldn't cling to the idea like I think "belief" implies.
I think that's a pretty narrow view of the word "believe."

Believe can mean

To accept as true or real: <CITE>Do you believe the news stories?</CITE>
To credit with veracity: <CITE>I believe you.</CITE>
To expect or suppose; think: <CITE>I believe they will arrive shortly.</CITE>

or it can mean

To have firm faith, especially religious faith.
To have faith, confidence, or trust: <CITE>I believe in your ability to solve the problem.</CITE>
To have confidence in the truth or value of something: <CITE>We believe in free speech.</CITE>
To have an opinion; think: <CITE>They have already left, I believe.</CITE>
I don't think the original question used the word in the "to have firm faith, espeically religious faith" meaning of the word, but rather "to accept as true or real" meaning of the word.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Nor evolution & intelligent design for that matter.
Of course not. While I am sure there are multiple ID theories, the one I most familiar with supports evolution completely, but just believes that there was/is some Higher Power at work that put it all together.

It's always that next step that confuses me though... How some people go from an ID theory like the one (described very breifly above) to the Judeo-Christian God. That's just a massive, huge, incredibly leap.

[Swaggs]

You can certainly argue the semantics of the way the question is phrased, but that is the way it was phrased when I read it, so that is what I asked. It is not necessarily an evolution vs creationism/intelligent design question (although that is almost definitely a factor for most who vote), as far as I can tell, but rather whether or not you believe that evolution is a legitimate occurence or not.

[Dutch]

I always thought that evolution was a known fact.

[Samdari]

I always thought that evolution was a known fact.

That species evolve by the having the proverbial fittest survive to breed and thus pass on their traits to their young pretty much is (although like the flat earth, there will always be those who refuse to accept it).

That our species evolved from primordial ooze I think has a bit more supposition and extrapolation of facts than the general theory of evolution.

[Schmidty]

I think God has a grand design and part of his design is evolution. So, yes, I do believe in evolution.

[MrBigglesworth]

Nor evolution & intelligent design for that matter.
Evolution and Zeus are not mutually exclusive either. Only one belongs in science class, however.

[Karlifornia]

Yes. But I also believe in talking snakes.

[MrBug708]

It's a nifty little story

[JonInMiddleGA]

Evolution and Zeus are not mutually exclusive either. Only one belongs in science class, however.

We disagree ... what a freakin' shock.

[Honolulu_Blue]

We disagree ... what a freakin' shock.
Woah. So you think that Zeus belongs in a science class? Huh. Interesting. ;)

[MrBigglesworth]

If you can name one scientific observation that backs ID, I'd love to hear it.

[SFL Cat]

Not as the theory currently stands. Neo-Darwinism is trash.

I also don't like the fact that despite its supposed "objectivity", evolution theory is as entrenched in the scientific community as any doctrine is in religion. Go against the mainstream theory and see how open-minded and tolerant others who hold the theory as true are.

[Bonegavel]

I believe in "intelligent design" that was left to evolve here on Earth.

We could be the result of some alien kid's science experiment.

[MrBigglesworth]

I also don't like the fact that despite its supposed "objectivity", evolution is as entrenched in the scientific community as any doctrine in religion. Go against the mainstream theory and see how open-minded and tolerant others who hold the theory as true are.
Same thing with the Theory of Gravity. Some people are really committed to the lie.

http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/p67.htm

[lighthousekeeper]

I just read that under 50% of Americans believe in evolution, so I wanted to see what the folks here think.

Please keep the discussion clean.

This poll may be flawed, as I bet the 50% that don't believe in evolution also don't believe in the Internets.

[SFL Cat]

While the effects of gravity as a force can be measured, and we can see that every object with mass influences and is influenced by it, we still have no real clue about its true nature.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Not as the theory currently stands. Neo-Darwinism is trash.

I also don't like the fact that despite its supposed "objectivity", evolution theory is as entrenched in the scientific community as any doctrine is in religion. Go against the mainstream theory and see how open-minded and tolerant others who hold the theory as true are.
Evolution is a scientific theory basied on objective observation of the available facts or data. Religious doctrine is based on traidition, faith, and superstition there is a profound difference.

Here's an old post of mine on this subject... Not that it will get anyone anywhere, but when nonsense like SLF Cat's post comes up, I think this needs to be said... again.

Yes, evolution is a theory, but this whole debate (evolutionary theory versus intelligent design/creationism) is predicated upon scientific illiteracy.

“Theory” when used by scientists means something very different than when it is used in casual conversation. People hear that evolution is a theory and they think it means “conjecture” or “guess. This is simply not true.

A scientific theory is an established paradigm that explains the available data and offers predictions that can be tested. (By this definition, “intelligent design” is not even a theory.) Theories can develop and change to incorporate newly uncovered data, (like the theory of dark matter) but they will always be theories - there is no further advancement. It’s not like they are just failed or immature facts.

Do you know what else is a theory ? Gravity. That things fall when we drop them is a fact – but the explanation of the force behind it is a theory . Let’s say I believed that invisible gnomes held everything to the ground with invisible strings, and I wanted to challenge the “theory” of gravity that says massive bodies exert gravitational force on each other. Should I be able to peddle this crap on schoolchildren, with recourse to the disingenuous argument that gravity is “just a theory”?

Or take the atomic theory of matter. Could I successfully argue that for a long time people believed that everything was made of the 4 essential elements, and after all no one’s ever seen an atom, so let’s take it out of textbooks?

It’s so infuriating to see so many people arguing from a position of such profound ignorance. People rely on scientific theories every day – they put their lives in their hands. Would you fly on an airplane that had been designed by an engineer with an “alternative” theory of gravity, or who had a “different understanding” than the theory of aerodynamics?? Would you take a medicine that had been formulated by someone who dismissed the germ theory of disease as “just a theory”?

Yet the same people who see how ridiculous the foregoing is think that evolution can be cynically challenged with vague pseudoscientific mumbo-jumbo, with no consequences. Fer fuck’s sake. Evolution is not just some footnote in a ninth grade textbook – it’s the grand unifying theory of biology. It can explain phenomena and make accurate predictions in diverse fields like biology, sociology, behavior, pathology, etc. And nothing in biology makes sense without it.

If we as a people had a resonable grasp of the most basic principles of science, this would not even be a public debate. Science is a brutal competition of ideas, not a tea party. You don't just get to believe whatever makes you feel good. If you want to believe that you were magically poofed into existence by some omnipotent being, I have no problem with that. But it's not science and it never will be science.

[st.cronin]

Evolution is a scientific theory basied on objective observation of the available facts or data. Religious doctrine is based on traidition, faith, and superstition there is a profound difference.

Here's an old post of mine on this subject... Not that it will get anyone anywhere, but when nonsense like SLF Cat's post comes up, I think this needs to be said... again.

Yes, evolution is a theory, but this whole debate (evolutionary theory versus intelligent design/creationism) is predicated upon scientific illiteracy.

“Theory” when used by scientists means something very different than when it is used in casual conversation. People hear that evolution is a theory and they think it means “conjecture” or “guess. This is simply not true.

A scientific theory is an established paradigm that explains the available data and offers predictions that can be tested. (By this definition, “intelligent design” is not even a theory.) Theories can develop and change to incorporate newly uncovered data, (like the theory of dark matter) but they will always be theories - there is no further advancement. It’s not like they are just failed or immature facts.

Do you know what else is a theory ? Gravity. That things fall when we drop them is a fact – but the explanation of the force behind it is a theory . Let’s say I believed that invisible gnomes held everything to the ground with invisible strings, and I wanted to challenge the “theory” of gravity that says massive bodies exert gravitational force on each other. Should I be able to peddle this crap on schoolchildren, with recourse to the disingenuous argument that gravity is “just a theory”?

Or take the atomic theory of matter. Could I successfully argue that for a long time people believed that everything was made of the 4 essential elements, and after all no one’s ever seen an atom, so let’s take it out of textbooks?

It’s so infuriating to see so many people arguing from a position of such profound ignorance. People rely on scientific theories every day – they put their lives in their hands. Would you fly on an airplane that had been designed by an engineer with an “alternative” theory of gravity, or who had a “different understanding” than the theory of aerodynamics?? Would you take a medicine that had been formulated by someone who dismissed the germ theory of disease as “just a theory”?

Yet the same people who see how ridiculous the foregoing is think that evolution can be cynically challenged with vague pseudoscientific mumbo-jumbo, with no consequences. Fer fuck’s sake. Evolution is not just some footnote in a ninth grade textbook – it’s the grand unifying theory of biology. It can explain phenomena and make accurate predictions in diverse fields like biology, sociology, behavior, pathology, etc. And nothing in biology makes sense without it.

If we as a people had a resonable grasp of the most basic principles of science, this would not even be a public debate. Science is a brutal competition of ideas, not a tea party. You don't just get to believe whatever makes you feel good. If you want to believe that you were magically poofed into existence by some omnipotent being, I have no problem with that. But it's not science and it never will be science.

As perfect an example of what SFL Cat was talking about as one could find. Thanks for illustrating his point magnificently.

[MrBigglesworth]

While the effects of gravity as a force can be measured, and we can see that every object with mass influences and is influenced by it, we still have no real clue about its true nature.
Should we teach Intelligent Falling (http://www.theonion.com/content/node/39512) in science classes then? You can believe what you want, but don't pass off faith as science.

[flounder]

I also don't like the fact that despite its supposed "objectivity", evolution theory is as entrenched in the scientific community as any doctrine is in religion. Go against the mainstream theory and see how open-minded and tolerant others who hold the theory as true are.

I don't think this is true. There are many arguments going on within the scientific community about different aspects of evolution. There have certainly been many revisions of the theory since Darwin first published it. The difference between these revisions and ID is that concrete evidence was presented to show that mainstream evolution theory was wrong. The people who pointed out the problems with the mainstream theory aren't outcasts; some of them won the Nobel Prize.

[Honolulu_Blue]

As perfect an example of what SFL Cat was talking about as one could find. Thanks for illustrating his point magnificently.
Riiight... Ooookaaay...

I'd reccomend you check out the following site for more on this topic:

http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-qa.html

It's probably the single best popular resource on evolution there is.

[SFL Cat]

What it all boils down to is this. Athiestic types are so adamant about evolution as a "natural process" (whatever that means) to explain how life advanced from a simple single-celled organism to the diversity of complex forms we see today because to give any credibility to the idea of ID behind life on this planet would imply (gasp) a designer or (double gasp) a creator, whether it be the godlike aliens that Arthur C. Clarke is always writing about in his fiction, or the "G" word those Christians use.

[Crapshoot]

You know, it seems a significant amount of the carping about evolution is a reflection of the word "theory" - which to anyone without a scientific knowledge base screams uncertainty. Its hard to explain to someone that a theory in science is not like your Uncle Bubba's theory about what aliens did to him - its simply the best possible explanation for a series of events based on research and observation. By definition, no scientific theory is ever true per se - else it would be an axiom.

[MrBigglesworth]

What it all boils down to is this. Athiestic types are so adamant about evolution as a "natural process" (whatever that means) to explain how life advanced from a simple single-celled organism to the diversity of complex forms we see today because to give any credibility to the idea of ID behind life on this planet would imply (gasp) a designer or (double gasp) a creator, whether it be the godlike aliens that Arthur C. Clarke is always writing about in his fiction, or the "G" word those Christians use.
The atheists see it as a natural process, the theists see it as coming from a creator, the agnostics don't know or don't care one way or another. I don't know why you are surprised by that.

I'm still searching for a single scientific observation supporting ID, though.

[st.cronin]

Riiight... Ooookaaay...

I'd reccomend you check out the following site for more on this topic:

http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-qa.html

It's probably the single best popular resource on evolution there is.

You're being dense.

SFL said "ID is nonsense, but I don't like that anybody that questions evolution is called an idiot." The response was to call him an idiot.

[Bonegavel]

If you can name one scientific observation that backs ID, I'd love to hear it.I believe in ID merely for the amazing complexity of life.

Place a clock and lump of coal on a table. I can look at both and fairly easily discern that one was made by intelligent design. The clock wasn't the result of a trillion billion miraculous "accidents" that caused it to come into being. You don't need a scientific theory to govern that one.

The same can be said for life. Look at us. It is easy to see why people (for religious or non-religious reasons, such as myself) can believe in Intelligent Design.

The fact that the Architect hasn't stepped forward and claimed responsibility isn't important.

Also, believing that life on this planet was the effort of some thing/one/being as opposed to the utter randomness of chance seems the smarter path, IMHO. I think there is just as much credibility to crediting a designer for our existence as there is random chance.

Please erase the connection between "Intelligent Design" and Christianity or [insert your religion here] because you don't need to be a Christian to believe in ID. I'm proof of that.

This brings me to the fact that ID should NOT be taught in schools, other than to say that it is yet another theory about our existence. Don't bring up god or aliens, just throw it out there. Then, proceed right to what the fossils tell us.

[Ksyrup]

Great. Now I've got "Do You Believe In Magic" running through my head, except I don't really know the lyrics. Not that I want to, of course, but since the song is in my head, it would be less frustrating if I could finish more than the first line of it.

[Honolulu_Blue]

You're being dense.

SFL said "ID is nonsense, but I don't like that anybody that questions evolution is called an idiot." The response was to call him an idiot.I am being the one who is dense?

Where in the post that I replied to did SFL say "ID is nonsense, but I don't like that anybody that questions evolution is called an idiot."

See...

Not as the theory currently stands. Neo-Darwinism is trash.

I also don't like the fact that despite its supposed "objectivity", evolution theory is as entrenched in the scientific community as any doctrine is in religion. Go against the mainstream theory and see how open-minded and tolerant others who hold the theory as true are.I think "the theory" his refering to is not ID but evolution? Am I wrong, SFL? If so, then I take it back...

And nowhere in my reply did I "call him an idiot." Nowhere.

[MrBigglesworth]

I believe in ID merely for the amazing complexity of life.
That's the classic argument from ignorance (http://www.fallacyfiles.org/ignorant.html) fallacy: "I don't understand something, so it must be divine." I don't understand how gravity works, but that isn't a good excuse to teach that God could pull stuff down. I have no problem with you believing in ID, I think that a creator setting evolution in motion is a possible beginning, but there is no evidence specifically for it so to teach it in a science classroom is ludicrous. You recognize that, so we are pretty much in agreement on the practical application of this.

[Daimyo]

What it all boils down to is this. Athiestic types are so adamant about evolution as a "natural process" (whatever that means) to explain how life advanced from a simple single-celled organism to the diversity of complex forms we see today because to give any credibility to the idea of ID behind life on this planet would imply (gasp) a designer or (double gasp) a creator, whether it be the godlike aliens that Arthur C. Clarke is always writing about in his fiction, or the "G" word those Christians use.

No. You're asking the wrong question. You are asking "why don't athiestic types give credibility to ID." The correct question is "why would an athiestic type (whatever that means) give credibility to ID." Those of us "athiestic types" don't give ourselves the luxury of coming up fairy tale explanations with no grounding in evidence to describe things natural phenomenon.

When you look at the complexity of the universe and assume there must be some intelligent design to it you are essentially doing the same thing the Greeks did when they looked at the sun and assumed it was the wheel of a chariot driven by a god.

[SFL Cat]

I am being the one who is dense?

Where in the post that I replied to did SFL say "ID is nonsense, but I don't like that anybody that questions evolution is called an idiot."

See...

I think "the theory" his refering to is not ID but evolution? Am I wrong, SFL? If so, then I take it back...

The only theory I referred to was neo-Darwinism. I believe in Creation rather than the "spontaneous generation of life", so if that makes me an IDer, I guess that is what I am.

And nowhere in my reply did I "call him an idiot." Nowhere.

...but when nonsense like SLF Cat's post comes up, I think this needs to be said... again

...It’s so infuriating to see so many people arguing from a position of such profound ignorance
(not to brag...but I'm pretty well educated).

...Evolution is not just some footnote in a ninth grade textbook – it’s the grand unifying theory of biology. It can explain phenomena and make accurate predictions in diverse fields like biology, sociology, behavior, pathology, etc. And nothing in biology makes sense without it
(while it's true it not just a footnote in a ninth grade textbook, calling it the grand unifying theory of biology isn't true either...I have read a lot of recent articles by chemists and molecular biologists have major problems with the theory as it now stands -- and while a few have religious affiliations, many go out of their way to make sure they advance their credentials as athiests).

[st.cronin]

He was pretty obviously referring to ID, if you read the post he was replying to. ID is often described as 'neo-darwinism.'

If we as a people had a resonable grasp of the most basic principles of science, this would not even be a public debate. Science is a brutal competition of ideas, not a tea party. You don't just get to believe whatever makes you feel good. If you want to believe that you were magically poofed into existence by some omnipotent being, I have no problem with that. But it's not science and it never will be science.

Those are pretty mean words directed at somebody who was basically saying that we should be more reasonable and logical with those we disagree with, and be less dogmatic.

[Honolulu_Blue]

The only theory I referred to was neo-Darwinism. I believe in Creation rather than the "spontaneous generation of life", so if that makes me an IDer, I guess that is what I am.



...but when nonsense like SLF Cat's post comes up, I think this needs to be said... again

...It’s so infuriating to see so many people arguing from a position of such profound ignorance
(not to brag...but I'm pretty well educated).

...Evolution is not just some footnote in a ninth grade textbook – it’s the grand unifying theory of biology. It can explain phenomena and make accurate predictions in diverse fields like biology, sociology, behavior, pathology, etc. And nothing in biology makes sense without it
(while it's true it not just a footnote in a ninth grade textbook, calling it the grand unifying theory of biology isn't true either...I have read a lot of recent articles by chemists and molecular biologists have major problems with the theory as it now stands -- and while a few have religious affiliations, many go out of their way to make sure they advance their credentials as athiests).
So you didn't say ID was nonsense. And I didn't call you an idiot. I said you spouted some nonsense. The rest was discussing more general views. It was not meant as a personal attack on you. If you read it as such, I apologize. I do still stand by the rest of what I said.

Again, I direct your attention to:

http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-qa.html

That is all.

[Honolulu_Blue]

He was pretty obviously referring to ID, if you read the post he was replying to. ID is often described as 'neo-darwinism.'

Those are pretty mean words directed at somebody who was basically saying that we should be more reasonable and logical with those we disagree with, and be less dogmatic.
The "you" was used as the universal plural, not specifically directed at any person in particular.

Also I didn't read the inital post as SFL "basically saying that we should be more reasonable and logical with those we disagree with." I didn't see that all in the post. I read his post as equating the "evolution theory" to "religious doctrine". At least that's the point I was adressing. Perhaps I was a bit too firm and harsh in my response. Next time I will attempt to be a little more... polite if it pleases you.

[Honolulu_Blue]

He was pretty obviously referring to ID, if you read the post he was replying to. ID is often described as 'neo-darwinism.'
Further, it wasn't obvious to me. I have never heard of ID as described as Neo-Darwinism.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Those of us "athiestic types" don't give ourselves the luxury of coming up fairy tale explanations with no grounding in evidence to describe things natural phenomenon.

Charming.

The evidence is all around you, whether you choose to accept it or not is entirely up to you.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Further, it wasn't obvious to me. I have never heard of ID as described as Neo-Darwinism.

If it's any consolation, neither have I.

(If forced to hazard a guess, I would have figured "neo-D" to have been something along the lines of "Darwinism as a dogma" sort of thing).

[Honolulu_Blue]

If it's any consolation, neither have I.

(If forced to hazard a guess, I would have figured "neo-D" to have been something along the lines of "Darwinism as a dogma" sort of thing).
Oddly... It is.

"Darwinism as dogma" is exactly how I read it. I did about 30 seconds worth of research on the internets and only came up with: "Neo-Darwinism is the modern version of Darwinian evolutionary theory: the synthesis of Mendelian genetics and Darwinism." That seems to be the definition du jour.

[JonInMiddleGA]

I did about 30 seconds worth of research on the internets ...

My 30 seconds beats your 30 seconds hands-down ...

http://www.neodarwinism.com/
How our descendants will rewrite the vertebrate genome, redesign the global ecosystem, and abolish suffering throughout the living world.

That quote alone was worth this entire sidebar. :D

[Honolulu_Blue]

My 30 seconds beats your 30 seconds hands-down ...

http://www.neodarwinism.com/
How our descendants will rewrite the vertebrate genome, redesign the global ecosystem, and abolish suffering throughout the living world.

That quote alone was worth this entire sidebar. :D
Dude! That's awesome! You're not wrong about that.

[MrBigglesworth]

Charming.

The evidence is all around you, whether you choose to accept it or not is entirely up to you.
Can you send me your experiments, complete with hypotheses, null hypotheses, dependant variables, independant variables, discussion of possible confounding variables, conclusions, and alternate views?

I'm guessing not, because they don't exist. Again, ID and creation are a matter of faith. Jon, you have faith, not evidence. More power to you, you can believe whatever you want as long as it doesn't negatively effect me, but don't pass it off as anything remotely close to science.

[SackAttack]

There are entirely too many stupid people on the planet for me to accept that natural selection is an effective process. Does it exist? Sure.

But if it's the cause of human sentience, it's a piss poor one.

I prefer to believe that God just has a sense of humor, and prefers to keep around a steady supply of court jesters, since stupid people find so many imaginative ways to get themselves killed.

[Marc Vaughan]

Poor question. While no evidence has emerged to disprove the theory yet, if something did come up tomorrow I wouldn't cling to the idea like I think "belief" implies.

I don't think 'belief' implies that anyone would cling to an idea in the face of contrary evidence, it simply indicated that with their current knowledge its their opinion that something is true/has happened.

I 'believe' in evolution - however if God turns up tomorrow and admits its all just a hoax to wind up scientists then I'd happily change my view ;)

[Marc Vaughan]

There are entirely too many stupid people on the planet for me to accept that natural selection is an effective process. Does it exist? Sure.

But if it's the cause of human sentience, it's a piss poor one.

I prefer to believe that God just has a sense of humor, and prefers to keep around a steady supply of court jesters, since stupid people find so many imaginative ways to get themselves killed.

To me this is one of the interesting areas of evolution - it 'used' to work efficiently but humans are fubaring the system by circumventing it.

Instead of our brightest and fittest surviving and breeding most, now the waters are very much muddied - not only for human kind but for many species where humans have meddled either by wiping out the majority of them or placing them in an artificial situation (ie. cattle, pets etc.).

[korme]

I meant to vote yes. Whoops!

[Marc Vaughan]

I believe in ID merely for the amazing complexity of life.

Place a clock and lump of coal on a table. I can look at both and fairly easily discern that one was made by intelligent design. The clock wasn't the result of a trillion billion miraculous "accidents" that caused it to come into being. You don't need a scientific theory to govern that one.

That depends entirely on your point of view - for instance one of those 'trillion/billion' accidents that made the clock was the existance of a human who decided to make it ...

Yes its intelligent design, but it could have been caused by a happy series of coincidences ending with the coincidence that a human decided to make the clock.

To me evolution makes sense because its how humans make things which they can't really understand how to make ...

Confused, let me ramble on ..

Making FM is a HUGE task, we've circa 2,000,000 lines of code in our current version, with most modules in the game interacting to give the game world a dynamic and realistic effect.

