The "Theory" of Evolution vs. "Creationism"

[argexpat]

Please see my posts 13, 16, 18, 20, 29, and especially 40, 42, 45, and 47.

In a nutshell it's this: The full name of Darwin's theory is the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection. Natural selection is the theory that explains the observable, verifiable, universally accepted (except for a few pig headed Christians) fact. Darwin's theory of natural selection is the product of, and has been verified by, the scientific method. If you deny the validity of the theory of natural selection that explains the origin of species, then you deny science itself.

And insisting that evolution is "just a theory," is not only specious and spurious, but it belies a misunderstanding of science and is a dangerous form of anti-intellectualism.

 

[kal-el]

Originally posted by steen
Care to ACTUALLY DEAL with the reservations about your posts that I have listed? Are you actually going to deal with the issue?

Well, steen you certainly already have made your mind up, so I see no point in continuing this debate. I merley wish to inform without actually convincing.

You see living cells are made up of really complex molecules, themselves made up of many combinations of atoms, so how is it possible that these delicate things spontaneously arose from their parts randomly scattered around? It is utter stupidy saying that it will indeed happen oneday, since with time also comes decomposition and disinigration.

You talk about evolution, but in fact what is applicable to the physical characteristics of the individual is the same for their mental characteristics. Recently, we have been able to modify animal behavior by acting on the chemical reactions within the parts of the brain which show or determine behavior, and in turn, made wolves fearful and lambs fierce. And human science is just beginning in this area.

 

[Youve Got To Be Kidding!]

LOL Excuse me but eve being made from adams rib is not scientific. It comes from a story that has been around for a few thousand years.

 

[steen]

Well, steen you certainly already have made your mind up, so I see no point in continuing this debate. I merley wish to inform without actually convincing.

What "debate"? You made claims, I pointed out where there were errors in your claim, and you had a hissy fit. So once again, the question is, are you GOING to deal with the issues I raised about errors in your claims? Are you interested in telling the truth, or do you want to make your false claims without being challenged?

You see living cells are made up of really complex molecules, themselves made up of many combinations of atoms, so how is it possible that these delicate things spontaneously arose from their parts randomly scattered around?

Why not? The electrostatic charges on atoms certainly result in them binding up in certain patterns. Many of these "impossible to evolve" molecules have been generated spontaneously in labs. So your "I simply can't imagine that God didn't do it" argument really doesn't hold much value. God-of-the-gaps arguments generally tend to lose their value. If you base God on such, it means that every new discovery shrinks your god. Not a pleasant prospect. perhaps you should have left God as God instead of trying to turn the Bible into a Science Textbook.

As for the rest, it is utterly and completely irrelevant.

 

[Thinker]

You see living cells are made up of really complex molecules, themselves made up of many combinations of atoms, so how is it possible that these delicate things spontaneously arose from their parts randomly scattered around? It is utter stupidy saying that it will indeed happen oneday, since with time also comes decomposition and disinigration.

When willl creationists stop using this tired nonsense. You are the only ones that
claim some force spontaneously created living things "from clay" in a single go.

Read what evolution and natural selection actually say (about small, cumulative
changes), and ignore the deliberate misinformation put about by those shouting
the creationist mantra.

 

[argexpat]

.

You see living cells are made up of really complex molecules, themselves made up of many combinations of atoms, so how is it possible that these delicate things spontaneously arose from their parts randomly scattered around? It is utter stupidy saying that it will indeed happen oneday, since with time also comes decomposition and disinigration.

Calling an idea stupid simply because you're incapable (or unwilling) to understand it is itself the height of stupidity. It's ignoramuses like you who keep humanity from advancing. Luckily for the rest of us, scientific ideas don't have to pass the laughable kal-el test, where validity is judged by whether kal-el can understand it. If so, we wouldn't have television, modern medicine, nuclear power, airplane travel, computers, or Q-Tips. Scientists don't discredit something simply because they don't understand it. On the contrary, they apply a rigorous epistemological process called the scientific method to understand how things work, rather than reach for fairy tales and superstitions, and make laughingstocks of themselves on the internet.

 

[MrFungus420]

I think the theory of evolution is just that- only a theory. What natural need could lead antelopes or wild goats to develope curled horns? Or birds to have blue or red feathers? And what about exotic fish?

I cringe every time I hear (or read) the phrase "only a theory". This exhibits a lack of understanding about what a theory is. The progression goes: hypothesis, theory, fact.

An hypothesis is, essentially, a guess about something. Generally an educated guess, but still a guess.

When an hypothesis has evidence to back it up