When we set out to create it there was NO way we could design the current system from scratch - we set out to make small building blocks which our minds could handle (code some primitive life forms if you want ;) ) and slowly over time these slotted together to form larger more complicated structures which interacted (ie. its brain grew ;) ) .... over time with minor improvements it evolved until it was unrecognisable from its initial program.

PS> To me evolution and ID aren't actually exclusive, God could easily use evolution as a tool ....
PPS> In case you hadn't guessed I'm somewhat shattered and hung-over currently, went out with some my wife and some friends last night and didn't arrive home until around 3am ... possibly a little later, good night though - especially the curry :D

[Schmidty]

This thread is stupid. People get so worked up about stuff that people don't agree with them on.

Evolutionists: Accept that some people, even very intelligent people, disagree with you and never will agree with you because of their faith. That is their right. Insulting their intellects is unfair and lacks tolerance (a buzz-word of liberals).

Non-Evolutionists: Stop trying to force your beliefs on others, even if it means your views aren't taught in schools. If you are a good parent, you will teach your child your beliefs, and let them go from there. If it's God's will, then they will agree with you, and if not, they won't. It's not like evolution is a salvation issue, so stop being asshats about it. State your case and move on.

As I've stated before, I believe that evolution is true, and that it is a design of God. I don't think either side of the issue will ever understand it fully, but to think that everything God does in the material realm is understandable by humans is folly. Just an opinion. I've read opinions from both sides. If you disagree with me, you're not going to hell, and vice versa.

[Honolulu_Blue]

People get so worked up about stuff that people don't agree with them on.
Said the raven to the crow... http://www.operationsports.com/fofc/images/smilies/wink.gif

[Mac Howard]

The original post said that around 50% of Americans didn't "believe" in evolution but I see that only 9% or so of this board take that position. I find that encouraging but any ideas why?

[MIJB#19]

The original post said that around 50% of Americans didn't "believe" in evolution but I see that only 9% or so of this board take that position. I find that encouraging but any ideas why?
The kind of people that visit this board. I have three theories about this, with two based on an assumption on what kind of people visit the FOC board:

1. people who beleive in the evolution and/or do not support any religion could have a stronger desire to vent their opinion and vote in this kind of polls about the evolution.

2. I see the FOFC board as one where the average IQ exceeds the all humanity average significantly, which brings me to:

A. the more intelligent person tends to have a stronger atheist or evolutionist opinion.

B. the more intelligent person *might* have a stronger desire to vent their opinions on this matter.

[Mac Howard]

The kind of people that visit this board. I have three theories about this, with two based on an assumption on what kind of people visit the FOC board:

2. I see the FOFC board as one where the average IQ exceeds the all humanity average significantly, which brings me to:

A. the more intelligent person tends to have a stronger atheist or evolutionist opinion.



My guess, and it's nothing more than that, is that it reflects the educational level of the board, including a higher level of scientific education.

On the other hand I think the board's ratio is close to that which you might expect from a European poll where religion is far less prominent so I'm not sure how that fits in.

[Sadalia]

Yes, I believe in evolution by natural selection, which I find to be an entirely logical and sensible explanation of the complexity and diversity of life on Earth, and one well supported by a great amount of observational, fossil, and genetic evidence. I do not believe in Intelligent Design because I have seen no convincing evidence for it. If such evidence became apparent my opinion would change.

Why there is such a fissure between the science of evolution in particular and the religious beliefs of many is somewhat perplexing to me (other than for those who interpret the Bible literally; evolution does contradict this). There is nothing in the theory of evolution that denies a divine Creator starting the evolutionary ball rolling; one could argue that an infalllible being, having created such a system, would have no cause for the subsequent tinkering ID implies. Of course, evolution does not require a divine creator. Personally I don't believe in one, again because I have seen no convincing evidence. But it's not the kind of issue open to being proved or disproved.

I'm curious how that 50% of Americans who don't believe in evolution would define evolution, and if that definition is at all close to the actual theory.

[Ryche]

My great grandmother to the 100th power was an australopithecus.

[JonInMiddleGA]

The kind of people that visit this board. I have three theories about this, with two based on an assumption on what kind of people visit the FOC board:

1. people who beleive in the evolution and/or do not support any religion could have a stronger desire to vent their opinion and vote in this kind of polls about the evolution.

2. I see the FOFC board as one where the average IQ exceeds the all humanity average significantly, which brings me to:

A. the more intelligent person tends to have a stronger atheist or evolutionist opinion.

B. the more intelligent person *might* have a stronger desire to vent their opinions on this matter.


C. Those with strong opinions striving to be "hip", "cool", and/or "controversial" are more prone to post in polls of this nature.

[JonInMiddleGA]

I'm curious how that 50% of Americans who don't believe in evolution would define evolution, and if that definition is at all close to the actual theory.

I believe you've hit on something that was at least sideswiped earlier in the thread.

The definition of evolution, vs Darwinism vs the common usage of the word have diverged quite a bit.

evolution: A gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form.

That vast majority of that 50%, in my estimation (and FWIW) isn't rejecting the notion that there are gradual processes that produce change. They/we
are rejecting the premise that said processes wholly & totally account for the current presence & state of all life on Earth (which is the general idea which is most commonly being referred to when you hear the word "evolution" these days).

[st.cronin]

A. the more intelligent person tends to have a stronger atheist or evolutionist opinion.


:rolleyes:

[Bonegavel]

That's the classic argument from ignorance (http://www.fallacyfiles.org/ignorant.html) fallacy: "I don't understand something, so it must be divine." I don't understand how gravity works, but that isn't a good excuse to teach that God could pull stuff down. I have no problem with you believing in ID, I think that a creator setting evolution in motion is a possible beginning, but there is no evidence specifically for it so to teach it in a science classroom is ludicrous. You recognize that, so we are pretty much in agreement on the practical application of this.I don't think it is from the POV that I don't "understand something" in this case. In fact, I think I understand quite a bit about life and the way things are setup here on Earth to know that ID really does make sense.

Your gravity argument doesn't make much sense to me. I can experiment with gravity to understand that it just IS. We cannot travel to the past and see how it all progressed, so we are stuck with interpreting fossils which isn't the same thing.

Again, I am in no way espousing a "Devine" source as is easily conjured by the ID debate. In my case you can toss out god, in the christian sense, right out.

Extrapolate where our technology is taking us. I have NO DOUBT that someday we will crack the code of life and be able to create our own. Now, this may be 1,000 years from now or 10,000, but we will figure it out. We will figure out how to travel to distant star systems like going down to the chemist to pick up some advil (a nod for Marc) and if we don't, you know we will be able to send machines there.

We will be like "gods" ourselves (at least as we think of god in the here-and-now).... some day.

Why is it so hard to think that there is some race of beings that has done the same thing to create us?

The bottom line is that we are here. Life was either created by an architect or was spontaneously brought about by lighting striking a primordial soup.

ID'ers have no scientific way to support their claims. They can only do as I and marvel at the complexity and attribute it to a maker.

Evolutionists have fossils to support their claims. They find fossils, figure out a date, and try and piece together the clues.

That is why I think the latter should be taught in schools. We have actual data to, at the very least, look at. It may be totally wrong, but there is physical evidence that there was something here before us.

Like I also said, I think that alternative theories should be discussed in school (briefly), but stick to the stuff with evidence.

The biggest regret in my life is that I was brought up by a very Christian mother that was very close-minded about anything that didn't fit into the bible-zone. I wish she would have challenged me all sides because that is when the mind truly opens up.

Funny to me how Christians believe in "Free Will" but they don't practice it on their own kids. My daughter is being exposed to all sides of the hypercube. I'm not going to make the same mistake.

[Honolulu_Blue]

C. Those with strong opinions striving to be "hip", "cool", and/or "controversial" are more prone to post in polls of this nature.
Yes, because there is nothing "hipper", "cooler", and/or "controversial" than science. In fact, just last night I watched a re-run of MTV's Science Awards. Some of those outfits were simply insane! Did you see Hawking's wheelchair? Did you see the rims on that bad boy? Man, was that thing tripped the fuck OUT!

[Mac Howard]

Why is it so hard to think that there is some race of beings that has done the same thing to create us?

It isn't so hard. But there is no evidence for it. Because something might be so doesn't mean it is so. "Might" isn't enough.

[Bonegavel]

Confused, let me ramble on ..

Making FM is a HUGE task, we've circa 2,000,000 lines of code in our current version, with most modules in the game interacting to give the game world a dynamic and realistic effect.

When we set out to create it there was NO way we could design the current system from scratch - we set out to make small building blocks which our minds could handle (code some primitive life forms if you want ;) ) and slowly over time these slotted together to form larger more complicated structures which interacted (ie. its brain grew ;) ) .... over time with minor improvements it evolved until it was unrecognisable from its initial program.
I think you are making my point for me.

The common denominator is that YOU built FM. An Intelligent Designer (:D) was involved in the process.

Why don't we see naturally occuring computer programs? Shouldn't there be an as yet undiscovered plateau in Africa with computer programs running wild?

I have little doubt that life is flexible enough to evolve/adapt over great periods of time. My problem is with the initial spark of life and the astronomically huge amount of good-accidents that needed to occur just for the cell to come about.

I think it is takes less of a leap of faith to believe that some-being started life and let it go than to believe life sprang from nothing.

[Bonegavel]

It isn't so hard. But there is no evidence for it. Because something might be so doesn't mean it is so. "Might" isn't enough.There also is no evidence that life sprang from the primordial ooze.

[KWhit]

Why is it so hard to think that there is some race of beings that has done the same thing to create us?
But what created the creators?

Yes, I know that the question is focused on life on Earth, but if your belief is that some being created life on earth, that being had to come from somewhere. At some point, life had to begin from nothing, right?

[MIJB#19]

:rolleyes:
Hey, that's my line!

[Mac Howard]

There also is no evidence that life sprang from the primordial ooze.

Well, first you have non-life molecules and then you have life molecules. Either these second were introduced - but that requires an introducer for which there is no evidence - or the second came from the first.

Your problem with the second answer is an assumption that there is some fundamental difference between life and non-life. But both are made up of the very same elements. The second is merely a different arrangements of the atoms than the first. As there are many arrangements existing in non-life why so difficult to understand a different arrangement leading to the second?

Creation requires a supernatural event - it requires you to introduce something completely new. Abiogenesis merely requires a rearrangement of atoms. There is simply no need for supernatural explanations :)

[Marc Vaughan]

I think you are making my point for me.

The common denominator is that YOU built FM. An Intelligent Designer (:D) was involved in the process.

Why don't we see naturally occuring computer programs? Shouldn't there be an as yet undiscovered plateau in Africa with computer programs running wild?

I have little doubt that life is flexible enough to evolve/adapt over great periods of time. My problem is with the initial spark of life and the astronomically huge amount of good-accidents that needed to occur just for the cell to come about.

I think it is takes less of a leap of faith to believe that some-being started life and let it go than to believe life sprang from nothing.

Ahhh but thats the case in point I do write evolutionary programs (which run wild and learn and change themselves) - I see no reason why God couldn't/wouldn't do the same with eco-systems (ie. stars winding down, being formed) or animals (ie. evolutions into humans).

[Mac Howard]

Ahhh but thats the case in point I do write evolutionary programs (which run wild and learn and change themselves) - I see no reason why God couldn't/wouldn't do the same with eco-systems (ie. stars winding down, being formed) or animals (ie. evolutions into humans).

Except that it assumes a god - for which there is no evidence :)

[Bonegavel]

Well, first you have non-life molecules and then you have life molecules. Either these second were introduced - but that requires an introducer for which there is no evidence - or the second came from the first.

Your problem with the second answer is an assumption that there is some fundamental difference between life and non-life. But both are made up of the very same elements. The second is merely a different arrangements of the atoms than the first. As there are many arrangements existing in non-life why so difficult to understand a different arrangement leading to the second?

Creation requires a supernatural event - it requires you to introduce something completely new. Abiogenesis merely requires a rearrangement of atoms. There is simply no need for supernatural explanations :)The non-life molecules are elements and by definition they are the arrangement of atoms/electrons and cannot be broken down further (forget quantum for now). The are the basic ingredients.

Life molecules are the foods made from the ingredients. The recipe for life is so "crazy delicious" that I see ID as an easier concept to explain it.

Creation simply requires a chef to do something with the ingredients.

Taking it back a step with KWit's comment, if there was no hand in big bang/evolution, how did the matter, we know as the universe, begin? What natural process formed all matter out of nothing? To think that the prime material plane, on which we exist, sprang from nothing is a bit far fetched as well.

The point I'm trying to make is that both roads (ID vs bigbang/evo) require a certain amount of faith in order for them to be true.

[Marc Vaughan]

The point I'm trying to make is that both roads (ID vs bigbang/evo) require a certain amount of faith in order for them to be true.
I agree - both require faith to believe in them because they're fundamentally untestable, they're also not mutually exclusive and indeed big-bang and evolution can and do fit quite neatly into ID if you desire them to do so.

The chap who writes dilbert did an interesting book ("Gods Debris" available as a free download in case anyones interested) based loosely around this premise (trying hard not to say too much more as it might spoil it for people who want to read it).

Not saying I agree with his philosophy either, but I found it an interesting conjecture ..

[Marc Vaughan]

Except that it assumes a god - for which there is no evidence :)

Proving there is or isn't a God is an impossibility - I'm more than happy to take either side of the debate on such a thing ... there's no evidence that there "isn't" a God and indeed no proof that there is ....

Surely thats the whole basis of 'faith' after all.

[Flasch186]

i do find it interesting that whent he polls dont bear out for one or the other, the "losing" side, in America, will begin to challenge the legitimacy of the poll, and then follow that up with, the ACTUAL feelings in America are the exact opposite of the results of the "illegitimate" poll. Both sides seem to do this.

[Bonegavel]

i do find it interesting that whent he polls dont bear out for one or the other, the "losing" side, in America, will begin to challenge the legitimacy of the poll, and then follow that up with, the ACTUAL feelings in America are the exact opposite of the results of the "illegitimate" poll. Both sides seem to do this.The poll question isn't completely valid. ID and Evolution can co-exist. I think the original pollster meant Intelligent Design vs Big Bang. With the implied meaning of:

ID = Creator (god or what have you)
Big Bang = Nature working it's magic unaided

I hate to say it but polls are ultimately useless. Some may answer questions how they "think" they should, some may answer questions the opposite just be a smartass, some may not really know/care and just pick, etc.

But, I do agree with your assessment about the dismissal of poll results. The fact is, polls should be ingnored regardless. Maybe use them as a finger to the wind, but nothing more.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Yes, because there is nothing "hipper", "cooler", and/or "controversial" than science.

Sorry, I should have been clearer -- there's nothing "hipper" or "cooler" at FOFC for some than to be viewed as atheistic and/or anti-Christian.

I'll try to be more specific in the future.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Sorry, I should have been clearer -- there's nothing "hipper" or "cooler" at FOFC for some than to be viewed as atheistic and/or anti-Christian.

I'll try to be more specific in the future.
Ah. Gotcha. While I can't speak for any atheist FOFCer on this board other than myself, I can assure you my beliefs have nothing to do with trying to be "hip" or "cool" at FOFC or anywhere else.

Though, to be fair, it could appear that way at times, but that's just my natural hipness and coolness coming right at all y'all through the internet. Oh yes, I am that cool. :cool:

[JonInMiddleGA]

Ah. Gotcha. While I can't speak for any atheist FOFCer on this board other than myself, I can assure you my beliefs have nothing to do with trying to be "hip" or "cool" at FOFC or anywhere else.

Though, to be fair, it could appear that way at times, but that's just my natural hipness and coolness coming right at all y'all through the internet. Oh yes, I am that cool. :cool:

Actually, that's a criticism I didn't have you in mind for.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Actually, that's a criticism I didn't have you in mind for.
Excellent. But I still get to be hip and cool, right?

Please?

[jeff061]

Sorry, I should have been clearer -- there's nothing "hipper" or "cooler" at FOFC for some than to be viewed as atheistic and/or anti-Christian.

I'll try to be more specific in the future.Or one wanting to make sure people are aware they are not part of that delusional crowd. If that makes them hipper or cooler, great!!

[MrBigglesworth]

I don't think it is from the POV that I don't "understand something" in this case. In fact, I think I understand quite a bit about life and the way things are setup here on Earth to know that ID really does make sense.
Saying that the amazing complexity of life means there must be a creator is a lot like the ancient Greeks looking at the amazing complexity of fire and deducing that it must have been stolen from the gods. Every people in every age have thought that they are at the limit of knowledge, and therefore turned to the divine to explain the unexplained. It may very well be that one day someone will be right in thinking that, but being as right now it is just an argument from ignorance fallacy, it doesn't count for evidence of ID. I know you aren't making this argument to try and make ID science, but a lot of other people do.

Your gravity argument doesn't make much sense to me. I can experiment with gravity to understand that it just IS. We cannot travel to the past and see how it all progressed, so we are stuck with interpreting fossils which isn't the same thing.
That's a very narrow view of evolution. There is much more to evolutionary science than just looking at fossils. I myself have conducted experiments in college where we manipulated fruit flies, bacteria, E. coli, etc. to evolve. Biochemists look at processes that arise from evolution. Microbiologists do. All branches of biology have overwhelming evidence for evolution, just like they and the physicists do for gravity.

[MrBigglesworth]

Why don't we see naturally occuring computer programs? Shouldn't there be an as yet undiscovered plateau in Africa with computer programs running wild?
Like brains?

[Flasch186]

Sorry, I should have been clearer -- there's nothing "hipper" or "cooler" at FOFC for some than to be viewed as atheistic and/or anti-Christian.

I'll try to be more specific in the future.

bah, what a write off. Im Jewish and want nothing more than the Christians who truly believe and follow their faith to follow their faith...What I dont want is for them to push it on me or anyone else.

FOR EXAMPLE, at Jacksonville Beach they have put up a Christmas tree....they will not allow a Menorah to be put up, at all. They said they dont own one. When onje was donated...they rejected the donation outright...Now the ACLU is going to sue and rightfully so.

[Masked]

A Christmas tree is not a religious symbol. A Menorah is. A manger with baby Jesus is.

[Kodos]

A Christmas tree is not a religious symbol. A Menorah is. A manger with baby Jesus is.

Yes. Because the word Christ does not appear in "Christmas tree".

[Kodos]

P.S. I hope that makes me hipper and cooler! I'm an atheist, baby!

[Masked]

Is the Easter bunny a religious symbol?

[JonInMiddleGA]

bah, what a write off.

C'mon Flasch, you gotta read what I write at least a little more carefully.

for some than to be viewed ...


That didn't say "Flasch", it didn't say "everybody", it said "some". And that's exactly what I meant.

Although for those, I've written most of them off long before today.

[Marc Vaughan]

Yes. Because the word Christ does not appear in "Christmas tree".

Call it an xmas tree or a winter festival tree if you prefer.

The 'christmas tree' isn't a Christian icon and is fairly commonly believed to have been a pagan symbol if that makes you feel better:

http://www.historychannel.com/exhibits/holidays/christmas/trees.html

(imho these days christmas isn't a particularly religious affair for the majority of people - its more about commercialisation and hallmark card sales than anything else ... bah humbug ;) )

[st.cronin]

I'm not sure that a manger with a baby Jesus is a religious symbol, either, unless there's some indication that the baby is an incarnation of God.

[Masked]

I'm not sure that a manger with a baby Jesus is a religious symbol, either, unless there's some indication that the baby is an incarnation of God.It is the depiction of a scene from the Bible.

[st.cronin]

It is the depiction of a scene from the Bible.

An historical scene ... the only religious aspect is the incarnation.

I'm just pointing out that theologically the birth of Jesus was meaningless, and is not what is celebrated by Christians. What is celebrated is God taking human form. For Constitutional purposes, I have no doubt you are correct.

[Mac Howard]

The non-life molecules are elements and by definition they are the arrangement of atoms/electrons and cannot be broken down further (forget quantum for now). The are the basic ingredients.

That is just nonsense. Non-life molecules can be complex arrangements of several elements.

Life molecules are the foods made from the ingredients. The recipe for life is so "crazy delicious"

They're not "crazy delicious" at all they are more complex arrangements of the same elements.

that I see ID as an easier concept to explain it.

Easier? It requires the introduction of a supernatural being for which there is no evidence. It's only "easier" because you already believe in that being. That's why I say that you are merely hanging on to your religious beliefs. Once you accept there is no evidence for this being - and there isn't - then this option becomes far "harder" than the natural explanation that an increase in complexity - which we can see both before and after the appearance of life - is the cause.

Creation simply requires a chef to do something with the ingredients.

There is nothing "simple" about it - it requires the creation of a being well beyond anything we have experience of. It requires magic.

Taking it back a step with KWit's comment, if there was no hand in big bang/evolution, how did the matter, we know as the universe, begin?

The theory of evolution says nothing about the big bang. It deals merely with the process leading to the current situation taking for granted that something existed to begin with. We do not know, nor is there yet any accepted scientific theory of what happened at the time or before the big bang.

What natural process formed all matter out of nothing?

We don't know. But there is evidence from subatomic physics that particles can suddenly appear out of nothing.

But the fact that we don't know something does not mean any old explanation will do. We should be mature enough by now to recognise that we don't know. That is one area in which science differs from religion - it accepts that there are things we don't know at this point (and may never know).

ID vs bigbang/evo

The big bang and evolution are two totally different things.

[Mac Howard]

Proving there is or isn't a God is an impossibility - I'm more than happy to take either side of the debate on such a thing ... there's no evidence that there "isn't" a God and indeed no proof that there is ....

Surely thats the whole basis of 'faith' after all.

Not at all. If there is no evidence for something that doesn't mean that the probability of existence/non-existence is 50/50. If there is no evidence then the odds are that it doesn't exist.

The fact that you cannot prove something doesn't exist is no argument for it's existence. I cannot prove that my daughter's fairies don't exist but I'm pretty sure they don't based only on the lack of evidence - not certain but pretty sure.

Once you start assuming things exist simply because you can't prove they don't you're going to have a very peculiar world indeed ;)

[Marc Vaughan]

Not at all. If there is no evidence for something that doesn't mean that the probability of existence/non-existence is 50/50. If there is no evidence then the odds are that it doesn't exist.
The fact that you cannot prove something doesn't exist is no argument for it's existence. I cannot prove that my daughter's fairies don't exist but I'm pretty sure they don't based only on the lack of evidence - not certain but pretty sure.
Once you start assuming things exist simply because you can't prove they don't you're going to have a very peculiar world indeed

You are currently assuming that I exist because you can't prove that I don't ... surely this is contrary to your previous statement? ... everyone relies hugely upon 'faith' in their every day life not just in religious aspects, I have 'faith' when I walk across a street in London that the driver heading towards me will slow down for instance.

PS> There was no evidence that many scientific facts existed before they were discovered (ie. the world being round etc.) - if people took your approach and accepted things as false because there was no evidence then scientific progress would have been somewhat slower ;)

[Marc Vaughan]

Not at all. If there is no evidence for something that doesn't mean that the probability of existence/non-existence is 50/50. If there is no evidence then the odds are that it doesn't exist.

Its also debatable that there is 'no evidence' of a God existing it could be argued that there are many people who claim to have met, conversed, been healed by etc. God ....

Similarly there are definitions used in relgion and allow a definition where 'God' is not a percieved as the traditional person with a white beard but is a determining factor (these intruigue me) - for instance God being 'probability' ....

As such God could exist and also be part of science if you take that route towards his existance.

[Marc Vaughan]

We don't know. But there is evidence from subatomic physics that particles can suddenly appear out of nothing.
This is actually hugely unlikely imho - a more likely situation is that they appear to materialise out of nothing because we can't measure things accurately enough ... however you are showing great "faith" in scientific theory by accepting what you've read ;)

[Mac Howard]

You are currently assuming that I exist because you can't prove that I don't ...

Not at all. This post is sufficient "proof" of your existence. It is possible that someone is playing games. For that reason I allow a slight possibility that you don't exist. However the overwhelming probability is that you do.

That corresponds to my scientific approach. There is no certainty but there is considerable probability. That's why I use "confidence" and not "faith" which suggests certainty.

everyone relies hugely upon 'faith' in their every day life not just in religious aspects,

Confidence not faith. There is a world of difference.

I have 'faith' when I walk across a street in London that the driver heading towards me will slow down for instance.

Excellent example of what I mean. You have confidence that they will but you know there are a minority of drivers who won't. You have confidence the driver will slow down but are not completely certain - ie faith.

I suspect we differ on the meaning of faith.


PS> There was no evidence that many scientific facts existed before they were discovered (ie. the world being round etc.)

There was the evidence that ships coming to shore rose up out of the water - they were taking a curved path. The Egyptians calculated the circumference of the earth with remarkable accuracy from this.

if people took your approach and accepted things as false because there was no evidence then scientific progress would have been somewhat slower ;)

Not as "false" but as highly unlikely. You're guilty of binary thinking. The fact something is highly unlikely does not mean it's false - that's why I'm not an atheist!

[Mac Howard]

Its also debatable that there is 'no evidence' of a God existing it could be argued that there are many people who claim to have met, conversed, been healed by etc. God ....

That does not constitute evidence in scientific circles. It has to be reproduceable. One person's isolated experience is of limited value.

Similarly there are definitions used in relgion and allow a definition where 'God' is not a percieved as the traditional person with a white beard but is a determining factor (these intruigue me) - for instance God being 'probability' ....

Yes. God is often reduced to virtually nothing in order to "prove" his existence.

As such God could exist and also be part of science if you take that route towards his existance.

The God that needs to exist is an active creator not some nebulous idea of existence, probablity etc. There is no evidence of an active creator.

[Mac Howard]

This is actually hugely unlikely imho

Whether it's unlikely in your opinion is irrelevant when it comes to scientific acceptablity. It is accepted by those who spend their lives in subatomic experimentation. That does it for me.

however you are showing great "faith" in scientific theory by accepting what you've read ;)

Not faith at all but confidence - which allows the possibility of being incorrect as science always does. You need to differentiate between true and false and highly probable and highly improbable. There is a world of difference and that difference is the essence of science.

And that confidence is not unique to me. It's there in almost every member of our first world societies. It's there when you press a light switch and expect the light to come on, when you turn the ignition key and expect the car to start, operate the remote control and expect a tv picture, when we take a pill and expect our health to improve - and so on and so on and so on. Even the religious express that confidence a thousand times a day. Not in words but in a much more valuable way - in deeds!

We all have enormous confidence in science. Our lives would be miserable without it.

[Bonegavel]

That is just nonsense. Non-life molecules can be complex arrangements of several elements.

Not nonsense Mac. I was simply referring to the ingredients of all particles. 1,000 legos clipped together in a certain pattern may form a plastic T-rex, but the molecules, to me, are the individual blocks of legos.

I wasn't trying to be slippery there.


They're not "crazy delicious" at all they are more complex arrangements of the same elements.

"crazy delicious" is the term I'd use for the right mixture of molecules that can be formed together to create something that can post comments to a forum the Internets.


Easier? It requires the introduction of a supernatural being for which there is no evidence. It's only "easier" because you already believe in that being. That's why I say that you are merely hanging on to your religious beliefs. Once you accept there is no evidence for this being - and there isn't - then this option becomes far "harder" than the natural explanation that an increase in complexity - which we can see both before and after the appearance of life - is the cause.

I don't believe in any "being" per se, but I (and that is the big 'I') look at how life is constructed and see the hand of Intelligent Design. A master craftsman. Not "God," in my mind, but some"thing."

You look and you see the beauty of nature. Lightning striking the primordial ooze just right creating the conditions that came together to form single celled animals etc.



There is nothing "simple" about it - it requires the creation of a being well beyond anything we have experience of. It requires magic.

ID doesn't require the proof of fingering the one responsible, having them step forward and raising their hand saying, "Yeah, Norway, that was me." This is also why I believe it shouldn't be taught in schools.


The theory of evolution says nothing about the big bang. It deals merely with the process leading to the current situation taking for granted that something existed to begin with. We do not know, nor is there yet any accepted scientific theory of what happened at the time or before the big bang.

I had corrected the original premise of the thread. I mentioned that ID and Evolution aren't mutually exclusive and the poll is suggesting that. I believe he meant Creationism vs Big Bang.


We don't know. But there is evidence from subatomic physics that particles can suddenly appear out of nothing.

So the Law of conservation of mass-energy is incorrect?


But the fact that we don't know something does not mean any old explanation will do. We should be mature enough by now to recognise that we don't know. That is one area in which science differs from religion - it accepts that there are things we don't know at this point (and may never know).

MY THEORIES ARE NOT FROM A RELIGIOUS POINT OF VIEW. I will put it in every sentence if I must.

Trust me Mac, when a scientist can recreate the creation process in a test tube simulating the early earth conditions, I am so on-board. They won't be shattering any religiosity for me.

I will then be in the camp of "life will find a way to happen given the right conditions."

Until that time, I see life as something that was designed by something else.

I am open to the possibilities and will be swayed by actual evidence and right now both sides don't have squat (and ID most likely never will). So, in the absence of evidence I look at the data and made my own conclusion and I answered the Poll accordingly.

please please please save the religious stuff for JiMG's posts.


The big bang and evolution are two totally different things.

see above

[JonInMiddleGA]

please please please save the religious stuff for JiMG's posts.


A couple of random thoughts spring to mind here:
1) I can't help but chuckle when I see stuff like this, since I'm one of the least "organized religion" people I know. And I'm actually have a lot more leeway on people doing their own thing with regard to religion than most here give me credit for. Lemme see, the wing nuts on both ends of the spectrum have issues with me ... I'm probably in just about the right spot.

2) Please don't have anyone save stuff though, it's so totally wasted on me, that'd just be silly.

[KeyserSoze]

Not at all. If there is no evidence for something that doesn't mean that the probability of existence/non-existence is 50/50. If there is no evidence then the odds are that it doesn't exist.

The fact that you cannot prove something doesn't exist is no argument for it's existence. I cannot prove that my daughter's fairies don't exist but I'm pretty sure they don't based only on the lack of evidence - not certain but pretty sure.

Once you start assuming things exist simply because you can't prove they don't you're going to have a very peculiar world indeed ;)

It cant be proved love, hate.... Did your daughter love you? Can you prove it? . It can´t be proved that freedom is better than slavery. It can be proved that democracy is better than fascism or comunism, because nor all the scenarios have been proved.

I believe in love. I believe in freedom. I believe in democracy. But I know that these are my beliefs, even I haven't proofs

[Marc Vaughan]

Whether it's unlikely in your opinion is irrelevant when it comes to scientific acceptablity. It is accepted by those who spend their lives in subatomic experimentation. That does it for me.
But the fact that God is accepted as existing by people in other professions who spend their lives researching in that area isn't enough for you - again this is selective 'faith/confidence' on your behalf surely? ...

Not faith at all but confidence - which allows the possibility of being incorrect as science always does. You need to differentiate between true and false and highly probable and highly improbable. There is a world of difference and that difference is the essence of science.
Science while in theory allowing for the possibility of something being incorrect and thus invalidating whole branches of science would I'm sure resist any fundamental changes to its established laws regardless of the situation or 'proof' - this is simply because people dislike change and will often cling to tradition where possible.

And that confidence is not unique to me. It's there in almost every member of our first world societies. It's there when you press a light switch and expect the light to come on, when you turn the ignition key and expect the car to start, operate the remote control and expect a tv picture, when we take a pill and expect our health to improve - and so on and so on and so on. Even the religious express that confidence a thousand times a day. Not in words but in a much more valuable way - in deeds!
I agree there that science has made some incredible things possible - however all I'm indicating is that you take on faith comments and theories of which you have no first hand knowledge or understanding because an 'emminent' scientist has indicated they are correct.

This blind faith in a subject isn't that different to someones similar 'faith' in a God imho ... both could be right or wrong, but the individual making the decision to believe (or have confidence in) the area in question has no way of knowing the true probabilities behind the situation being correct.

You decide that science has a higher probability of being correct based on your prior experiences (ie. light bulbs & computers work, they're based on scientific theory - hence all science must work) ... similarly someone who feels he's been healed by God could feel the same about his religion ...

[Marc Vaughan]

I had corrected the original premise of the thread. I mentioned that ID and Evolution aren't mutually exclusive and the poll is suggesting that. I believe he meant Creationism vs Big Bang.
These aren't mutually exclusive either - God could have created the universe using the 'Big Bang' ...

[MrBigglesworth]

It cant be proved love, hate.... Did your daughter love you? Can you prove it? . It can´t be proved that freedom is better than slavery. It can be proved that democracy is better than fascism or comunism, because nor all the scenarios have been proved.

I believe in love. I believe in freedom. I believe in democracy. But I know that these are my beliefs, even I haven't proofs
Freedom being better than slavery can not be proved. But I can conduct experiments that would give me evidence that it is better. For example, I can have ten people live their lives for a year, and keep 10 people as my personal slaves, and measure their happiness. In the same sense, evolution can not be proven (it is a theory, not an axiom), but I can conduct experiments that will give evidence that evolution is correct. I can not to my knowledge design an experiment that would give evidence for or against God/gods.

[Marc Vaughan]

Freedom being better than slavery can not be proved. But I can conduct experiments that would give me evidence that it is better. For example, I can have ten people live their lives for a year, and keep 10 people as my personal slaves, and measure their happiness. In the same sense, evolution can not be proven (it is a theory, not an axiom), but I can conduct experiments that will give evidence that evolution is correct. I can not to my knowledge design an experiment that would give evidence for or against God/gods.

There are lots of abstract 'proofs' of God which require some faith - for instance its a fact that people who believe in God (any brand) are more likely to recover from a known fatal illness than those who don't ....

Now this could be down to the existance of God or it could be a knock on effect of the state of mind altering the recovery of the individual, the choice is up to the individual to decide.

(similarly with your 'happiness' experiment the results are going to be naturally flawed and personal - for instance put 10 people who are into S&M style domination in that experiment and you can prove that slavery is great ;) ... as such that experiment is far from 'scientific')

[Marc Vaughan]

but I can conduct experiments that will give evidence that evolution is correct
Out of interest what experiments would you conduct to prove this?

[Bonegavel]

A couple of random thoughts spring to mind here:
1) I can't help but chuckle when I see stuff like this, since I'm one of the least "organized religion" people I know. And I'm actually have a lot more leeway on people doing their own thing with regard to religion than most here give me credit for. Lemme see, the wing nuts on both ends of the spectrum have issues with me ... I'm probably in just about the right spot.

2) Please don't have anyone save stuff though, it's so totally wasted on me, that'd just be silly.If I've incorrectly singled you out, I sincerely apologize.

The christians I know would gladly accept the "jesus-freak"-type label and would then proceed to turn each and every cheek. But you distancing yourself you have definitely proved that I was wrong in asking Mac to save the religion stuff for your posts.

I probably should have put revrew in there, our resident chaplain.

Seriously, sorry about putting your name in there. In the future, I will avoid linking you with any reference to god, christianity or whatnot. Welcome to the dark side Jon!

[Bonegavel]

These aren't mutually exclusive either - God could have created the universe using the 'Big Bang' ...Come on Marc, you know what I mean. :D

(and yes, I know what you mean, as well)

[SFL Cat]

This is how it went...

God Created heaven and the earth. Quickly he was faced with a class action suit for failure to file an environmental impact statement. He was granted a temporary permit for the project, but was stymied with the cease and desist order for the earthly part. Appearing at the hearing, God was asked why he began his earthly project in the first place. He replied that he just liked to be creative.

Then God said, "Let there be light", and immediately the officials demanded to know how the light would be made. Would there be strip mining? What about thermal pollution? God explained that the light would come from a huge ball of fire. God was granted provisional permission to make light, assuming that no smoke would result from the ball of fire: that he would obtain a building permit; and to conserve energy, would have the light out half the time. God agreed and said he would call the light "Day" and the darkness "Night". Officials replied that they were not interested in semantics.

God said, "Let the earth bring forth green herb and such as many seed". The EPA agreed so long as native seed was used. Then God said, "Let waters bring forth creeping creatures having life; and the fowl that may fly over the earth". Officials pointed out this would require approval from the Department of Game coordinated with the Heavenly Wildlife Federation and the Audubongelic Society.

Everything was O.K. until God said he wanted to complete the project in Six days. Officials said it would take at least 200 days to review the application and impact statement. After that there would be a public hearing. Then there would be 10-12 months before...

At this point God created Hell.

[MrBigglesworth]

Out of interest what experiments would you conduct to prove this?
Scientists conduct experiments and make predictions using evolution all of the time. Put an anti-microbial agent on a petri dish, then put some E. coli on there, wait a couple days, and you will see a dozen or so colonies of E. coli that mutated to be impervious to the antibiotic. That's evolution, a drastic form of natural selection. If genomes never changes, that would be impossible.

[MrBigglesworth]

Anyone interested in evolution or science should read this essay. It's a story of how bony fish came onto land, to the best of our knowledge. It's from a liberal website, but it doesn't delve into ideology at all, just science:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/12/23/72434/238

[Kodos]

Scientists conduct experiments and make predictions using evolution all of the time. Put an anti-microbial agent on a petri dish, then put some E. coli on there, wait a couple days, and you will see a dozen or so colonies of E. coli that mutated to be impervious to the antibiotic. That's evolution, a drastic form of natural selection. If genomes never changes, that would be impossible.

Not entirely accurate. The E. coli wouldn't mutate in response to the antibiotic. There would be some existing E. coli in the original population with mutations that would make them more resistant to the antibiotic than the rest of the standard non-mutated E. coli. This already-present resistance would allow the surviving E. coli to form new colonies that would be resistant to the antibiotic.

This basically explains why anti-microbial hand soaps are a bad thing. They pave the way for more hardy versions of the germs they are intended to kill to arise. You're better off just using regular soap.

[MrBigglesworth]

Not entirely accurate. The E. coli wouldn't mutate in response to the antibiotic.
I didn't say they mutated in response to the antibiotic :) I said they mutated to be impervious to it, or in other words, a random mutation occured at one time that made them not get killed by the antibiotic.

Evolution is a change in the frequency of an allele in a gene pool. The frequency of the anti-antibiotic gene would cause the gene to go from less than 1% to 100% of the gene pool. Mutations are not caused by environmental pressures, but rather environmental pressures act on mutations that are already there.

[Kodos]

Mutations are not caused by environmental pressures, but rather environmental pressures act on mutations that are already there.

Exactly.

Put an anti-microbial agent on a petri dish, then put some E. coli on there, wait a couple days, and you will see a dozen or so colonies of E. coli that mutated to be impervious to the antibiotic.

This sentence made it sound like the dozen or so colonies mutated in response to the presentation of the antibiotic. Just tried to clarify things for others who may not have understood. :)

[Mac Howard]

But the fact that God is accepted as existing by people in other professions who spend their lives researching in that area isn't enough for you

Absolutely not! There are millions who believe that God exists. There are millions who believe that God doesn't exist. One group has to be wrong.

The idea that many people believing something means it's true is nonsense.

again this is selective 'faith/confidence' on your behalf surely? ...

Confidence? Yes! Faith? No! There's a massive difference. Your failure to understand the difference is leading you astray.

this is simply because people dislike change and will often cling to tradition where possible.

Scientists are people and people are flawed. That doesn't mean that science itself is flawed. That a football player fails to kick a ball doesn't mean that we should modify the rules of the game. The player is flawed, the game is not. Every time a player fails we don't change the rules :)

however all I'm indicating is that you take on faith comments and theories of which you have no first hand knowledge or understanding because an 'emminent' scientist has indicated they are correct.

Again confidence, not faith. And it has little to do with confidence in an emminent scientist.

A scientific theory undergoes enormous investigation of the most brutal and antagonistic kind before it becomes accepted - the idea of "energy" took over 100 years before being accepted. Evolution itself has undergone massive scrutiny and come out smelling of roses - no scientific theory has been so spectacularly successful in predicting new circumstances, new discoveries and in advancing our understanding of the world.

Yet still science reserves the right to wipe it out if contrary evidence arises no matter how loud individual scientists may complain.

It is its success and its humility that gives me that confidence.

This blind faith in a subject isn't that different to someones similar 'faith' in a God imho

Then you lack any sense of proportion. Confidence in science is light years away from religious faith.

You decide that science has a higher probability of being correct based on your prior experiences (ie. light bulbs & computers work, they're based on scientific theory - hence all science must work) ... similarly someone who feels he's been healed by God could feel the same about his religion ...

Absolutely! The confimation for science is all around you. Why are you typing on your keyboard if you don't have the same confidence? Confirmation that someone has been healed by God is completely absent.

Again: you have no sense of proportion. You have no understanding of probabilities. Your thinking is binary.

[JonInMiddleGA]

So Mac, does this subject always bring out the asshole in you or are we just being given a special treat this time around?

Don't you have some sort of game or something you could be working on & spare the rest of the world your blathering b.s.? If not, then take up a hobby or something, go walk the dog, whatever. But e-friggin-nuff already.

[Mac Howard]

So Mac, does this subject always bring out the asshole in you or are we just being given a special treat this time around?

A number of responses come to mind Jon:

1) For a man who despises tolerance you're remarkably sensitive

2) if you can't stand the heat get out of the kitchen

3) when you can't answer the message attack the messenger

Sound to me like the arguments are getting though to you, Jon ;)

I'm particularly astonished, Jon, that you don't support where I'm coming from: that Mark is putting forward the intellectual equivalent of moral relativism - that because something can't be shown to be certain then all possibilities have the same validity. Precisely the stuff that gives liberalism a bad name.

I'm calling a spade a spade - in this case nonsense, nonsense. I don't apologise for doing it vigorously.

[Mac Howard]

It cant be proved love, hate.... Did your daughter love you? Can you prove it? . It can´t be proved that freedom is better than slavery. It can be proved that democracy is better than fascism or comunism, because nor all the scenarios have been proved.

I believe in love. I believe in freedom. I believe in democracy. But I know that these are my beliefs, even I haven't proofs

That's irrelevant, KeyserSoze.

Let me put the question to you directly: do you believe that because you cannot prove that something doesn't exit it therefore does exist? Because I can't prove that three-headed dragons don't exist they do?

[TargetPractice6]

Not nonsense Mac. I was simply referring to the ingredients of all particles. 1,000 legos clipped together in a certain pattern may form a plastic T-rex, but the molecules, to me, are the individual blocks of legos.

"crazy delicious" is the term I'd use for the right mixture of molecules that can be formed together to create something that can post comments to a forum the Internets.You realize that molecules and atoms are not the same thing right? And atom is the smallest unit an element can take while still retaining the properties of the element. A molecule contains two or more atoms, so how would that work with your lego analogy?

[Mac Howard]

You realize that molecules and atoms are not the same thing right? And atom is the smallest unit an element can take while still retaining the properties of the element. A molecule contains two or more atoms, so how would that work with your lego analogy?

Yes. I let that one pass. Here's another:

So the Law of conservation of mass-energy is incorrect?

To which the answer is that TWO particles are created with opposite mass and electical charge thus conforming to the principle of mass-energy conservation.

I think what angers me most is that the proponents of ID, despite claiming ID is scientific, have made no attempt to understand what science is. Some of the stuff in the above thread is such awful nonsense it's unbelievable that it can be posted in the 21st century.

The judge in the Pennsylvania rulling had it absolutely right with this:

"It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID Policy.

"We find that the secular purposes claimed by the board amount to a pretext for the board's real purpose, which was to promote religion in the public school classroom."

Absolutely spot on! The ID position is a complete sham!

[Bubba Wheels]

Evolution is a myth. There is no, nada, none evidence of one species ever changing into another one. No fossils ever found have shown a 'link' or middle example of one species becoming another. It takes more faith to believe in evolution than it does to believe in Intelligent Design.

[TargetPractice6]

Evolution is a myth. There is no, nada, none evidence of one species ever changing into another one. No fossils ever found have shown a 'link' or middle example of one species becoming another. It takes more faith to believe in evolution than it does to believe in Intelligent Design.Bubba Wheels: Anthropology Extraordinaire.

[Bubba Wheels]

Bubba Wheels: Anthropology Extraordinaire.

Funny! Anthropology...always reminds me of an Lt. I had in the army. His father was a college professor, and this Lt. had observed alot of his father's students. "No one under 30 should ever enroll into anthropology', he says, 'something about that discipline attracts all the kooks and nuts." Never had it myself so I'll just take his word for it.

But since you want a 'man of credentials' point-of-view on the fallacy of Darwinism, here is a good article on the subject.http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=47973

[TargetPractice6]

You've never had an anthropology class? I never would have guessed.

[Bubba Wheels]

You've never had an anthropology class? I never would have guessed.

Didn't say that, said I was never an Anthropolgy student. But if we are going to start throwing around lame cheap shots, how come everyone I ever meet from Kentucky is missing some teeth? Dentists not welcome there?

[Mac Howard]

Didn't say that, said I was never an Anthropolgy student. But if we are going to start throwing around lame cheap shots, how come everyone I ever meet from Kentucky is missing some teeth? Dentists not welcome there?

Yes. Let's debate the subject and stop throwing insults around.

Bubba. You know that the essence of science is evidence - that any theory that doesn't have considerable evidence doesn't stand a cat-in-hell's-chance of becoming an accepted scientific theory.

So why, in the light of science not only accepting evolution but making it one of its most important, do you say there's no evidence for it? Why has science gone against its most cherished tradition in accepting a theory that has no evidence?

[MrBigglesworth]

There is no, nada, none evidence of one species ever changing into another one.
5.0 Observed Instances of Speciation

The following are several examples of observations of speciation.

5.1 Speciations Involving Polyploidy, Hybridization or Hybridization Followed by Polyploidization.


5.1.1 Plants

(See also the discussion in de Wet 1971).
5.1.1.1 Evening Primrose (Oenothera gigas)

While studying the genetics of the evening primrose, Oenothera lamarckiana, de Vries (1905) found an unusual variant among his plants. O. lamarckiana has a chromosome number of 2N = 14. The variant had a chromosome number of 2N = 28. He found that he was unable to breed this variant with O. lamarckiana. He named this new species O. gigas.
5.1.1.2 Kew Primrose (Primula kewensis)

Digby (1912) crossed the primrose species Primula verticillata and P. floribunda to produce a sterile hybrid. Polyploidization occurred in a few of these plants to produce fertile offspring. The new species was named P. kewensis. Newton and Pellew (1929) note that spontaneous hybrids of P. verticillata and P. floribunda set tetraploid seed on at least three occasions. These happened in 1905, 1923 and 1926.
5.1.1.3 Tragopogon

Owenby (1950) demonstrated that two species in this genus were produced by polyploidization from hybrids. He showed that Tragopogon miscellus found in a colony in Moscow, Idaho was produced by hybridization of T. dubius and T. pratensis. He also showed that T. mirus found in a colony near Pullman, Washington was produced by hybridization of T. dubius and T. porrifolius. Evidence from chloroplast DNA suggests that T. mirus has originated independently by hybridization in eastern Washington and western Idaho at least three times (Soltis and Soltis 1989). The same study also shows multiple origins for T. micellus.
5.1.1.4 Raphanobrassica

The Russian cytologist Karpchenko (1927, 1928) crossed the radish, Raphanus sativus, with the cabbage, Brassica oleracea. Despite the fact that the plants were in different genera, he got a sterile hybrid. Some unreduced gametes were formed in the hybrids. This allowed for the production of seed. Plants grown from the seeds were interfertile with each other. They were not interfertile with either parental species. Unfortunately the new plant (genus Raphanobrassica) had the foliage of a radish and the root of a cabbage.
5.1.1.5 Hemp Nettle (Galeopsis tetrahit)

A species of hemp nettle, Galeopsis tetrahit, was hypothesized to be the result of a natural hybridization of two other species, G. pubescens and G. speciosa (Muntzing 1932). The two species were crossed. The hybrids matched G. tetrahit in both visible features and chromosome morphology.
5.1.1.6 Madia citrigracilis

Along similar lines, Clausen et al. (1945) hypothesized that Madia citrigracilis was a hexaploid hybrid of M. gracilis and M. citriodora As evidence they noted that the species have gametic chromosome numbers of n = 24, 16 and 8 respectively. Crossing M. gracilis and M. citriodora resulted in a highly sterile triploid with n = 24. The chromosomes formed almost no bivalents during meiosis. Artificially doubling the chromosome number using colchecine produced a hexaploid hybrid which closely resembled M. citrigracilis and was fertile.
5.1.1.7 Brassica

Frandsen (1943, 1947) was able to do this same sort of recreation of species in the genus Brassica (cabbage, etc.). His experiments showed that B. carinata (n = 17) may be recreated by hybridizing B. nigra (n = 8) and B. oleracea, B. juncea (n = 18) may be recreated by hybridizing B. nigra and B. campestris (n = 10), and B. napus (n = 19) may be recreated by hybridizing B. oleracea and B. campestris.
5.1.1.8 Maidenhair Fern (Adiantum pedatum)

Rabe and Haufler (1992) found a naturally occurring diploid sporophyte of maidenhair fern which produced unreduced (2N) spores. These spores resulted from a failure of the paired chromosomes to dissociate during the first division of meiosis. The spores germinated normally and grew into diploid gametophytes. These did not appear to produce antheridia. Nonetheless, a subsequent generation of tetraploid sporophytes was produced. When grown in the lab, the tetraploid sporophytes appear to be less vigorous than the normal diploid sporophytes. The 4N individuals were found near Baldwin City, Kansas.
5.1.1.9 Woodsia Fern (Woodsia abbeae)

Woodsia abbeae was described as a hybrid of W. cathcariana and W. ilvensis (Butters 1941). Plants of this hybrid normally produce abortive sporangia containing inviable spores. In 1944 Butters found a W. abbeae plant near Grand Portage, Minn. that had one fertile frond (Butters and Tryon 1948). The apical portion of this frond had fertile sporangia. Spores from this frond germinated and grew into prothallia. About six months after germination sporophytes were produced. They survived for about one year. Based on cytological evidence, Butters and Tryon concluded that the frond that produced the viable spores had gone tetraploid. They made no statement as to whether the sporophytes grown produced viable spores.
5.1.2 Animals

Speciation through hybridization and/or polyploidy has long been considered much less important in animals than in plants [[[refs.]]]. A number of reviews suggest that this view may be mistaken. (Lokki and Saura 1980; Bullini and Nascetti 1990; Vrijenhoek 1994). Bullini and Nasceti (1990) review chromosomal and genetic evidence that suggest that speciation through hybridization may occur in a number of insect species, including walking sticks, grasshoppers, blackflies and cucurlionid beetles. Lokki and Saura (1980) discuss the role of polyploidy in insect evolution. Vrijenhoek (1994) reviews the literature on parthenogenesis and hybridogenesis in fish. I will tackle this topic in greater depth in the next version of this document.
5.2 Speciations in Plant Species not Involving Hybridization or Polyploidy


5.2.1 Stephanomeira malheurensis

Gottlieb (1973) documented the speciation of Stephanomeira malheurensis. He found a single small population (< 250 plants) among a much larger population (> 25,000 plants) of S. exigua in Harney Co., Oregon. Both species are diploid and have the same number of chromosomes (N = 8). S. exigua is an obligate outcrosser exhibiting sporophytic self-incompatibility. S. malheurensis exhibits no self-incompatibility and self-pollinates. Though the two species look very similar, Gottlieb was able to document morphological differences in five characters plus chromosomal differences. F1 hybrids between the species produces only 50% of the seeds and 24% of the pollen that conspecific crosses produced. F2 hybrids showed various developmental abnormalities.
5.2.2 Maize (Zea mays)

Pasterniani (1969) produced almost complete reproductive isolation between two varieties of maize. The varieties were distinguishable by seed color, white versus yellow. Other genetic markers allowed him to identify hybrids. The two varieties were planted in a common field. Any plant's nearest neighbors were always plants of the other strain. Selection was applied against hybridization by using only those ears of corn that showed a low degree of hybridization as the source of the next years seed. Only parental type kernels from these ears were planted. The strength of selection was increased each year. In the first year, only ears with less than 30% intercrossed seed were used. In the fifth year, only ears with less than 1% intercrossed seed were used. After five years the average percentage of intercrossed matings dropped from 35.8% to 4.9% in the white strain and from 46.7% to 3.4% in the yellow strain.
5.2.3 Speciation as a Result of Selection for Tolerance to a Toxin: Yellow Monkey Flower (Mimulus guttatus)

At reasonably low concentrations, copper is toxic to many plant species. Several plants have been seen to develop a tolerance to this metal (Macnair 1981). Macnair and Christie (1983) used this to examine the genetic basis of a postmating isolating mechanism in yellow monkey flower. When they crossed plants from the copper tolerant "Copperopolis" population with plants from the nontolerant "Cerig" population, they found that many of the hybrids were inviable. During early growth, just after the four leaf stage, the leaves of many of the hybrids turned yellow and became necrotic. Death followed this. This was seen only in hybrids between the two populations. Through mapping studies, the authors were able to show that the copper tolerance gene and the gene responsible for hybrid inviability were either the same gene or were very tightly linked. These results suggest that reproductive isolation may require changes in only a small number of genes.
5.3 The Fruit Fly Literature


5.3.1 Drosophila paulistorum

Dobzhansky and Pavlovsky (1971) reported a speciation event that occurred in a laboratory culture of Drosophila paulistorum sometime between 1958 and 1963. The culture was descended from a single inseminated female that was captured in the Llanos of Colombia. In 1958 this strain produced fertile hybrids when crossed with conspecifics of different strains from Orinocan. From 1963 onward crosses with Orinocan strains produced only sterile males. Initially no assortative mating or behavioral isolation was seen between the Llanos strain and the Orinocan strains. Later on Dobzhansky produced assortative mating (Dobzhansky 1972).
5.3.2 Disruptive Selection on Drosophila melanogaster

Thoday and Gibson (1962) established a population of Drosophila melanogaster from four gravid females. They applied selection on this population for flies with the highest and lowest numbers of sternoplural chaetae (hairs). In each generation, eight flies with high numbers of chaetae were allowed to interbreed and eight flies with low numbers of chaetae were allowed to interbreed. Periodically they performed mate choice experiments on the two lines. They found that they had produced a high degree of positive assortative mating between the two groups. In the decade or so following this, eighteen labs attempted unsuccessfully to reproduce these results. References are given in Thoday and Gibson 1970.
5.3.3 Selection on Courtship Behavior in Drosophila melanogaster

Crossley (1974) was able to produce changes in mating behavior in two mutant strains of D. melanogaster. Four treatments were used. In each treatment, 55 virgin males and 55 virgin females of both ebony body mutant flies and vestigial wing mutant flies (220 flies total) were put into a jar and allowed to mate for 20 hours. The females were collected and each was put into a separate vial. The phenotypes of the offspring were recorded. Wild type offspring were hybrids between the mutants. In two of the four treatments, mating was carried out in the light. In one of these treatments all hybrid offspring were destroyed. This was repeated for 40 generations. Mating was carried out in the dark in the other two treatments. Again, in one of these all hybrids were destroyed. This was repeated for 49 generations. Crossley ran mate choice tests and observed mating behavior. Positive assortative mating was found in the treatment which had mated in the light and had been subject to strong selection against hybridization. The basis of this was changes in the courtship behaviors of both sexes. Similar experiments, without observation of mating behavior, were performed by Knight, et al. (1956).
5.3.4 Sexual Isolation as a Byproduct of Adaptation to Environmental Conditions in Drosophila melanogaster

Kilias, et al. (1980) exposed D. melanogaster populations to different temperature and humidity regimes for several years. They performed mating tests to check for reproductive isolation. They found some sterility in crosses among populations raised under different conditions. They also showed some positive assortative mating. These things were not observed in populations which were separated but raised under the same conditions. They concluded that sexual isolation was produced as a byproduct of selection.
5.3.5 Sympatric Speciation in Drosophila melanogaster

In a series of papers (Rice 1985, Rice and Salt 1988 and Rice and Salt 1990) Rice and Salt presented experimental evidence for the possibility of sympatric speciation. They started from the premise that whenever organisms sort themselves into the environment first and then mate locally, individuals with the same habitat preferences will necessarily mate assortatively. They established a stock population of D. melanogaster with flies collected in an orchard near Davis, California. Pupae from the culture were placed into a habitat maze. Newly emerged flies had to negotiate the maze to find food. The maze simulated several environmental gradients simultaneously. The flies had to make three choices of which way to go. The first was between light and dark (phototaxis). The second was between up and down (geotaxis). The last was between the scent of acetaldehyde and the scent of ethanol (chemotaxis). This divided the flies among eight habitats. The flies were further divided by the time of day of emergence. In total the flies were divided among 24 spatio-temporal habitats.

They next cultured two strains of flies that had chosen opposite habitats. One strain emerged early, flew upward and was attracted to dark and acetaldehyde. The other emerged late, flew downward and was attracted to light and ethanol. Pupae from these two strains were placed together in the maze. They were allowed to mate at the food site and were collected. Eye color differences between the strains allowed Rice and Salt to distinguish between the two strains. A selective penalty was imposed on flies that switched habitats. Females that switched habitats were destroyed. None of their gametes passed into the next generation. Males that switched habitats received no penalty. After 25 generations of this mating tests showed reproductive isolation between the two strains. Habitat specialization was also produced.

They next repeated the experiment without the penalty against habitat switching. The result was the same -- reproductive isolation was produced. They argued that a switching penalty is not necessary to produce reproductive isolation. Their results, they stated, show the possibility of sympatric speciation.
5.3.6 Isolation Produced as an Incidental Effect of Selection on several Drosophila species

In a series of experiments, del Solar (1966) derived positively and negatively geotactic and phototactic strains of D. pseudoobscura from the same population by running the flies through mazes. Flies from different strains were then introduced into mating chambers (10 males and 10 females from each strain). Matings were recorded. Statistically significant positive assortative mating was found.

In a separate series of experiments Dodd (1989) raised eight populations derived from a single population of D. Pseudoobscura on stressful media. Four populations were raised on a starch based medium, the other four were raised on a maltose based medium. The fly populations in both treatments took several months to get established, implying that they were under strong selection. Dodd found some evidence of genetic divergence between flies in the two treatments. He performed mate choice tests among experimental populations. He found statistically significant assortative mating between populations raised on different media, but no assortative mating among populations raised within the same medium regime. He argued that since there was no direct selection for reproductive isolation, the behavioral isolation results from a pleiotropic by-product to adaptation to the two media. Schluter and Nagel (1995) have argued that these results provide experimental support for the hypothesis of parallel speciation.

Less dramatic results were obtained by growing D. willistoni on media of different pH levels (de Oliveira and Cordeiro 1980). Mate choice tests after 26, 32, 52 and 69 generations of growth showed statistically significant assortative mating between some populations grown in different pH treatments. This ethological isolation did not always persist over time. They also found that some crosses made after 106 and 122 generations showed significant hybrid inferiority, but only when grown in acid medium.
5.3.7 Selection for Reinforcement in Drosophila melanogaster

Some proposed models of speciation rely on a process called reinforcement to complete the speciation process. Reinforcement occurs when to partially isolated allopatric populations come into contact. Lower relative fitness of hybrids between the two populations results in increased selection for isolating mechanisms. I should note that a recent review (Rice and Hostert 1993) argues that there is little experimental evidence to support reinforcement models. Two experiments in which the authors argue that their results provide support are discussed below.

Ehrman (1971) established strains of wild-type and mutant (black body) D. melanogaster. These flies were derived from compound autosome strains such that heterotypic matings would produce no progeny. The two strains were reared together in common fly cages. After two years, the isolation index generated from mate choice experiments had increased from 0.04 to 0.43, indicating the appearance of considerable assortative mating. After four years this index had risen to 0.64 (Ehrman 1973).

Along the same lines, Koopman (1950) was able to increase the degree of reproductive isolation between two partially isolated species, D. pseudoobscura and D. persimilis.
5.3.8 Tests of the Founder-flush Speciation Hypothesis Using Drosophila

The founder-flush (a.k.a. flush-crash) hypothesis posits that genetic drift and founder effects play a major role in speciation (Powell 1978). During a founder-flush cycle a new habitat is colonized by a small number of individuals (e.g. one inseminated female). The population rapidly expands (the flush phase). This is followed by the population crashing. During this crash period the population experiences strong genetic drift. The population undergoes another rapid expansion followed by another crash. This cycle repeats several times. Reproductive isolation is produced as a byproduct of genetic drift.

Dodd and Powell (1985) tested this hypothesis using D. pseudoobscura. A large, heterogeneous population was allowed to grow rapidly in a very large population cage. Twelve experimental populations were derived from this population from single pair matings. These populations were allowed to flush. Fourteen months later, mating tests were performed among the twelve populations. No postmating isolation was seen. One cross showed strong behavioral isolation. The populations underwent three more flush-crash cycles. Forty-four months after the start of the experiment (and fifteen months after the last flush) the populations were again tested. Once again, no postmating isolation was seen. Three populations showed behavioral isolation in the form of positive assortative mating. Later tests between 1980 and 1984 showed that the isolation persisted, though it was weaker in some cases.

Galina, et al. (1993) performed similar experiments with D. pseudoobscura. Mating tests between populations that underwent flush-crash cycles and their ancestral populations showed 8 cases of positive assortative mating out of 118 crosses. They also showed 5 cases of negative assortative mating (i.e. the flies preferred to mate with flies of the other strain). Tests among the founder-flush populations showed 36 cases of positive assortative mating out of 370 crosses. These tests also found 4 cases of negative assortative mating. Most of these mating preferences did not persist over time. Galina, et al. concluded that the founder-flush protocol yields reproductive isolation only as a rare and erratic event.

Ahearn (1980) applied the founder-flush protocol to D. silvestris. Flies from a line of this species underwent several flush-crash cycles. They were tested in mate choice experiments against flies from a continuously large population. Female flies from both strains preferred to mate with males from the large population. Females from the large population would not mate with males from the founder flush population. An asymmetric reproductive isolation was produced.

In a three year experiment, Ringo, et al. (1985) compared the effects of a founder-flush protocol to the effects of selection on various traits. A large population of D. simulans was created from flies from 69 wild caught stocks from several locations. Founder-flush lines and selection lines were derived from this population. The founder-flush lines went through six flush-crash cycles. The selection lines experienced equal intensities of selection for various traits. Mating test were performed between strains within a treatment and between treatment strains and the source population. Crosses were also checked for postmating isolation. In the selection lines, 10 out of 216 crosses showed positive assortative mating (2 crosses showed negative assortative mating). They also found that 25 out of 216 crosses showed postmating isolation. Of these, 9 cases involved crosses with the source population. In the founder-flush lines 12 out of 216 crosses showed positive assortative mating (3 crosses showed negative assortative mating). Postmating isolation was found in 15 out of 216 crosses, 11 involving the source population. They concluded that only weak isolation was found and that there was little difference between the effects of natural selection and the effects of genetic drift.

A final test of the founder-flush hypothesis will be described with the housefly cases below.
5.4 Housefly Speciation Experiments


5.4.1 A Test of the Founder-flush Hypothesis Using Houseflies

Meffert and Bryant (1991) used houseflies to test whether bottlenecks in populations can cause permanent alterations in courtship behavior that lead to premating isolation. They collected over 100 flies of each sex from a landfill near Alvin, Texas. These were used to initiate an ancestral population. From this ancestral population they established six lines. Two of these lines were started with one pair of flies, two lines were started with four pairs of flies and two lines were started with sixteen pairs of flies. These populations were flushed to about 2,000 flies each. They then went through five bottlenecks followed by flushes. This took 35 generations. Mate choice tests were performed. One case of positive assortative mating was found. One case of negative assortative mating was also found.
5.4.2 Selection for Geotaxis with and without Gene Flow

Soans, et al. (1974) used houseflies to test Pimentel's model of speciation. This model posits that speciation requires two steps. The first is the formation of races in subpopulations. This is followed by the establishment of reproductive isolation. Houseflies were subjected to intense divergent selection on the basis of positive and negative geotaxis. In some treatments no gene flow was allowed, while in others there was 30% gene flow. Selection was imposed by placing 1000 flies into the center of a 108 cm vertical tube. The first 50 flies that reached the top and the first 50 flies that reached the bottom were used to found positively and negatively geotactic populations. Four populations were established:
Population A + geotaxis, no gene flow
Population B - geotaxis, no gene flow
Population C + geotaxis, 30% gene flow
Population D - geotaxis, 30% gene flow

Selection was repeated within these populations each generations. After 38 generations the time to collect 50 flies had dropped from 6 hours to 2 hours in Pop A, from 4 hours to 4 minutes in Pop B, from 6 hours to 2 hours in Pop C and from 4 hours to 45 minutes in Pop D. Mate choice tests were performed. Positive assortative mating was found in all crosses. They concluded that reproductive isolation occurred under both allopatric and sympatric conditions when very strong selection was present.

Hurd and Eisenberg (1975) performed a similar experiment on houseflies using 50% gene flow and got the same results.
5.5 Speciation Through Host Race Differentiation

Recently there has been a lot of interest in whether the differentiation of an herbivorous or parasitic species into races living on different hosts can lead to sympatric speciation. It has been argued that in animals that mate on (or in) their preferred hosts, positive assortative mating is an inevitable byproduct of habitat selection (Rice 1985; Barton, et al. 1988). This would suggest that differentiated host races may represent incipient species.
5.5.1 Apple Maggot Fly (Rhagoletis pomonella)

Rhagoletis pomonella is a fly that is native to North America. Its normal host is the hawthorn tree. Sometime during the nineteenth century it began to infest apple trees. Since then it has begun to infest cherries, roses, pears and possibly other members of the rosaceae. Quite a bit of work has been done on the differences between flies infesting hawthorn and flies infesting apple. There appear to be differences in host preferences among populations. Offspring of females collected from on of these two hosts are more likely to select that host for oviposition (Prokopy et al. 1988). Genetic differences between flies on these two hosts have been found at 6 out of 13 allozyme loci (Feder et al. 1988, see also McPheron et al. 1988). Laboratory studies have shown an asynchrony in emergence time of adults between these two host races (Smith 1988). Flies from apple trees take about 40 days to mature, whereas flies from hawthorn trees take 54-60 days to mature. This makes sense when we consider that hawthorn fruit tends to mature later in the season that apples. Hybridization studies show that host preferences are inherited, but give no evidence of barriers to mating. This is a very exciting case. It may represent the early stages of a sympatric speciation event (considering the dispersal of R. pomonella to other plants it may even represent the beginning of an adaptive radiation). It is important to note that some of the leading researchers on this question are urging caution in interpreting it. Feder and Bush (1989) stated:

"Hawthorn and apple "host races" of R. pomonella may therefore represent incipient species. However, it remains to be seen whether host-associated traits can evolve into effective enough barriers to gene flow to result eventually in the complete reproductive isolation of R. pomonella populations."
5.5.2 Gall Former Fly (Eurosta solidaginis)

Eurosta solidaginis is a gall forming fly that is associated with goldenrod plants. It has two hosts: over most of its range it lays its eggs in Solidago altissima, but in some areas it uses S. gigantea as its host. Recent electrophoretic work has shown that the genetic distances among flies from different sympatric hosts species are greater than the distances among flies on the same host in different geographic areas (Waring et al. 1990). This same study also found reduced variability in flies on S. gigantea. This suggests that some E. solidaginis have recently shifted hosts to this species. A recent study has compared reproductive behavior of the flies associated with the two hosts (Craig et al. 1993). They found that flies associated with S. gigantea emerge earlier in the season than flies associated with S. altissima. In host choice experiments, each fly strain ovipunctured its own host much more frequently than the other host. Craig et al. (1993) also performed several mating experiments. When no host was present and females mated with males from either strain, if males from only one strain were present. When males of both strains were present, statistically significant positive assortative mating was seen. In the presence of a host, assortative mating was also seen. When both hosts and flies from both populations were present, females waited on the buds of the host that they are normally associated with. The males fly to the host to mate. Like the Rhagoletis case above, this may represent the beginning of a sympatric speciation.
5.6 Flour Beetles (Tribolium castaneum)

Halliburton and Gall (1981) established a population of flour beetles collected in Davis, California. In each generation they selected the 8 lightest and the 8 heaviest pupae of each sex. When these 32 beetles had emerged, they were placed together and allowed to mate for 24 hours. Eggs were collected for 48 hours. The pupae that developed from these eggs were weighed at 19 days. This was repeated for 15 generations. The results of mate choice tests between heavy and light beetles was compared to tests among control lines derived from randomly chosen pupae. Positive assortative mating on the basis of size was found in 2 out of 4 experimental lines.
5.7 Speciation in a Lab Rat Worm, Nereis acuminata

In 1964 five or six individuals of the polychaete worm, Nereis acuminata, were collected in Long Beach Harbor, California. These were allowed to grow into a population of thousands of individuals. Four pairs from this population were transferred to the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute. For over 20 years these worms were used as test organisms in environmental toxicology. From 1986 to 1991 the Long Beach area was searched for populations of the worm. Two populations, P1 and P2, were found. Weinberg, et al. (1992) performed tests on these two populations and the Woods Hole population (WH) for both postmating and premating isolation. To test for postmating isolation, they looked at whether broods from crosses were successfully reared. The results below give the percentage of successful rearings for each group of crosses.
WH × WH - 75%
P1 × P1 - 95%
P2 × P2 - 80%
P1 × P2 - 77%
WH × P1 - 0%
WH × P2 - 0%

They also found statistically significant premating isolation between the WH population and the field populations. Finally, the Woods Hole population showed slightly different karyotypes from the field populations.
5.8 Speciation Through Cytoplasmic Incompatability Resulting from the Presence of a Parasite or Symbiont

In some species the presence of intracellular bacterial parasites (or symbionts) is associated with postmating isolation. This results from a cytoplasmic incompatability between gametes from strains that have the parasite (or symbiont) and stains that don't. An example of this is seen in the mosquito Culex pipiens (Yen and Barr 1971). Compared to within strain matings, matings between strains from different geographic regions may may have any of three results: These matings may produce a normal number of offspring, they may produce a reduced number of offspring or they may produce no offspring. Reciprocal crosses may give the same or different results. In an incompatible cross, the egg and sperm nuclei fail to unite during fertilization. The egg dies during embryogenesis. In some of these strains, Yen and Barr (1971) found substantial numbers of Rickettsia-like microbes in adults, eggs and embryos. Compatibility of mosquito strains seems to be correlated with the strain of the microbe present. Mosquitoes that carry different strains of the microbe exhibit cytoplasmic incompatibility; those that carry the same strain of microbe are interfertile.

Similar phenomena have been seen in a number of other insects. Microoganisms are seen in the eggs of both Nasonia vitripennis and N. giraulti. These two species do not normally hybridize. Following treatment with antibiotics, hybrids occur between them (Breeuwer and Werren 1990). In this case, the symbiont is associated with improper condensation of host chromosomes.

For more examples and a critical review of this topic, see Thompson 1987.

No fossils ever found have shown a 'link' or middle example of one species becoming another.
http://wwwrses.anu.edu.au/environment/eeImages/Dating/Human%20Evolution/HE_Main.jpg

Apparently our definitions of 'no', 'none', and 'nada' are different.

[Bubba Wheels]

Yes. Let's debate the subject and stop throwing insults around.

Bubba. You know that the essence of science is evidence - that any theory that doesn't have considerable evidence doesn't stand a cat-in-hell's-chance of becoming an accepted scientific theory.

So why, in the light of science not only accepting evolution but making it one of its most important, do you say there's no evidence for it? Why has science gone against its most cherished tradition in accepting a theory that has no evidence?

Can't say I'm the expert on the subject, but from what I do read and hear 1. As it states in my link above Micro-evolution (or 'adaption') is not in question (so the turtle shells will start to look different after awhile) but there is no fossil evidence of specie change. As I stated before, the 'missing link' continues to be missing.

2. Many other articles and reasons on why certain 'scientists' blindly promote evolution in the face of serious shortfalls within the 'theory.' In fact, an almost complete roll-reversal has taken place in which evolutionists do not tolerate criticism of its 'theory' and will seek to squash any discussion of it in the classroom or in publication of journal articles from other scientists just examining Intelligent Design and its implications. Courts have gone so far as to state teachers calling evolution theory a 'theory' are being UnConstitutional because it promotes religion. Its beyond assinine.

[Bubba Wheels]

MrBigglesworth, again no one is doubting the reality of micro-evolution. And hominoids do and did exist in the past. But even your chart has 'best guess' when 'connecting the dots' between the skulls. The missing link is still missing. Said it again.

[famatu]

I believe God created everyone and everything.

But I also thing some things evolved from their original form. I also believe other things did not evolve.

[st.cronin]

Heraclitus vs. Parmenides all over again.

[MrBigglesworth]

MrBigglesworth, again no one is doubting the reality of micro-evolution. And hominoids do and did exist in the past. But even your chart has 'best guess' when 'connecting the dots' between the skulls. The missing link is still missing. Said it again.
You said there was no evidence of speciation, I gave you 50 examples. You said there were no intermediate forms, I gave you a graphic with a dozen of just hominids. What more do you want Bubba? I have a feeling God himself would need to come down here, smack you in the face, and tell you to stop being so damn ignorant for you to change your mind.

Give me one piece of scientific evidence for creationism.

[MrBigglesworth]

Can't say I'm the expert on the subject...
Then why do you think you have all the answers? All the experts know that evolution is real.

2. Many other articles and reasons on why certain 'scientists' blindly promote evolution in the face of serious shortfalls within the 'theory.' In fact, an almost complete roll-reversal has taken place in which evolutionists do not tolerate criticism of its 'theory' and will seek to squash any discussion of it in the classroom or in publication of journal articles from other scientists just examining Intelligent Design and its implications.
That's a complete lie. Look at Darwin's book and look at evolution today and it is totally different. You know why? Because scientists have listened to criticisms and made changes to the theory. You know why they don't listen to IDers? BECAUSE THEY DON'T HAVE ANY SCIENCE. Science is an important part of science. If you don't have science, science doesn't have much use for you.

[Mac Howard]

Can't say I'm the expert on the subject, but from what I do read and hear 1. As it states in my link above Micro-evolution (or 'adaption') is not in question (so the turtle shells will start to look different after awhile) but there is no fossil evidence of specie change. As I stated before, the 'missing link' continues to be missing.

That doesn't answer my question at all, Bubba. Why would science, with its almost pedantic insistance on evidence, accept species change if there is no evidence for it?

[famatu]

My thoughts on this issue are pretty simple:

You have two sets of people. You have the people who believe God created everything and everyone and, if they follow the rules of Jesus, they will one day go to be with God when they die.

You also have the athiest/agnositc/whatever you want to call them but they hate god. They spend their whole life trying to convince everyone why they are so sure there is no god. They try try try and try again not really to convince others, but to convince themself.

Here is the problem with this:

If there really is no god, then everyone faces the same fate. You simply die and it is really all over.

If there is a God and you didn't believe and you didn't pray, and you didn't do what it takes to get into Heaven then you are pretty much screwed.

Now, if you are the non-believer, you burn in hell instead of just being dead. On the other hand, in a worst case scenario, the believer lives a good, moral (best that they can with admission of fault along the way) life. They are happy, feel fulfilled, and have a sense of purpose. They also didn't go through life trying to justify why they "didn't believe." If they die and there is no god, well, they had a happy life and now they are dead. BUT, if they die and there is a God (which they whole-heartedly believe there is) then they are rewarded forever.

Conclusion:

Non-believer gets a bad deal when they die either way - hell or "just dead"

Believer gets Heaven or they don't know any better because they are "just dead"

[MrBigglesworth]

Conclusion:

Non-believer gets a bad deal when they die either way - hell or "just dead"

Believer gets Heaven or they don't know any better because they are "just dead"
What about getting a bad deal during life? From various religions, you can't have crazy sex, you can't drink, you can't gamble, you can't curse, you can't sleep in on Sunday, etc.

What if the creator doesn't want people to worship him? What if the creator is none of the religions that are worshipped on the Earth? What if the creator is the Christian God, but hates the way His worshippers have turned into Bubba Wheels? All are equal in probability to one of the world religions being correct.

[famatu]

What about getting a bad deal during life? From various religions, you can't have crazy sex, you can't drink, you can't gamble, you can't curse, you can't sleep in on Sunday, etc.

What if the creator doesn't want people to worship him? What if the creator is none of the religions that are worshipped on the Earth? What if the creator is the Christian God, but hates the way His worshippers have turned into Bubba Wheels? All are equal in probability to one of the world religions being correct.

I have thought of all that but if you are someone who believes in the Bible (which I am) then you will see that literally thousands of prophesies (sp?) are fulfilled over the course of thousands of years. The god of no other time or religion can make that claim. Only the God of the Bible can.

[MrBigglesworth]

I have thought of all that but if you are someone who believes in the Bible (which I am) then you will see that literally thousands of prophesies (sp?) are fulfilled over the course of thousands of years. The god of no other time or religion can make that claim. Only the God of the Bible can.
I had this discussion on another board once, and the only examples of prophecy that he could give me were things that were predicted to happen earlier in the Bible, and then happened later in the Bible. That's not really convincing, it's like saying the Matrix is the one true God because it predicted that Neo would be The One, and he miraculously was.

The others were vague, similar to how TV physics operate, just on the basis of numbers along bound to produce something similar.

[famatu]

I had this discussion on another board once, and the only examples of prophecy that he could give me were things that were predicted to happen earlier in the Bible, and then happened later in the Bible. That's not really convincing, it's like saying the Matrix is the one true God because it predicted that Neo would be The One, and he miraculously was.

The others were vague, similar to how TV physics operate, just on the basis of numbers along bound to produce something similar.

That is true but the Bible does have two parts - the Old Testament (written before Christ) and the New Testament (written after Christ). While I guess if you really want to debate it, there could have been some major editing by the original "Bible Author", I think most of the different parts and chapters were written and found in different places then brought together.

It really comes down to what you believe. I'm happen and secure in my faith and would encourage anyone else to feel the same about whatever it is they believe, no matter how crazy anyone else thinks it is. Nobody can "prove" any of this so why argue about it, right? If the people of the world over the last 2000 - 5000 years all agreed to this we wouldn't have had to fight 90% of the wars that happened!

[st.cronin]

I've said it before, and I'll say it again; our beliefs are not freely chosen.

[Mac Howard]

Non-believer gets a bad deal when they die either way - hell or "just dead"

Believer gets Heaven or they don't know any better because they are "just dead"

That was a lousy argument when it was first put forward (Blaise Pascal maybe?) and it remains a lousy argument when reposted here.

So, we should worship God just in case we may be punished in the after life if we don't, yes? Don't you think, if he exists, God may see through this counterfeit "worship"?

[famatu]

[QUOTE=famatuNon-believer gets a bad deal when they die either way - hell or "just dead"

Believer gets Heaven or they don't know any better because they are "just dead"

That was a lousy argument when it was first put forward (Blaise Pascal maybe?) and it remains a lousy argument when reposted here.

So, we should worship God just in case we may be punished in the after life if we don't, yes? Don't you think, if he exists, God may see through this counterfeit "worship"?[/QUOTE]

Yeah, I'm sure He does see through it and it wouldn't work. I wasn't using it as an "argument" to convince anyone of anything. I'm was just stating the difference in outlook. The outlook of one certainly is 100% sucks and the outlook of the other is much less than 100% sucks

[famatu]

I've said it before, and I'll say it again; our beliefs are not freely chosen.

who chose my beliefs for me?

[MrBigglesworth]

I've said it before, and I'll say it again; our beliefs are not freely chosen.
Yeah, what does this mean?

[st.cronin]

who chose my beliefs for me?

You certainly didn't, not on your own anyway. Try to believe the world is flat - I'm betting you can't do it. The best you'll be able to achieve is acting as though you believe the world is flat.

[Mac Howard]

Yeah, I'm sure He does see through it and it wouldn't work. I wasn't using it as an "argument" to convince anyone of anything. I'm was just stating the difference in outlook. The outlook of one certainly is 100% sucks and the outlook of the other is much less than 100% sucks

The trouble is, famatu, it has been used seriously. I looked it up. Here is Pascal's full argument:

If you erroneously believe in God, you lose nothing (assuming that death is the absolute end), whereas if you correctly believe in God, you gain everything (eternal bliss). But if you correctly disbelieve in God, you gain nothing (death ends all), whereas if you erroneously disbelieve in God, you lose everything (eternal damnation).

Pascal, a brilliant mathematician, was the definitive example of intelligence destroyed by faith.

[st.cronin]

Yeah, what does this mean?

I don't think it's an absolutely true statement; I was just pointing out that trying to convince somebody of the truth of their religious/metaphysical viewpoint is incredibly futile. I honestly can't begin to imagine how deluded somebody would have to be to think that there is no God. I can't even understand what 'there is no God' MEANS.

[Mac Howard]

You certainly didn't, not on your own anyway. Try to believe the world is flat - I'm betting you can't do it. The best you'll be able to achieve is acting as though you believe the world is flat.

Absolutely right. Which is why young children are bombarded with religious messages before they can think for themselves and judge the validity of what they're being told.

[famatu]

The trouble is, famatu, it has been used seriously. I looked it up. Here is Pascal's full argument:



Pascal, a brilliant mathematician, was the definitive example of intelligence destroyed by faith.


In any case, I think it is a correct logic. I personally wouldn't use it as an argument because, being very different than most of my own faith, I could really care less if anyone believes what I believe or "converts." If they want to, great..if not, I'm certainly not going to try to talk them into it. I just have too much to do with my life to care if anyone else believes the same things I do.

[Mac Howard]

In any case, I think it is a correct logic.

Yes it is but it does reveal something I've often found peculiar and that is that many believers seem to have a very poor opinion of the God they believe in :)

[Marc Vaughan]

A scientific theory undergoes enormous investigation of the most brutal and antagonistic kind before it becomes accepted - the idea of "energy" took over 100 years before being accepted. Evolution itself has undergone massive scrutiny and come out smelling of roses - no scientific theory has been so spectacularly successful in predicting new circumstances, new discoveries and in advancing our understanding of the world.
Thats where you and I differ - I accept that evolution is a likely way in which life has developed, yet accept the fact that its still a theory and as such is currently unproven, yet you seem to have accepted it as fact ...

Then you lack any sense of proportion. Confidence in science is light years away from religious faith.
In a lot of ways I agree with you (not least because I'm far from an overly religious person) - however I always try to see both sides of an arguement and where people accept something without fully understanding it I see little difference between the two.

Absolutely! The confimation for science is all around you. Why are you typing on your keyboard if you don't have the same confidence? Confirmation that someone has been healed by God is completely absent.
I have confidence in science (as I mentioned previously I'm far from being overly religious myself) - I'm just trying to indicate why what for you appears an 'illogical' viewpoint, why for other people it might make perfect sense.

Again: you have no sense of proportion. You have no understanding of probabilities. Your thinking is binary.
Heh - what do you expect I'm a programmer ;)

Seriously though, with this arguement there is no 'winner' imho - my personal view is that evolution is definitely possible to a greater or lesser extent but whether its the full cause of the species we see on this planet and the life in the universe we'll probably never know.

I do however dislike people who dismiss others viewpoints as 'illogical' or 'wrong' without acknowledging that they can't disprove them or that they might have personal experiences which lead them to those theories, disagree by all means but as you indicated science should be open to accept the possibility of being wrong and so not simply dismiss something unless it can be 100% disproven.

After all remember 'Occams Razor' - the simplest explanation is often the correct one ;)

[Marc Vaughan]

So, we should worship God just in case we may be punished in the after life if we don't, yes? Don't you think, if he exists, God may see through this counterfeit "worship"?

My personal view of this is that God can't be 'upset' with us over anything let alone counterfeit worship.

Theory being ...

God is omnipotent (ie. knows everything that is, has been and is going to happen)
God created each and everyone of us
Thus he knew what we'd do before we even existed, hence whatever we do its pre-programmed and there isn't any free-will if you believe in an omnipotent God (not that it matters to us really because we percieve things as being our choice, simple beings that we are ;) ).

As such he made me to be a pedantic, questioning git .... so he can hardly complain about it, be like me complaining about bugs in one of my programs ;)

[Mac Howard]

My personal view of this is that God can't be 'upset' with us over anything let alone counterfeit worship.

In fairness the Catholic Church does in fact have such a position. God does not make the decision as to our fate in the after-life based on our actions in this life but through what is called God's Grace and no one knows what path that takes. For some reason known only to him he chooses some and not others. So believing or not believing may have no significance at all.

But as to His grace I once came across a member of a cult that seems to have decided that there are just 2000 such people - exactly where that number comes from I have no idea. Interesting enough though the person that told me seemed to think she was one of them :rolleyes:

Mind you, Pascal's argument could be used to justify her position on that as well along the same lines :)

Of course Pascal is now seen as the village idiot of the mathematical and philosophical worlds :)

[Mac Howard]

Thats where you and I differ - I accept that evolution is a likely way in which life has developed, yet accept the fact that its still a theory and as such is currently unproven, yet you seem to have accepted it as fact ...

You keep on using words like "fact, "belief" and "faith", Mark, and these have no place in the scientific world. To be facetious about it science is the philosophy that says something like "We're probably wrong about this but it's the best we've got so far". Its strength comes from its openess and its embrace of debate. It proceeds by the elimination of error. In today's scientific world experiments set out to refute theories not confirm them (it is easier to disprove than prove). Theories gain credibility on their ability to resist refutation.

Ideas like faith, belief and fact have simply no place in this world because they imply certainty. It's all about probabilities. A theory only approaches truth asymtoptically.

In a lot of ways I agree with you (not least because I'm far from an overly religious person) - however I always try to see both sides of an arguement and where people accept something without fully understanding it I see little difference between the two.

But that acceptance comes down to confidence in the process itself not to individual scientists or even theories. The process is extremely severe on evidence, reproduceability (others must be able to check the data) rationality (faith, belief etc straight out to avoid corrupting bias) and, in the end, acceptance by a significant majority of the scientific community.

At the risk of repeating myself - the concept of "energy" (absolutely crucial and massively influential in our world) took over 100 years before it became acceptable. Faraday (I think it was Faraday) was ridiculed for "reintroducing superstition into the scientific world" when he first put forward the idea and refused entry to the Royal Society.

Science does not accept explanations (I prefer that to theories) without subjecting them to substantial checks and balances and an explanation does not become acceptable until it's been viewed from every angle and had every possible objection dealt with.

Of course there are speculations, theories etc - a whole spectrum of probabilities for these - but evolution has long since passed this stage. Because of its controversial nature - many scientists have religious beliefs - it was subjected to repeated antagonistic testing from every direction and came out with flying colours. I've heard it said that Darwin's theory has surpassed all previous theories in its ability to predict new situations, make new discoveries and generally advance our knowledge of the world.

It's is not a theory that is now held with any scepticism (except by "scientists" who cannot leave behind their religious beliefs). It is a fully fledged, fully accepted part of science which is considered as reliable as the theories that have led to you and I debating the point over 11,000 miles. It's as solid as any scientific theory is. To say "I don't accept it" is like saying "I don't accept electricity".

Confidence in this process is a million miles away from being certain (having faith) in a book written over 2000 years ago by people who thought the world was flat, with no access to the original texts, selected by rabble of contradictory priests intimidated by a politically motivated non-believer from a 100 other texts, copied and translated a dozen times and with a dozen or more competing interpretations and constantly invoking the supernatural, miracles, magic whatever. It's absolutely no contest!

[Honolulu_Blue]

You also have the athiest/agnositc/whatever you want to call them but they hate god.
While I stand with the rest of the folks who have said this theory is silly, I wanted to address this point in particular. While some people may "hate god", I don't believe ahtiests are those people in general. I mean, how can you hate something you don't believe in? Seriously. It's like saying you hate Santa Claus, or unicorns, or elves, or dragons, or underpants gnomes. I cannot hate what I don't believe in. There simpyl is nothing there to hate. It's silly.

[Bubba Wheels]

You keep on using words like "fact, "belief" and "faith", Mark, and these have no place in the scientific world. To be facetious about it science is the philosophy that says something like "We're probably wrong about this but it's the best we've got so far". Its strength comes from its openess and its embrace of debate. It proceeds by the elimination of error. In today's scientific world experiments set out to refute theories not confirm them (it is easier to disprove than prove). Theories gain credibility on their ability to resist refutation.

Ideas like faith, belief and fact have simply no place in this world because they imply certainty. It's all about probabilities. A theory only approaches truth asymtoptically.



But that acceptance comes down to confidence in the process itself not to individual scientists or even theories. The process is extremely severe on evidence, reproduceability (others must be able to check the data) rationality (faith, belief etc straight out to avoid corrupting bias) and, in the end, acceptance by a significant majority of the scientific community.

At the risk of repeating myself - the concept of "energy" (absolutely crucial and massively influential in our world) took over 100 years before it became acceptable. Faraday (I think it was Faraday) was ridiculed for "reintroducing superstition into the scientific world" when he first put forward the idea and refused entry to the Royal Society.

Science does not accept explanations (I prefer that to theories) without subjecting them to substantial checks and balances and an explanation does not become acceptable until it's been viewed from every angle and had every possible objection dealt with.

Of course there are speculations, theories etc - a whole spectrum of probabilities for these - but evolution has long since passed this stage. Because of its controversial nature - many scientists have religious beliefs - it was subjected to repeated antagonistic testing from every direction and came out with flying colours. I've heard it said that Darwin's theory has surpassed all previous theories in its ability to predict new situations, make new discoveries and generally advance our knowledge of the world.

It's is not a theory that is now held with any scepticism (except by "scientists" who cannot leave behind their religious beliefs). It is a fully fledged, fully accepted part of science which is considered as reliable as the theories that have led to you and I debating the point over 11,000 miles. It's as solid as any scientific theory is. To say "I don't accept it" is like saying "I don't accept electricity".

Confidence in this process is a million miles away from being certain (having faith) in a book written over 2000 years ago by people who thought the world was flat, with no access to the original texts, selected by rabble of contradictory priests intimidated by a politically motivated non-believer from a 100 other texts, copied and translated a dozen times and with a dozen or more competing interpretations and constantly invoking the supernatural, miracles, magic whatever. It's absolutely no contest!

In one of the Psalms, this book written 2000 years ago calls the world a 'sphere.' It was your vaunted scientists who were the ones claiming that the world was 'flat.' Just wanted to clear that up for you.

[st.cronin]

In fairness the Catholic Church does in fact have such a position. God does not make the decision as to our fate in the after-life based on our actions in this life but through what is called God's Grace and no one knows what path that takes. For some reason known only to him he chooses some and not others. So believing or not believing may have no significance at all.

But as to His grace I once came across a member of a cult that seems to have decided that there are just 2000 such people - exactly where that number comes from I have no idea. Interesting enough though the person that told me seemed to think she was one of them :rolleyes:

Mind you, Pascal's argument could be used to justify her position on that as well along the same lines :)

Of course Pascal is now seen as the village idiot of the mathematical and philosophical worlds :)


I just want to clear things up on Pascal. He did in fact write out that idea, but later in that same piece (forget where exactly) he rejects it as being insufficient grounds for the religious life. Nobody remembers the dismissal, though, they only remember the hypothesis.

A better example of pragmatic rationale for the religious life is found in William James. He said that a world without God seems bleak to him; a world with God seems joyous. Therefore, he is compelled to believe in the joyous world, because the other way lies madness. I'm simplifying quite a bit.

[MrBigglesworth]

In one of the Psalms, this book written 2000 years ago calls the world a 'sphere.' It was your vaunted scientists who were the ones claiming that the world was 'flat.' Just wanted to clear that up for you.
I bet Copernicus wished religious people could read back when he was alive.

[Icy]

You also have the athiest/agnositc/whatever you want to call them but they hate god. They spend their whole life trying to convince everyone why they are so sure there is no god. They try try try and try again not really to convince others, but to convince themself.
I don't usually like to discuss about religion as there is no way you can convince me or i can convince you. But as long as it's a polite discussion let's try it.

I find weird that you said that non believers are always trying to convince the others that there is no god, but i think it's the oposite, i haven't ever visited a random home to disturb the persons there trying to convince them with my ideas, while some christians do it everyday as part of their mission in life.

Also i don't think that you have seen in your life as much non believers trying to convince believers than the other way. As example what is hapenning in my country Spain right now. There is a fight betwen the church and goberment because the goberment wants to make the religion as something optional instead of obligatory as it is right now in schools. I wonder why is the catholic church as worried about that, they should keep the faith on themlseves about being able to attract more persons to their religion instead of trying to have all the kids learning it in schools by laws. But as somebody said in this thread, they need to bomb all the small kids with their ideas before they can decide by themselves if they believe or not. If me, as parent want my kids to learn religion, i can always bring them to services or to christian schools, but if i don't want, my kids shouldn't be forced to learn that and pass the exams as they do with math for example.

[SirFozzie]

Personally, Evolution died for me when first Randy Orton and then Batista broke away from the group.

(ducks, what?)

[Zippo]

I have thought of all that but if you are someone who believes in the Bible (which I am) then you will see that literally thousands of prophesies (sp?) are fulfilled over the course of thousands of years. The god of no other time or religion can make that claim. Only the God of the Bible can.
there are also many things that contradict the bible along with some things that the bible vaguely predicts.

[Zippo]

After all remember 'Occams Razor' - the simplest explanation is often the correct one ;)

Occam's razor
One entry found for Occam's razor.
Main Entry: Oc·cam's razor
Pronunciation: 'ä-k&mz-
Function: noun
Etymology: William of Occam
: a scientific and philosophic rule that entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily which is interpreted as requiring that the simplest of competing theories be preferred to the more complex or that explanations of unknown phenomena be sought first in terms of known quantities

I think occam's razor means one should always try to explain something in its simplest terms. It does not neccessarily mean that all correct explanations are simple.

[MrBigglesworth]

Occam's razor
One entry found for Occam's razor.
Main Entry: Oc·cam's razor
Pronunciation: 'ä-k&mz-
Function: noun
Etymology: William of Occam
: a scientific and philosophic rule that entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily which is interpreted as requiring that the simplest of competing theories be preferred to the more complex or that explanations of unknown phenomena be sought first in terms of known quantities

I think occam's razor means one should always try to explain something in its simplest terms. It does not neccessarily mean that all correct explanations are simple.
It means that given two competing theories, the simplest is the most likely, I'm not sure if that is what you were trying to say or not. For example:
For example, after a storm you notice that a tree has fallen. Based on the evidence of the storm and the fallen tree, a reasonable hypothesis would be that the storm blew down the tree — a hypothesis that requires you to suspend your disbelief very little, as there exist strong logical connections binding what you already know to this solution (seeing and hearing storms tends to indeed indicate the existence of storms; storms are more than capable of felling trees). A rival hypothesis claiming that the tree was knocked over by marauding 200-metre tall space aliens requires several additional assumptions, with various logical weaknesses resulting from inconsistencies with what is already known (concerning the very existence of aliens, their ability and desire to travel interstellar distances, their ability and desire to (non-)intentionally knock down trees and the alien biology that allows them to be 200 metres tall in terrestrial gravity), and is therefore less preferred.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_Razor

[Zippo]

It means that given two competing theories, the simplest is the most likely, I'm not sure if that is what you were trying to say or not. For example:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_Razor
oh I see...should have paid more attention in philosophy. :D

[Bubba Wheels]

I bet Copernicus wished religious people could read back when he was alive.

Totally different issues. If you knew your history, you would then know that one of the reasons for Martin Luther's protest (hence the beginning of Protestantism) is because the Catholic Church at the time did attempt to keep knowledge of the scriptures with the elites (priests) and way from the people in general. Knowledge is power.

As a sidenote, the reason the printing press was invented in the first place was to be able to disperse the texts of the scriptures into the hands of the people as widespread as possible.

As for Copernicus, that issue was the Earth being the center of the universe, nothing to do with it being flat or not. And this was a conflict between the religious power at the time (Catholic Church) and Copernicus (thought Polocks were supposed to be dumb!) Scripture and faith had nothing to do with it. But your type often confuses faith with religion on these types of issues, probably because you really don't know the difference.

[Mac Howard]

I just want to clear things up on Pascal. He did in fact write out that idea, but later in that same piece (forget where exactly) he rejects it as being insufficient grounds for the religious life..

Yes, I wasn't saying he was the village idiot simply because of that but because of his subsequent demonising of human intelligence in the Pensees.

He was a brilliant mathematician but when he applied this intelligence to matters of theology it led him to ideas directly contradicting revelation. The Catholic theologian St Thomas Aquinas had experienced a similar problem in earlier times.

But, unlike Aquinas who simply shrugged his shoulders and said "must have got that wrong somewhere", he came to the conclusion that either revelation or human intelligence had to go. He chose human intelligence and then turned on it with a venom known only to zealots and declared it an abomination that leads man astray and was the primary cause of Original Sin.

Not something that went down well with the mathematics and philosophical worlds. :)

[Mac Howard]

In one of the Psalms, this book written 2000 years ago calls the world a 'sphere.' It was your vaunted scientists who were the ones claiming that the world was 'flat.' Just wanted to clear that up for you.

There were no "scientists" worthy of the name 2000 years ago, Bubba, other than a handful of Greeks and Egyptians (I leave out the Chinese as I know nothing of their ideas) - these Egyptians not only figured out the world was a sphere but calculated its circumference to a remarkable degree of accuracy from the triangulation of stars from distant points in Egypt.

But for the next 15 hundred years science - better described as investigations of nature - were carried out by Christian and Muslim clerics for the simple reason that they were the only ones outside of the aristocracy that could read and write. There was no conflict between theology and science. Even when Copernicus reintroduced the Greek idea that the sun did not circle the earth but the earth revolved there was little fuss. It was little known outside of clerical/scientific circles and didn't really offend anything biblical - man as the centre of the universe was unnecessary Catholic dogma not biblical. Not a problem. Many Catholic clergy accepted it.

It was a hundred years later that the conflict arose with Galileo and that was much more about political power than theology. Galileo's sin, in the eyes of the Catholic church, was his insistence on publishing his theories for the whole world to see. These theories undermined the Catholic church as the sole source of information about the world and undermined its authority over human intelligence and thought.

Had Galileo not insisted on publishing he would have remained a valued member of the church instead of being put under house arrest.

At this point the discoveries that came from investigations into nature began to deviate from Catholic thinking. The Enlightenment exploded on the scene in Europe and this argued that evidence and reason should replace superstition in our explanations of natural phenonema. As theology is fundamentally based on the supernatural it was inevitable that science and theology should part company. But still scientists remained religious - Isaac Newton, known as the Father of Modern Science, wrote theological treatises that he believed to be more important than his theories in mathematics and mechanics - if sometimes their religious opinions were somewhat out of the mainstream. Of course Protestantism had replaced Catholic dogma with the idea of the individual's relationship with God by then and so individual faiths were not so oulandish. It was easy to mould Protestant theology to fit with emerging science without a visit from the Inquisition.

Nevertheless, from that point on, science and religion separated and the theory of evolution was a very significant part in that. It could even be considered the final break.

Howver, I've just put "evolution" and "catholic church" into Google and been surprised at the result. I think some of those arguing in favour of ID might be equally surprised.

The Catholic church accepts evolution though it insists it takes place under God's guidance. It accepts that the mechanisms that Darwin describes are accurate though missing the guiding hand. It even accepts that man's body may well have come from earlier forms of life. It doesn't disagree with evolution between species. But it insists that what makes man unique is his soul.

That explains why the Catholic church, the dominant church here in Australia, did not argue alongside the ID community in the recent debate here about ID in science classes. Without the existence of an equivalent to America's religious right here the conflict was short-lived and a tko in the first round of the ID case.

Here's what the judge had to say in his summing up of the recent ID court case in Pennsylvania:

"It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID Policy.

"We find that the secular purposes claimed by the board amount to a pretext for the board's real purpose, which was to promote religion in the public school classroom."

In some respects this is a re-run of the Catholic church/Galileo confilct. It's not about theology, it's about power. It's about who controls the thinking of the community. Today religion in year 12 science classes, tomorrow religion in the kindergartens.

Just one interesting point about the relationship of Islam with science. In a speech a few weeks ago by the Prime Minister of Malaysia - a predominantly Muslim country - he argued that the problem with the world of Islam was that, despite being prominent in science for a thousand years, it had never experienced an equivalent to the period of Enlightenment and was locked back 500 years in a medieval world that it would have to shake off if it were to take his rightful place in the world community.

[MrBigglesworth]

Totally different issues. If you knew your history, you would then know that one of the reasons for Martin Luther's protest (hence the beginning of Protestantism) is because the Catholic Church at the time did attempt to keep knowledge of the scriptures with the elites (priests) and way from the people in general. Knowledge is power.

As a sidenote, the reason the printing press was invented in the first place was to be able to disperse the texts of the scriptures into the hands of the people as widespread as possible.

As for Copernicus, that issue was the Earth being the center of the universe, nothing to do with it being flat or not. And this was a conflict between the religious power at the time (Catholic Church) and Copernicus (thought Polocks were supposed to be dumb!) Scripture and faith had nothing to do with it. But your type often confuses faith with religion on these types of issues, probably because you really don't know the difference.
The point being that many Christian writers wrote about a flat earth, and a round earth being not in accordance with scripture. It wasn't until scientific instruments and Arab astronomy came to Europe that the round earth model was considered correct. Saying the Church knew while 'our scientists' floundered with a flat earth model is not a reasonable conclusion.

[Bubba Wheels]

The point being that many Christian writers wrote about a flat earth, and a round earth being not in accordance with scripture. It wasn't until scientific instruments and Arab astronomy came to Europe that the round earth model was considered correct. Saying the Church knew while 'our scientists' floundered with a flat earth model is not a reasonable conclusion.

You just blew it. I knew sooner or later your ignorance would catch up to you (about scriptures in general) but all you had to do was read my posts and you couldn't even do that right. As I clearly stated and showed before, scriptures state that the earth was a 'sphere.' No where does it ever say anything about the earth being flat. Acordance with scriptures? Who gave you that one, your 'science' teacher? Go read some more, your arguments lack merit.

[Marc Vaughan]

I'm afraid I believe MrBigglesworth was correct when he mentions that round/flat earth was a subject of debate within the christian faith. There are scriptures for and against both sides of the arguement available ...

For instance in favour of a flat earth:

Daniel 4:7-8, "I saw a tree of great height at the center of the world. It was large and strong, with its top touching the heavens, and it could be seen from the ends of the earth."
This was allegedly an inspired dream, yet it conveys a flat-earth concept, because no matter how tall a tree would be, people on the other side of a spherical earth could not see it.

Matthew 4:8, "The devil took him (Jesus) to a very high mountain and displayed before him all the kingdoms of the world in their magnificence...."
The only plausible reason for the "very high mountain" was that the altitude would make it possible to see to the ends of the earth. Only on a flat earth would this be remotely possible, so the New Testament writers were as ignorant as the Old.

PS> In case you're interested the wikipedia has a decent section on 'flat earth' and the church's varied views upon it at different stages of history:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_earth

[SFL Cat]

Of course, you also have scriptures like Isaiah 40:22 which says God sits above 'the circle of the earth' (the Hebrew word for 'circle' can also mean a 'sphere'). Also, Luke 17:34-36 depicts Christ's Second Coming as happening while some are asleep at night and others are working at day-time activities in the field-an indication of a rotating earth with day and night at the same time.

[Marc Vaughan]

Of course, you also have scriptures like Isaiah 40:22 which says God sits above 'the circle of the earth' (the Hebrew word for 'circle' can also mean a 'sphere'). Also, Luke 17:34-36 depicts Christ's Second Coming as happening while some are asleep at night and others are working at day-time activities in the field-an indication of a rotating earth with day and night at the same time.
Yeah wasn't denying that - just trying to indicate that both arguements could quote scripture to back their stance up ....

[Mac Howard]

Of course, you also have scriptures like Isaiah 40:22 which says God sits above 'the circle of the earth' (the Hebrew word for 'circle' can also mean a 'sphere').The circle is fully compatible with the flat earth view of the world.

My point was that the religious texts were written at a time when our understanding of the world was extremely limited. Apart from a few Egyptian astronomers (a better description than scientists, I think) the world's population at large believed the world to be flat, the sun to move around the earth etc etc. That the bible says otherwise is pure revisionism.

It's often said, mainly by scientists wanting to have their cake and eat it, that science and religion deal with different things. In fact they both set out to do the same thing: help us understand and explain the incredible universe we live in. Religion, of course, precedes science and its explanations come from a much earlier time. The first religious explanations ascribed individual supernatural beings to all of the phenomena that were important to us: the sun, the moon, the rain, the sea, war, love etc all had their individual gods - superhuman beings whose character reflected the phenomena they explained. Even alcohol had its god Bacchus - being drunk was believed to be a religious experience :)

Being dependant on the phenomena for our survival we worshiped these beings in the hope that the capricious nature of the phenomena would be controlled to our benefit. These gods were often as unreliable as nature itself.

This evolved ;) into monotheism: the idea that one god was responsible for it all. But still the explanations for our world came out of superstition and desperation (for survival). God didn't just create it all but, in reaction to prayer and our obedience, he would interfere with nature compassionately and protect us from the worst of its perils.

That evolution took place in what we today call Israel/Palestine and Persia. These were on the trade routes from Egypt - the dominant commercial country - and India/China and between Egypt and Greece and Rome. The merchants brought with them the religions of the east and the philosophies of Greece. Christianity in particular is often seen as a synthesis of Buddhism and Hellenistic philosophy. Jerusalem became a hotbed of religious fervour.

For around a couple of millenia the priesthood and the "scientists" were the same people. The reason we still call scientific theories "laws" was because these early scientists believed that they were discovering God's laws governing nature. Newton's Laws of Motion were in fact God's laws governing motion, even for Newton (who was very religious).

But around 500 years ago the discoveries from science began to raise ideas that conflicted with religious explanations. Because religion wielded considerable political power through its supposed access to the truth, this new source of knowledge was a threat to that power and the concept of faith - continuing to believe the religious ideas regardless new understanding - was set against the new 'science".

The new ideas in science produced enormous advances in understanding and, through technology, improved our living standards by leaps and bounds and its credibility soared until it split away from religion. Science and faith became two completely different approaches to knowledge and in constant conflict - even yesterday the Pope spent much of his Christmas message warning of the dangers of technology.

In the Christian world religion for some morphed into one far more accomodating to scientific discovery, Protestantism, while Catholicism continues to hang on to its dogmas until ridicule causes them to change. The Muslim world remains locked in the medieval world of the 14th century.

Religion and science are part of the same evolution of our understanding of the world. They coexist today because science's criteria for validity - that there should be evidence to support any theory - precludes it from giving answers to such questions as "why the world?", "what's our purpose?". Religion, with its far less severe criteria, gives answers for those who cannot cope with "we don't know". To retain some credibility religion often hangs on to its former explanations of phenomena, developed when our world view was so much cruder, through faith - continue to believe regardless of the contrary evidence and argument (or else? :) )

ID and the opposition to the theory of evolution illustrates this perfectly. As the judge in the Pennsylvania judgement has said, it is merely religious people hanging on to their beliefs in the fear that the whole edifice might collapse as yet more of the dogma is relinquished.

[MrBigglesworth]

You just blew it. I knew sooner or later your ignorance would catch up to you (about scriptures in general) but all you had to do was read my posts and you couldn't even do that right. As I clearly stated and showed before, scriptures state that the earth was a 'sphere.' No where does it ever say anything about the earth being flat. Acordance with scriptures? Who gave you that one, your 'science' teacher? Go read some more, your arguments lack merit.
Mac Howard pwn3d you on your knowledge of scripture. I don't know a lot about scripture, but I have a decent understanding of history, which is how I know that the church had different scholars that said that the earth was flat.

Bubba helps to illustrate the genius of the Bible. Any issue can be argued back and forth citing various obscure verses. It allows someone of one age to argue for slavery and for hating on the gays based on their 'religious convictions', then allows people of a later age to argue against the same. The Bible has some wonderful wisdom in it, I just distrust anyone who says that they are the authority on its meaning.

[Whar]

Place a clock and lump of coal on a table. I can look at both and fairly easily discern that one was made by intelligent design.

I alway get a chuckle out of this arguement. It really misplaces the concept of complexity. With training and patience I could become a mediocore clock-maker. I will never be able to make a lump of coal!

Lets drop the coal for the table and replace it with an infant, a massive increase in complexity. Does the clock naturally reproduce? Give the infant about 18 or 19 years and a little alcohol and it will. This reproductive process is entirely natural and contains many avenues to introduce changes and varitions between parent and offspring. The entire process occurs generation after generation without any Intelligent Designer becoming involved.

So how does the clock even compare to this process? Quite frankly it doesn't. It does not have the complexity to exist without a creator.

A second theme is the attacks on those that question evolution. The issue here is not the venom of the attacks, which I concede can be extreme, but rather the nature of the questions. When the theory of Puncuated Equilibrium was put forward it was attacked viscously as well. Called Punk Eek or Evolution by Jerks by its opponents. It is this harsh environment that ensures only strong, robust ideas endure. Intelligent Design is an idea that was address 100 years ago and found lacking. Yet no matter how often science readdresses this question it keeps returning, almost exclusively by those outside the field of Biology. Having thoroughly answered this question over and over and over and over again it can make people a bit testy.

[Mac Howard]

What troubles me most about much of the ID argument is how little the authors seem to understand of what science is. Repeatedly I hear argument that reveals considerable ignorance of the scientific process. Science isn't merely another "faith". In fact it's the very opposite of faith - it's rusted-on scepticism. It is a completely different way of looking at the world.

The first paragraph of Russell's History of Western Philosophy on science goes like this:

Almost everything that distinguishes the modern world from earlier centuries is attributable to science, which achieved its most spectacular triumphs in the seventeenth century. The Italian Renaissance, though not medieval, is not modern; it is more akin to the best age of Greece. The sixteenth century, with its absorption in theology, is more medieval than the world of Machievelli. The modern world, so far as mental outlook is concerned, begins in the seventeenth century. No Italian of the Renaissance would have been unintelligible to Plato or Aristotle; Luther would have horrified Thomas Aquinas, but it would not have difficult for him to understand. With the seventeenth century it is different; Plato and Aristotle, Aquinas and Occam, could not have made head or tail of Newton

Read that last sentence again - it is an astonishing statement. It says that the change in the mental approach that occurred through the seventeenth century was of such a nature that even the best minds of earlier times couldn't understanding the new thinking.

Another author, whose name I now forget, put it this way. That if you were to talk to a 16th century man then you would find him appallingly childish. With little understanding of the phenomena around him his world was full of magic, superstition, devils and god. Everything was explained by invoking the supernatural. He had no trouble with the burning of "witches" - the devil was clearly in them. Disease? God's punishment on man.

A natural explanation for things was alien to him.

Throughout the 17th century the idea of natural explanation backed up by human reason took hold encouraged by the enormous success of investigations in astronomy and physics.

Descartes gave the ideas their intellectual justification. We all know his famous dictum - it is the very essence of science.

As the starting point of his philosophy Descartes needed something that was obvious for all people - something no one could possibly deny. The answer is there in the question "what do we all experience". The answer: we all experience.

No matter whether we consider the world external to ourselves or creations of our mind we all experience it. And that experience is via the thought process itself. Therefore "I think, therefore I am".

The undeniable thing he needed is that we experience things via thought.

Experience and thought - observation and reason - the very essence of the scientific process.

The change that took place was to replace superstition with reason and the supernatural with the natural. The idea - that all phenomena could explained through observation and reason. Just because something is not understood at this moment in time does not mean we need invoke the supernatural. Work at it, accumulate knowledge and the explanations will come.

No need to invoke god.

Of course we can't all experience everything so we need some system of confirmation of experiences and the explanations that come from these and that comes with the formal scientific community headed, at the time, by the Royal Society. This is a society of conservative, reliable individuals who would demand that all scientific "theories" are fully supported by being repeated, tested - put through the ringer - and accepted by the entire community before receiving the stamp of approval.

A priesthood? Well, of sorts. But at the heart of this is the embrace of debate and encouragement for refutation - the modern idea is that all experiment should be set up to DISPROVE a theory - that banishes individual bias. Unlike, faith which rejects alternative argument, science insists that all alternative views must be given full attention and investigated in the same way that a theory is.

The confidence in a theory increases as the efforts to disprove it fail.

Whereas faith's tenets survive by ignoring all contrary evidence and argument, science's survive specifically by addressing and answering both.

As a result of this approach to the validity of explanation our world has been transformed more in the last 3 centuries than in the previous 100,000 years. 200 years ago we died at 30, now we die at 75. In another 200 we'll probably have banished death. Lumps of metal containing 500 people fly them around the world in a couple of days. This machine in front of the you (the computer) is the result of billions of hours of scientific research and study and allows you to read this written 15,000 miles away only a short time ago. Every aspect of your life today is infused with science.

Clearly I'm not saying that non-scientists fail to understand science in the way a 16th century man would - we're all continually and totally surrounded by the results of science and the thinking of every individual today is casually, if not formally, scientific (think of the way you would solve the problem of a car that doesn't start by creating theories of the cause and gradually eliminating them until you find the actual cause - that is the scientific process) - but the specific rationale behind science is little understood even by many scientists (scientific philosophy isn't even taught in science classes). And it is this failure that causes the lack of understanding of the scientific validation of the theory of evolution.

The theory of evolution is not as Mark Vaughan said "merely a theory" as if no better than an explanation from faith. Scientifically, it's as solid as any theory you care to name. Because of its controversial nature it's been put through the ringer of refutational experiment and debate like no other theory. Many scientists, being religious, have approached it with a rabid antagonism.

But it has come out of all this smelling of roses. It has been spectacularly successful in predicting new observations, previously existing life forms. Now, with DNA, it is being tested yet again in ways that it could never have anticipated and again it's passing with flying colours.

The theory of evolution is a natural and rational explanation of the development of life on this planet. There is no need for the supernatural. There is no contrary evidence to it, there is no worthwhile contrary argument.

[Marc Vaughan]

Read that last sentence again - it is an astonishing statement. It says that the change in the mental approach that occurred through the seventeenth century was of such a nature that even the best minds of earlier times couldn't understanding the new thinking.
An interesting but also unscientific and hype based quote .... how does the individual concerned know that was the case, he doesn't but it makes interesting reading and keeps people who want to believe it excited in the piece he's writing.

The theory of evolution is not as Mark Vaughan said "merely a theory" as if no better than an explanation from faith. Scientifically, it's as solid as any theory you care to name. Because of its controversial nature it's been put through the ringer of refutational experiment and debate like no other theory. Many scientists, being religious, have approached it with a rabid antagonism.

It is as you readily admit still a 'theory' ... a theory is a theory, that is its unproven as such. Yes its been tested and so far held up fairly well, but that doesn't change the fact its a theory.

I find it somewhat ironic that most people supporting scientific principles insist on how they are stress tested to destruction, yet find it hard to admit small things like a 'theory' being a theory ... somewhat odd considering they champion science as being dispassionate and logical.

ID and God in general is something which many aetheists hate simply because they are inherantly untestable and impossible to prove or disprove, however as a 'theory' they have had their fair share of doubters and people approaching them with 'rabid antagonism' (of which you're just the latest in line Mac ;) ) ... however despite this its still a valid theory and hasn't been disproven (nor will it ever be imho).

With regards to there being no 'need' for the supernatural, if religious beliefs help people lead happier more helpful (to society) lives than they might otherwise I personally believe that they are fulfilling a human need whether true or not.

I find it strange that some people insist on attempting to dislodge an individuals religious beliefs simply because they personally don't agree with them - at the end of the day if they don't hurt you and make someone else happy then what harm do they do?

If it helps think of it along the lines of kids and santa, believing in Santa makes xmas extra special for them - few people would destroy a childs faith in Santa before they naturally decide he doesn't exist.

As such you might perceive yourself to be more mature and aware than other people (ie. you've discovered that Santa/religion isn't real) ... but that doesn't mean it gives you the right to trample upon other peoples feelings, or indeed that doing so will make the world a better place*.

*And indeed you run the risk of being put on Santa's naughty list if he IS real ;)

[Mac Howard]

As mentioned before, Mark, you suffer from intellectual relativism - the idea that all theories are equal. Let's check your faith in this:

Here are two theories about Skydog:

1) he's a five headed, three legged, one eyed monster that eats babies for breakfast
2) he's a one headed, two legged, two eyed humanoid that prefers bacon and egg

In answer to this, Mark, allocate approximate probabilities for these two theories.

On your second point: this is a debate about the theory of evolution. If anyone is likely to have their feelings hurt by those arguing for the theory then they are better off not listening to the debate. That is their choice. To expect posters to dilute their argument in order to avoid offence is to undermine the debate - heat and kitchen stuff!

[WVUFAN]

The theory of evolution is a natural and rational explanation of the development of life on this planet. There is no need for the supernatural. There is no contrary evidence to it, there is no worthwhile contrary argument.
Well, the word "worthwhile" is a subjective term, but you are correct -- there's no widely accepted contracy argument -- YET. The basis of science is that is ever-changing, and it's not wise to consider something a pure fact, because that is where you would fail as a scientist. Even something as seemingly as "factual" as gravity isn't proven, and as history proves, new, radical theories that replace set-in-stone "factual" theories happen all the time. So, let's establish that evolution is a theory and should be treated as such.

Now, as a Christian, I believe that the world was created by God -- this isn't a challengable assertion, because there's no way I can prove that happened -- I simply believe it. Faith is screwy that way; you really don't need to prove it. I believe that God set things in motion and allow nature to take it's course. I also believe this isn't what we should be teaching in school.

Religion has no place in a discussion of science because by inserting faith in the discussion in any way flies in the face of the idea of science. Ultimately, it's up to parents to teach or discuss religion -- not the school.

[Mac Howard]

Well, the word "worthwhile" is a subjective term, but you are correct -- there's no widely accepted contracy argument -- YET. The basis of science is that is ever-changing, and it's not wise to consider something a pure fact, because that is where you would fail as a scientist.

I would fully agree with that and have stated in the posts above that no scientific theory is considered fact. The theory of evolution at this point is highly probable - ID highly improbable.

Now, as a Christian, I believe that the world was created by God -- this isn't a challengable assertion, because there's no way I can prove that happened -- I simply believe it.

I'm not being obtuse but why? Why do you accept something that has no evidence and cannot be rationally argued?

[WVUFAN]

I'm not being obtuse but why? Why do you accept something that has no evidence and cannot be rationally argued?
That's a fair question. The long answer is that I refuse to believe that this world, this culture, the human body and our ability to rationalize and question even our own existance happened without a guiding force directing it. I'm no scientist, but I like to think I reason logically -- I completely understand that faith is illogical at it's source, but I just simply cannot believe that we formed due to a random set of circumstances.

The short answer is because I was raised to believe in God. I went to church every weekend. I read the Bible and was showed the parts in it that appealed to me. But, basically, I was raised to believe. I don't drink the Kool-aid and believe that every single word of the Bible is true, but I do like the think the underlying concept is solid and something a person can build around.

I also differ from many Christians in that I will share my beliefs if I'm asked, but I don't think it's right for me to force what I believe on anyone else.

[Mac Howard]

That's a fair question. The long answer is that I refuse to believe that this world, this culture, the human body and our ability to rationalize and question even our own existance happened without a guiding force directing it. I'm no scientist, but I like to think I reason logically -- I completely understand that faith is illogical at it's source, but I just simply cannot believe that we formed due to a random set of circumstances.

But, as I'm sure you know, WVUFAN, that that answer has its problems. You say you cannot accept this level of sophistication merely happening yet you accept an increased level of sophistication in the god that you use to explain the first away.

At some point, assuming linear time - which may well not be a reasonable assumption - you have to accept something coming into existence from nothing.

Your explanation for the universe assumes something equally or even more unlikely.

The short answer is because I was raised to believe in God. I went to church every weekend. I read the Bible and was showed the parts in it that appealed to me. But, basically, I was raised to believe.

That makes much more sense. It is, of course, why religious organisations like to get to people while they're young and unable to question what they're being told. Once the belief in instilled then it often stays for the want of the effort and pain to remove it.

I also differ from many Christians in that I will share my beliefs if I'm asked, but I don't think it's right for me to force what I believe on anyone else.

I normally take the same position but from my agnostic point of view. However in the case of ID it concerns me that there are attempts to introduce this religious theory into schools where my 10 year old daughter is likely to be taught what I argue is a highly unlikely explanation. So, when people argue for ID, then I argue against it as powerfully as I can.

[Marc Vaughan]

I normally take the same position but from my agnostic point of view. However in the case of ID it concerns me that there are attempts to introduce this religious theory into schools where my 10 year old daughter is likely to be taught what I argue is a highly unlikely explanation. So, when people argue for ID, then I argue against it as powerfully as I can.
I can understand your stance Mac - however the approach I've taken with my kids so far has been to allow them to be exposed to the various explanations but to encourage them to be questioning about them.

The theory being simply that they're going to hear them at one time or another so and as such I won't be able to protect my kids from views which are contrary to my own forever (ie. the ones which are 'wrong' ;) ) ... thus I'd prefer them to be questioning and make their own minds up.

This has several nice knock-ons, it teaches them some responsibility, initiative and sometimes it can lead to interesting family conversations which might not have occurred otherwise (oh and sometimes Haley* asks me questions I'd never have thought of myself :D).

*My eldest daughter (11)

[Marc Vaughan]

As mentioned before, Mark, you suffer from intellectual relativism - the idea that all theories are equal. Let's check your faith in this:

Here are two theories about Skydog:

1) he's a five headed, three legged, one eyed monster that eats babies for breakfast
2) he's a one headed, two legged, two eyed humanoid that prefers bacon and egg

In answer to this, Mark, allocate approximate probabilities for these two theories.
I'd say its probably around 50-50 .... (ducks and runs) ;)

More seriously though I know what you're indicating - however at this moment both theories have limited backup and support to be frank.

Problems with evolution link:
http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/pe00cont.html

Similar but from a 'pro-evolution' stance (ie. evidence in favour of it):
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wells/iconob.html

Finally an advert showing scientific dissent from Evolution for no particular reason:
http://www.discovery.org/articleFiles/PDFs/100ScientistsAd.pdf

Evolution has a certain amount of 'evidence' through fossils etc. - however it also has a certain amount of evidence which could in theory disprove it (ie. missing links, time records on some fossils etc.).

I personally think that Evolution makes sense from a logical perspective, especially taking into account minor changes in species due to environmental conditions which can be seen and tested.

However because Evolution is still a theory, I'd prefer to keep an open mind about alternative theories which are still 'open'.

(It'll probably not shock you to know that I also believe in UFO's and aliens ;) )

On your second point: this is a debate about the theory of evolution. If anyone is likely to have their feelings hurt by those arguing for the theory then they are better off not listening to the debate. That is their choice. To expect posters to dilute their argument in order to avoid offence is to undermine the debate - heat and kitchen stuff!
'tis fair enough I suppose ...

[Mac Howard]

I'd say its probably around 50-50 .... (ducks and runs) ;)

Well I didn't want to insult the boss - with more imagination I could have forced you to at least 40/60 ;)

More seriously though I know what you're indicating - however at this moment both theories have limited backup and support to be frank.

The scientific world is not in any doubt. I took this from the second of your links:

the experts in each field have explicitly stated that the evidence in their field supports evolutionary theory, and further they have supported their statements with evidentiary arguments

Problems with evolution link:
http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/pe00cont.html

I've seen Flew in a documentary. He's not nearly as 'converted" as the anti-evolutionists make out and he's not impressed by the way his views are being used. He has some doubts about the time scales and move from non-life to life though he only expresses scepticism and not an alternative answer. He makes it plain he fully accepts the theory outside of these. I recall mathematicians pointing out that the time scales are ok - they only seem too short but three billion years is a long time that is difficult to visualise for us ordinary mortals.

The time scale argument was hammered out over a century ago with an alternative evolutionary theory called Lamarckian Evolution. Lamarck, prior to Darwin, argued that advantageous behaviour learned during a creature's lifetime was genetically encoded and passed on to the offspring instead of the longer process of selection by survival which takes several generations. But no evidence at all of this genetic modification could be found, nor any convincing mechanism that could cause this put forward and the idea was consigned to the garbage bin. But there was considerable debate and conflict over this including the disgraceful fixing of evidence by Lamarckians following Darwin's publication of his theory.

And at over 80 I think Flew's having an each way bet ;)

Similar but from a 'pro-evolution' stance (ie. evidence in favour of it):
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wells/iconob.html

The above points out how anti-evolutionists will deliberately distort evidence to support their case. In the Pennsylvania ID case the judge openly accuses the ID witnesses of lieing.

Evolution has a certain amount of 'evidence' through fossils etc. - however it also has a certain amount of evidence which could in theory disprove it (ie. missing links, time records on some fossils etc.).

There is enormous amounts of evidence. Bearing in mind the difficulty of finding remains from thousand and millions of years ago the fossil record is astonishingly complete. Much of the "filling in" coming directly from chasing up predictions from the theory. Only three weeks ago we had another example. The theory predicts that there should be a land equivalent of the whale - that the whale did not reach its present condition in the sea. It was reported that some material was found - too little to say what the creature was. They were however able to carry out a DNA test - it was identical to the whale's DNA. The find was at a location that wasn't even remotely near the sea when the material was deposited.

Of course it could have had something to do with Jonah - just a theory ;)

DNA in fact is now bringing a whole new area of supporting evidence not excluding that we share around 99% of our DNA with chimps which must upset the "I'm not a monkey's uncle" crowd a bit :)

I personally think that Evolution makes sense from a logical perspective, especially taking into account minor changes in species due to environmental conditions which can be seen and tested.

It occurs in the lab. Experiments with simple lifeforms reveal the process in the lab.

One of the early treatments for AIDS used the mutation of the HIV virus to control the illness.

If we all get bird flu it'll be because of mutation :rolleyes:

However because Evolution is still a theory, I'd prefer to keep an open mind about alternative theories which are still 'open'.

Theories vary from wild speculation to checked and tested for a couple of hundred years. Some theories are far closer to the truth than others. Here are two theories:

The earth is flat
The earth is a sphere

Neither is 100% correct but the second is far closer to reality than the first and even Galileo, when the theory was far less obvious than today, was right to argue that the first was wrong on the basis of the second.

Some theories are better than others and theories that rely on unwitnessed supernatural beings come way down the list.

(It'll probably not shock you to know that I also believe in UFO's and aliens ;) )

Not any more ;)

[Marc Vaughan]

Theories vary from wild speculation to checked and tested for a couple of hundred years. Some theories are far closer to the truth than others. Here are two theories:

The earth is flat
The earth is a sphere
These are wholly testable and discountable theories however - whereas Evolution isn't truly testable simply because of the scope of the theory.

It occurs in the lab. Experiments with simple lifeforms reveal the process in the lab.
One of the early treatments for AIDS used the mutation of the HIV virus to control the illness.
If we all get bird flu it'll be because of mutation
Mutation isn't quite the same as evolution however because the scope of changes mooted during evolution are much larger than have been managed during any of the controlled experiments which have been undertaken.

DNA in fact is now bringing a whole new area of supporting evidence not excluding that we share around 99% of our DNA with chimps which must upset the "I'm not a monkey's uncle" crowd a bit
Its not a fact which proves evolution however - if you do a word analysis I'm sure you can find that 90%+ of the words used in say the bible correspond with those found in the Lord of the Rings ... doesn't prove that one book evolved into the other ;)

Quote:
(It'll probably not shock you to know that I also believe in UFO's and aliens )

Not any more
Incidentally DO you believe in aliens? - I ask out of interest because I do believe in evolution (although personally as I've mentioned I don't discount the chance of ID being behind it) and for similar reasons believe in the existance of aliens (ie. it makes logical sense to presume that if life can happen here then with an infinite number of planets its only logical to presume it'll happen elsewhere also).

[Kodos]

I also differ from many Christians in that I will share my beliefs if I'm asked, but I don't think it's right for me to force what I believe on anyone else.

Things would be so much better if more Christians would adopt this philosophy. It's the ones who don't who bring out strong arguments against stuff like ID. I have no problem if someone believes in their heart that God is behind evolution. Maybe he created everything and evolution is the tool he uses to continue changing things. That's absolutely fine to believe in my book (even though I don't believe it myself).

ID becomes something that must be fought against when it is pawned off as being a legitimate scientific theory, for the reasons that Mac Howard has cited in this thread and others as well. If Christians were happy to believe what they believe and not try to force their beliefs onto others (or into secular school classes), there wouldn't be much of a debate here. I am an atheist who has gradually shifted toward agnosticism over time, and I would never deliberately try to undermine someone's faith as long as they weren't trying to force others to adopt their point of view. If you believe in God, then more power to you. Just don't try to force your view on me or force your pseudoscientific theory into the classroom and everyone can coexist with a minimum of tension. If you make assertions that are not based on good science and try to put ID on the same ground as evolutionary theory, you are going to have a fight on your hands every time.

[Kodos]

Incidentally DO you believe in aliens? - I ask out of interest because I do believe in evolution (although personally as I've mentioned I don't discount the chance of ID being behind it) and for similar reasons believe in the existance of aliens (ie. it makes logical sense to presume that if life can happen here then with an infinite number of planets its only logical to presume it'll happen elsewhere also).

I do. :)


BTW, saying evolution is not a "fact" to discount it is weak. No theory can ever become a fact, but you can develop a high degree of confidence that a theory is correct based on how well is holds up under scrutiny and tests. As Mac says, evolution has been run through the ringer more thoroughly than just about any theory out there. Gravity is also just a theory, yet I suspect you have confidence that you aren't going to be flung out into space by the Earth's rotation.

[Marc Vaughan]

BTW, saying evolution is not a "fact" to discount it is weak. No theory can ever become a fact, but you can develop a high degree of confidence that a theory is correct based on how well is holds up under scrutiny and tests. As Mac says, evolution has been run through the ringer more thoroughly than just about any theory out there. Gravity is also just a theory, yet I suspect you have confidence that you aren't going to be flung out into space by the Earth's rotation.

Please note - I'm not discounting evolution, I personally do believe in it, however I accept that this is a 'belief' and not a fact.

A theory can change into a fact if a situation where the theory can be tested is found.

For instance the other theory you mention 'Gravity' - the reason it is a theory isn't that scientists accept there is a force keeping us on this planet, however there is still debate over the nature of that force and its interaction with the world around us.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity

Has a fairly lengthy section on Gravity and a few interesting tid-bits, not least some of the newer alternative theories about it.

The arguement I'm making with Evolution is identical to the one which many scientists are making with regards to the theory of Gravity - yes Evolution as its generally presented is a pretty good theory, however its unproven and is likely to evolve and improve in the future ... possibly to the extent that its largely unrecognisable (time will tell).

[Kodos]

Evolutionary theory itself evolving? Inconceivable!!! ;)

[MrBigglesworth]

However because Evolution is still a theory, I'd prefer to keep an open mind about alternative theories which are still 'open'.
There are no competing theories. None with any evidence, anyway. Even comparing ID to evolution is like comparing Helios to gravity.

[-Mojo Jojo-]

Its not a fact which proves evolution however - if you do a word analysis I'm sure you can find that 90%+ of the words used in say the bible correspond with those found in the Lord of the Rings ... doesn't prove that one book evolved into the other ;)


If the text in the Bible and the text in LOTR matched 90%+ I think you could reasonably conclude that one was plagiarized (er, evolved from) the other. The comparison you're making is like asking whether the DNA had the same base pairs (which, of course, it does). This, perhaps, could suggest that they are written in the same language. But it's a poor analogy to a 99% DNA match...

[Marc Vaughan]

There are no competing theories. None with any evidence, anyway. Even comparing ID to evolution is like comparing Helios to gravity.
There are definitely at least a few competing theories out there - most of them different strands of the main evolution theory (in a similar manner to how there are many different theories of the details of Gravity kicking around) ...

These will differ somewhat in some aspects from one another, some more or less so than others.

This is what I'm trying to indicate Evolution while accepted is still a theory and isn't cut and dried yet, everyone accepts that it makes sense and its likely to be right - but the details and suchlike are far from concrete, as such its still a theory and indeed the final picture which we come to in 'x' years time could be far from what is accepted currently.

For an example of what I'm trying to say (very poorly from the replies I've been getting ;) ) ...

http://www.hhmi.org/cgi-bin/askascientist/highlight.pl?kw=&file=answers%2Fgeneral%2Fans_045.html

This briefly discusses two different theories on the evolution of humans, with regards to how humans spread around the globe (the 'out of Africa' and 'mitochondrial Eve' theories).

Something which might interest people is:

http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/eldredge.html

Its a history of the evolution of well ... the theory of evolution, since it was first mooted. This shows the type of changes which can occur in such a theory as more facts are discovered and the theory is fine tuned and adjusted to fit the new information which has been discovered.

[Marc Vaughan]

If the text in the Bible and the text in LOTR matched 90%+ I think you could reasonably conclude that one was plagiarized (er, evolved from) the other. The comparison you're making is like asking whether the DNA had the same base pairs (which, of course, it does). This, perhaps, could suggest that they are written in the same language. But it's a poor analogy to a 99% DNA match...
I'll have to admit I'm flying largely in the dark with regards to DNA (sorry but my science didn't go that far) ...

I've always presumed that the DNA matching which is quoted is along the lines of the 'ingredients' in humans and chimps being largely the same - not particularly in the same order in the stack ..

ie. I make coffee by getting a cup, putting coffee in, then milk then hot-water. You might make coffee by getting a cup, putting hot water in then milk then coffeee ... both will end up with the same ingredients present but placed in a different order.

This is why I used the book analogy - its comparing the words present in the book not the order or usage of the book (its a fairly safe bet that there'd be a reasonable correlation percentage-wise between any two books in the same language on words used - simply because the most common words would be found in both frequently).

If you wouldn't mind can you explain (in idiot speak if possible :D) what base-pairs are ...

[MrBigglesworth]

There are definitely at least a few competing theories out there - most of them different strands of the main evolution theory (in a similar manner to how there are many different theories of the details of Gravity kicking around) ...
Yes, but those are all theories of gravity or theories of evolution. They each attempt to explain gravity and/or evolution in greater detail than what we already know, not to say that the fundamentals behind gravity and/or evolution was wrong.

Yes, scientists have to be open to amending their theories based off of new evidence. Evolution changes as a theory all the time. I just don't like the 'competing theories' argument because ID'ers use it to give ID some kind of validity which it doesn't have. ID is to evolution as the Greek's Helios is to gravity: it's possible that a god pulls the sun across the sky every day, but there is no evidence for it, and gravity seems to explain it pretty well.

[SFL Cat]

For 80 years scientists have been experimenting with the lowly fruit fly (Drosophila), trying to prove that all life on planet earth is the result of a series of `good accidents,' since evolution is supposedly governed by random natural processes.

Evolutionists, through a marvelous leap of faith, believe that the almost endless variety and complexity of plants and animals `evolved' from an ancient pool of `primordial soup' made possible by millions and billions of mutations and the process of natural selection. For example, an early fish grew a new kind of fin which helped him swim faster and escape his enemies. These fins later developed into legs so the fish could walk on land, oh and let's not forget about the gills becoming lungs so the fish didn't have to 'hold its breath' as it tried out its new rudimentary legs.

All this is based on a faith by the evolutionists that somehow, somewhere a gene changed to help this life form become more complex or at the very least more viable. It has to be faith, because there is yet no evidence that when genes have accidents (called mutations), that is for the better. The evidence is overwhelming that such accidents either make the gene worse or, at best, no better than the original. Humans have a lot of mutated genes in our genome...luckily most are recessive, otherwise a lot of us would have Sickle Cell disease, hemophilia and trisomy.

Because fruit flies reproduce many generations in a very short time, scientists picked them for the experiment hoping to compress thousands of years of `evolution' into a few years of lab work.

After 80 years and millions of generations of fruit flies subjected to X rays and chemicals which cause mutations, all they have been able to produce are more of the same: fruit flies. And—more importantly—they have all been no better or stronger, and many have been weaker. All the changes eventually reached limits that, when approached, the strains of the fruit flies grew progressively weaker and died. Most of these mutated strains can only survive in the rigidly controlled environs of the laboratory. When released into the wild, they quickly die out.

Also when the mutated strains were allowed to breed for several generations, they gradually changed back to the original form. One experiment produced fruit flies without eyes. Yet, after a few life cycles, flies with eyes began to appear. It was almost like some kind of genetic repair mechanism took over and blocked the very possibility of evolution.

God was very careful in Genesis to state that each of the animals were created `after his kind.' After 80 years and millions of generations it seems a fruit fly will always be a fruit fly

[flounder]

After 80 years and millions of generations of fruit flies subjected to X rays and chemicals which cause mutations, all they have been able to produce are more of the same: fruit flies. And—more importantly—they have all been no better or stronger, and many have been weaker. All the changes eventually reached limits that, when approached, the strains of the fruit flies grew progressively weaker and died. Most of these mutated strains can only survive in the rigidly controlled environs of the laboratory. When released into the wild, they quickly die out.


Evolution doesn't claim that mutations make species "better" (whatever that means). It says that over time mutations which make an organism more likely to survive and reproduce in a particular environment will become more common in a population. This is experimentally confirmed everytime a bacterial strain develops resistance to antibiotics or an insect species develops resistance to an insecticide.

I'm not sure what Drosophila experiments you're referring to, but it's no surprise that if you take an organism that has adapted to one environment and put it in another, it probably won't survive as well in its new environment. That is in fact exactly what evolution would predict.

[MrBigglesworth]

For 80 years scientists have been experimenting with the lowly fruit fly (Drosophila), trying to prove that all life on planet earth is the result of a series of `good accidents,' since evolution is supposedly governed by random natural processes.
This is why science education is so important. SFL Cat, it's obvious that you don't understand evolution. This is where a lot of arguments for creationism come from, out of ignorance.

Evolutionists, through a marvelous leap of faith...
Evolution does not come from 'faith', it comes from the results of thousands of experiments done by scientists in dozens of fields.

It has to be faith, because there is yet no evidence that when genes have accidents (called mutations), that is for the better.
High school biology classes do experiments with microbes that shows that a certain number of them have mutations that make them immune to certain antibiotics. That's a favorable mutation.

The evidence is overwhelming that such accidents either make the gene worse or, at best, no better than the original.
Correct, most mutations have either no effect or are harmful. Which is why evolution is a slow process.

Humans have a lot of mutated genes in our genome...luckily most are recessive, otherwise a lot of us would have Sickle Cell disease, hemophilia and trisomy.
Correct, if they were dominant they would quickly work themselves out of the genome. However, if a GOOD mutation was dominant, it would quickly reproduce itself. So do you see how even though bad mutations are more common, good mutations will have a much greater effect?

After 80 years and millions of generations of fruit flies subjected to X rays and chemicals which cause mutations, all they have been able to produce are more of the same: fruit flies. And—more importantly—they have all been no better or stronger, and many have been weaker. All the changes eventually reached limits that, when approached, the strains of the fruit flies grew progressively weaker and died. Most of these mutated strains can only survive in the rigidly controlled environs of the laboratory. When released into the wild, they quickly die out.
If you took a fruit fly from the wild and released it in antarctica, it would quickly die out too. Short lesson: if you evolve an organism in one environment, it won't be as competitive in a completely different environment.

Also when the mutated strains were allowed to breed for several generations, they gradually changed back to the original form.
Fruit flies have been around in much the same form for millions of years, which suggests that they are pretty much perfect in their form. So then what happens when they change slightly? Evolution predicts that they will go back to their 'perfect' state. That is exactly what you say happens. Evolution is correct.

One experiment produced fruit flies without eyes. Yet, after a few life cycles, flies with eyes began to appear. It was almost like some kind of genetic repair mechanism took over and blocked the very possibility of evolution.
Evolution predicts that good mutations will win out. What's more useful, having an eye or not having an eye? I would think having an eye, so getting eyes is exactly what evolution would predict. Evolution wins.

[Mac Howard]

Wow! Just logged on to a whole heap of posts. I'm trying to avoid an opus developing here :)

I'll use your post, Mark, to direct the arguments as I think most ideas are included here.

These are wholly testable and discountable theories however - whereas Evolution isn't truly testable simply because of the scope of the theory.

Not really testable when Galileo put forward the theory. Nevertheless he was justified in arguing that the theory that the world was a sphere was superior to the theory it was flat. Subsequently he was proven right. The credibility of the theory has improved somewhat (though never flown all around the world myself so I must take this "proof" on trust)


Mutation isn't quite the same as evolution however because the scope of changes mooted during evolution are much larger than have been managed during any of the controlled experiments which have been undertaken.

Mutation is the engine of evolution and essential to it. The selection process - survival of the fittest - has also been observed in these experiments. Simpler than many life forms? Of course. But you do need a short life span - the life span of more complex forms would extend the experiments into decades and centuries. It wouldn't surprise me if such experiments are not taking place though. Just don't tell the animal activists :)

Its not a fact which proves evolution however

It (99% compatibility between man and chimps) doesn't prove it in itself but it does add to credibility of the theory. A major argument in the past has come from those who don't wish to see apes as their forefathers which is what the theory of evolution predicts. This compatibility of the DNA goes a long way to confirming the theory.

That's the way scientific theories build their credibility - it accumulates over time. Predicting something that is unknown at the time and getting the prediction correct is one important way of testing a theory.

Your words in a book is a very dubious "parallel". The DNA is the "blueprint" for the species - our blueprint is 99% the same as the chimps - yip, yip ;)

- if you do a word analysis I'm sure you can find that 90%+ of the words used in say the bible correspond with those found in the Lord of the Rings ... doesn't prove that one book evolved into the other ;)

If the sequence of the words is the same, it does!

Incidentally DO you believe in aliens?

Not "believe" - which implies some certainty - but I accept the possibility. In fact I'm far more partial to a religion specifying a race of superior beings with whom we don't, for whatever reason (parallel universes?), interact overlooking our world than a single God. But only "partial"

it makes logical sense to presume that if life can happen here then with an infinite number of planets its only logical to presume it'll happen elsewhere also).

There is something peculiar about the size of the universe that argues against a single God. Over 200 billion stars in the milky way galaxy and hundreds of billions of galaxies or equal or larger size. If there isn't other life then what an appalling waste. Either this God-creator is a complete idiot or the universe really was created by blind randomness. On the other hand we may not be the only ones.

What I've been arguing, though the length of the posts may often confuse this, is that human knowledge has itself been evolving over time. It began to accelerate around 5000 years or so with religions of multiple gods, then to a single god and lately to science - which essentially replaces the supernatural with the natural and superstition with reason. Each of these increases our understanding of our world. I suspect that science - the study of natural phenomena through experiment - may already be coming to an end and replaced by something else.

I would argue that computer simulation may well become the new manner in which our understanding moves forward. With ever increasing complexity of simulation then we can recreate "reality" and experiment and manipulate these worlds in many ways that could never be done naturally. Already we can simulate the theory of evolution. We can create worlds of endless variety and analyse them.

I wonder if there isn't a new path to understanding here.

[Marc Vaughan]

Fruit flies have been around in much the same form for millions of years, which suggests that they are pretty much perfect in their form. So then what happens when they change slightly? Evolution predicts that they will go back to their 'perfect' state. That is exactly what you say happens. Evolution is correct.

Out of interest though - the scientists doing these experiments are doing them I presume to prove that mutations occur and hopefully to induce a major evolution which would shut up opponents of the theory?

If this is the case then they will surely have changed the environment in which the flies are placed to ensure that the 'Fruit Fly' form is a far from optimal form for a species in that environment (a simple thing such as making it harder for the flies to 'fly'' should in theory cause a massive change in the species for instance).

Does anyone know what sort of changes they attempted to induce and how (and if possible what the results were from them).

[Marc Vaughan]

I would argue that computer simulation may well become the new manner in which our understanding moves forward. With ever increasing complexity of simulation then we can recreate "reality" and experiment and manipulate these worlds in many ways that could never be done naturally. Already we can simulate the theory of evolution. We can create worlds of endless variety and analyse them.
Ever considered that this universe might be a simulation in a computer for some high tech college kid ;)

[Marc Vaughan]

Evolution predicts that good mutations will win out. What's more useful, having an eye or not having an eye? I would think having an eye, so getting eyes is exactly what evolution would predict. Evolution wins.
One interesting thing I've mulled over myself with regards to evolution is simply this - humans have broken it, hence its not really going to be testable going forward in time.

In the past evolution would naturally ensure continual improvement and refinement in the species on this planet, today humans don't allow this to occur any more - a simple case in point is myself, I'm blind as a bat without contact lenses - yet have been able to survive and (shock horror) reproduce simply because humans have bucked the natural trend of animals by creating a civilisation which protects individuals in the species no matter their weaknesses and flaws.

[Mac Howard]

Out of interest though - the scientists doing these experiments are doing them I presume to prove that mutations occur and hopefully to induce a major evolution which would shut up opponents of the theory?

If this is the case then they will surely have changed the environment in which the flies are placed to ensure that the 'Fruit Fly' form is a far from optimal form for a species in that environment (a simple thing such as making it harder for the flies to 'fly'' should in theory cause a massive change in the species for instance).

Does anyone know what sort of changes they attempted to induce and how (and if possible what the results were from them).

No :)

But I would add this: since the middle of the 20th century scientific philosohy has changed and now all experiments should be designed to disprove a theory not confirm it. Three reasons for this:

1) it's much easier to prove something wrong than prove it right - in fact you can't prove something right but merely add to its credibility

2) human progress essentially comes from eliminating error not from getting it right. So best to look for the error

3) unlike faith - which deliberately ignores contrary evidence and argument - science directly faces opposition. That is a major part of its strength. Disproving a theory is essentially playing the devil's advocate which is a very good way to get at truth.

[Mac Howard]

Ever considered that this universe might be a simulation in a computer for some high tech college kid ;)

If so I hope he's more capable than some of the college kids I know but maybe Sod's Law supports the idea :)

Drawing dubious parallels between computer simulation and the evolution of religion you and I could be the Zeus and Apollo of the smg world with Yahweh yet to come :)

This thread is decaying to farce ;)

[Bubba Wheels]

Yes, but those are all theories of gravity or theories of evolution. They each attempt to explain gravity and/or evolution in greater detail than what we already know, not to say that the fundamentals behind gravity and/or evolution was wrong.

Yes, scientists have to be open to amending their theories based off of new evidence. Evolution changes as a theory all the time. I just don't like the 'competing theories' argument because ID'ers use it to give ID some kind of validity which it doesn't have. ID is to evolution as the Greek's Helios is to gravity: it's possible that a god pulls the sun across the sky every day, but there is no evidence for it, and gravity seems to explain it pretty well.

Its interesting that you make this particular argument. A guest on Coast to Cost a couple of weeks ago thinks that humans were seeded from aliens. While I can't say that I do agree with this one, he makes a couple of other statements as well.

1. DNA testing shows beyond doubt that present-day humans did not evolve from the ape-like hominoids of the past. Guy claims 'scientists' are covering this up to maintaint the fiction of evolution. Again, not saying its true or not, but DNA testing is 'science' right? And should ultimately be provable.

2. The other 'myth' this guest attacks is that gravity is the basis for the universal 'glue' holding everything together. Guy states that the reality of the universe is based in electricity. Says Tesla, among others, recognized this and that the Coral Castle (a real place, not some 'theory') bares this out. Again, not saying its true or not, but a possible basis for questioning if not punching actual holes into present day 'science' and its theories.

Point is really, when you stop questioning anything, even accepted 'science' you are as guilty and closed minded as anyone else you want to accuse of being that way. And the real argument against the 'evolution' being taught in schools today is that it does not want to discuss its shortfalls or be criticized in any regard. In effect, it wants to be taken of 'faith.' But a misguided one at that. What are evolutionists afraid of?

[Telle]

Its interesting that you make this particular argument. A guest on Coast to Cost a couple of weeks ago thinks that humans were seeded from aliens. While I can't say that I do agree with this one, he makes a couple of other statements as well.

1. DNA testing shows beyond doubt that present-day humans did not evolve from the ape-like hominoids of the past. Guy claims 'scientists' are covering this up to maintaint the fiction of evolution. Again, not saying its true or not, but DNA testing is 'science' right? And should ultimately be provable.

2. The other 'myth' this guest attacks is that gravity is the basis for the universal 'glue' holding everything together. Guy states that the reality of the universe is based in electricity. Says Tesla, among others, recognized this and that the Coral Castle (a real place, not some 'theory') bares this out. Again, not saying its true or not, but a possible basis for questioning if not punching actual holes into present day 'science' and its theories.

Point is really, when you stop questioning anything, even accepted 'science' you are as guilty and closed minded as anyone else you want to accuse of being that way. And the real argument against the 'evolution' being taught in schools today is that it does not want to discuss its shortfalls or be criticized in any regard. In effect, it wants to be taken of 'faith.' But a misguided one at that. What are evolutionists afraid of?

Well I suppose the issue here would the the credibility of the source. Was this guy a scientist? What does he have to base his ideas upon? Has he been performing his own experiments or researching those who have done experiments in those areas before? Or is he just a crackpot who also has a theory that the moon is made of green cheese? If there are credible alternatives to the current theories, which can be backed up through scientific investigation, then by all means let's explore them! That's the way science works, isn't it?

[Kodos]

Just another clarification on a common misconception. Evolution doesn't say chimps are our ancestors. Humans did not arise out of chimps. What it says is that we both arose from some common ancestor, who was neither a chimp nor a human. Kindof like branches on a tree. We we together at one time, but the branches have split off from our common ancestor, with one branch producing modern chimps, and the other producing modern humans.


Point is really, when you stop questioning anything, even accepted 'science' you are as guilty and closed minded as anyone else you want to accuse of being that way. And the real argument against the 'evolution' being taught in schools today is that it does not want to discuss its shortfalls or be criticized in any regard. In effect, it wants to be taken of 'faith.' But a misguided one at that. What are evolutionists afraid of?

Scientists have not stopped questioning or refining evolutionary theory. They are, however, rightly dismissive of pseudoscientific "theories" like ID posturing as legitimate scientific endeavors. The "shortfalls" you mention are more the result of a poor grasp of science on the part of ID proponents than real problems with evolution. Basically, what ID zealots are asking for is documentation of every tiny branching of species that ever occured. The fossil record is not that complete, and we will never have every intermediate form of creature that existed. The fact that chimps and humans share 99% of their DNA strongly suggests that we both evolved a common ancestor very recently on the geologic timescale. But ID people will demand to see every step that happened between that ancestor and the current species of man and chimps. They basically ask for the impossible and then try to dismiss evolution when all the "missing links" aren't provided. It's silly.

Not as silly as the idiots I've heard who say that there are in fact no fossils at all. Apparently, those things in museums are just the result of an artist mascarading as a scientist chiseling them out of rocks.

[Bubba Wheels]

Well I suppose the issue here would the the credibility of the source. Was this guy a scientist? What does he have to base his ideas upon? Has he been performing his own experiments or researching those who have done experiments in those areas before? Or is he just a crackpot who also has a theory that the moon is made of green cheese? If there are credible alternatives to the current theories, which can be backed up through scientific investigation, then by all means let's explore them! That's the way science works, isn't it?

Good questions all, and ones that I believe will be answered in the coming years as this subject gets more and more scrutiny. See, unlike the myth propagated by unbelievers, I do believe (as I've said before) that there is no contradiction between the Word of God (Bible) and real science. I do believe that God does want us to question and discover (study thyselves to show thyselves approved.)

My take on this is that unbelievers in the name of 'science' are really attempting to quash real debate about evolution while promoting their version without real criticsm of it. Time and again examples are occurring in which anyone remotely finding fault with evolution is labeled 'religious nut' weather he is or not and banished from serious discussion. Often this is justified (as it is even in this thread ) with examples of instances in the past of the Catholic Church in the middle ages used to 'show' how those with 'faith in scriptures' are fearful of exploring real science because it may jeopardize their faith.

Quite the opposite, I contend, its the people of faith willing to look at all the evidence while those in the 'accepted' (non-religious) scientific and academic communities are fearful of looking to deeply into their own 'sacred cows.'

Let the debate (and the evidence) continue here as well as everywhere (including those 'scientific papers and journals' unwilling to look at evidence contrary to evolution. In particularly them.

[flounder]

My take on this is that unbelievers in the name of 'science' are really attempting to quash real debate about evolution while promoting their version without real criticsm of it. Time and again examples are occurring in which anyone remotely finding fault with evolution is labeled 'religious nut' weather he is or not and banished from serious discussion.

As I pointed out in the other thread, many people over the years have pointed out the faults with the state of the theory of evolution at that time. If they had evidence to support their claims, the theory of evolution was amended to address them. These people weren't labelled 'religious nuts'. In fact, some of them have won the Nobel prize. There just isn't any grand conspiracy to keep the theory of evolution unchanged in the face of evidence against it.

[MrBigglesworth]

Its interesting that you make this particular argument. A guest on Coast to Cost a couple of weeks ago thinks that humans were seeded from aliens. While I can't say that I do agree with this one, he makes a couple of other statements as well.

1. DNA testing shows beyond doubt that present-day humans did not evolve from the ape-like hominoids of the past. Guy claims 'scientists' are covering this up to maintaint the fiction of evolution. Again, not saying its true or not, but DNA testing is 'science' right? And should ultimately be provable.

2. The other 'myth' this guest attacks is that gravity is the basis for the universal 'glue' holding everything together. Guy states that the reality of the universe is based in electricity. Says Tesla, among others, recognized this and that the Coral Castle (a real place, not some 'theory') bares this out. Again, not saying its true or not, but a possible basis for questioning if not punching actual holes into present day 'science' and its theories.

Point is really, when you stop questioning anything, even accepted 'science' you are as guilty and closed minded as anyone else you want to accuse of being that way. And the real argument against the 'evolution' being taught in schools today is that it does not want to discuss its shortfalls or be criticized in any regard. In effect, it wants to be taken of 'faith.' But a misguided one at that. What are evolutionists afraid of?
It is true that if you just make stuff up, everything can be shown to be wrong.

[MrBigglesworth]

Quite the opposite, I contend, its the people of faith willing to look at all the evidence while those in the 'accepted' (non-religious) scientific and academic communities are fearful of looking to deeply into their own 'sacred cows.'
This is a terrible theory. Look at what people have to gain and what they have to lose. A scientist that comes up with a correct theory can publish books and become famous. A scientist that keeps throwing out the same old incorrect theory will just be one of the pack. So it is in a scientist's best interest NOT to coverup a false theory. Therefore, there is no cover-up.

Meanwhile, a person of faith who wraps up his idea of God (and by extension, his own self-worth) in a certain theory, has a great motivation to make sure that theory is right, because otherwise his entire idea of God (and hence, himself) is thrown out the window. So it is in a person of faith's best interest to coverup a false theory.

I'm sorry that you have your self-worth indebted to an incorrect theory of the world. I know it's harder to accept reality than it is to deny it. But in the end it will be a lot easier for everyone if you just accept the facts that are there, even if you don't believe in the theory part. These facts include: we have found transition fossils. We have observed speciation. We can, through DNA, trace the branches of the evolutionary tree. If you can come up with a better theory that explains all that, I and everyone else is more than willing to listen. But what gives certain 'people of faith' no credibility is their continuing willingness to embrace lies and distortions.

[Bubba Wheels]

It is true that if you just make stuff up, everything can be shown to be wrong.

I just find it interesting that someone without a vested interest in promoting religion or God finds holes in the evolution theory and isn't afraid to talk about them. His claims on DNA and the others seem like they can be verified or disproved right?

BTW, how do you explain the whole Coral Castle thing, since your 'science' based on gravity would seem to make that all impossible?

[MrBigglesworth]

I just find it interesting that someone without a vested interest in promoting religion or God finds holes in the evolution theory and isn't afraid to talk about them. His claims on DNA and the others seem like they can be verified or disproved right?
Right. And they have been disproven, eleventy million times.

...since your 'science' based on gravity...
This is one of the funniest phrases I've read in a while.

BTW, how do you explain the whole Coral Castle thing, since your 'science' based on gravity would seem to make that all impossible?
From what I can gather, here is the thing about Coral Castle: nobody knows how it was done, so people are inventing stories invoking the supernatural. It's the typical response that happens all the time, but doesn't hold up to scientific investigation and turns out to be a hoax. If there was any real evidence that this dude knew the secret of anti-gravity, there would be scientists all over Coral Castle 24 hours a day (because there would be tremendous money involved in the research), or it would be confiscated by the government (because there is tremendous power potential). It's a great story, but a bunch of rocks sitting around in Miami doesn't disprove gravity any more than a bunch of rocks sitting around Stonehedge.

[WVUFAN]

I just find it interesting that someone without a vested interest in promoting religion or God finds holes in the evolution theory and isn't afraid to talk about them. His claims on DNA and the others seem like they can be verified or disproved right?

BTW, how do you explain the whole Coral Castle thing, since your 'science' based on gravity would seem to make that all impossible?
That's the glory of science: it's ever changing. Let's say sometime in the future someone discovered that the guy who created Coral Castle did know something that revolutionalizes the way we look at gravity. Scientists will investigate and change their viewpoints on how gravity works. Science is everchanging because nothing is stated as fact -- EVER, and scientists are constantly trying to prove themselves WRONG.

Religion is constantly trying to prove itself RIGHT. This, in my opinion, is the inherent difference between science and religion. Science struggles endlessly to reinvent itself -- to strive for the truth by disproving that which is false. Religion struggles to remain static. Since it's based on faith, it struggles to dismiss everything that doesn't agree with it.

[WVUFAN]

But, as I'm sure you know, WVUFAN, that that answer has its problems. You say you cannot accept this level of sophistication merely happening yet you accept an increased level of sophistication in the god that you use to explain the first away. Again, I can't argue with you. However, the beauty of faith is that I really can accept God as existing without any proof at all, without any rationization other than the one that causes me to believe to begin with.


At some point, assuming linear time - which may well not be a reasonable assumption - you have to accept something coming into existence from nothing. Well, if I remember my rudimentary science correctly (and I could very well be wrong about this), but current science doesn't accept the idea of something coming into existance from nothing. Matter cannot be created or destroyed. This means SOMETHING existed to create the Big Bang.

[Bubba Wheels]

Right. And they have been disproven, eleventy million times.


This is one of the funniest phrases I've read in a while.


From what I can gather, here is the thing about Coral Castle: nobody knows how it was done, so people are inventing stories invoking the supernatural. It's the typical response that happens all the time, but doesn't hold up to scientific investigation and turns out to be a hoax. If there was any real evidence that this dude knew the secret of anti-gravity, there would be scientists all over Coral Castle 24 hours a day (because there would be tremendous money involved in the research), or it would be confiscated by the government (because there is tremendous power potential). It's a great story, but a bunch of rocks sitting around in Miami doesn't disprove gravity any more than a bunch of rocks sitting around Stonehedge.

Those 'bunch of rocks' are more evidence pointing towards some kind of 'electro-magnetic field' defying gravity than the whole of the 'evidence' evolutionists can come up with in terms of actual 'species change." Pretty ironic, isn't it? http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/evolprob.html

http://paranormal.about.com/library/weekly/aa071999.htm

[Mac Howard]

Again, I can't argue with you. However, the beauty of faith is that I really can accept God as existing without any proof at all, without any rationization other than the one that causes me to believe to begin with. As an agnostic I'm always fascinated about where that original faith and certainty comes from. I can see it coming from childhood when we simply don't question what we're told and we see no reason to change our consequent beliefs in later life when we can. I can see it coming to people in considerable despair when only religion offers any sort of answer.

Well, if I remember my rudimentary science correctly (and I could very well be wrong about this), but current science doesn't accept the idea of something coming into existance from nothing. Matter cannot be created or destroyed. Science, and certainly the theory of evolution, does not put forward any accepted theory of what happened before the big bang or even what happens in that first few trillionths of a second. There is insufficient evidence to give sufficient support for any theory to cause it to be acceptable. There is, of course, speculation - including a creator - but no speculation at this point has sufficient credibility to raise it above the alternatives.

This means SOMETHING existed to create the Big Bang. One alternative is that our concept of time as a linear thing is merely a consequence of our psychology and that there is no need to assume there has ever been such a thing as pre-big bang time. And, no, I can't conceive of that either but then I cannot escape that psychology ( I can't conceive of the idea that a man who travels from London to New York and back will be younger than if he stays in London either but that has now been proven to be so :rolleyes: ) Modern physics does, at times, seem remarkedly non-intuitive.

[MrBigglesworth]

Those 'bunch of rocks' are more evidence pointing towards some kind of 'electro-magnetic field' defying gravity than the whole of the 'evidence' evolutionists can come up with in terms of actual 'species change." Pretty ironic, isn't it? http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/evolprob.html

http://paranormal.about.com/library/weekly/aa071999.htm
It boggles the mind as to what is evidence and what isn't to you.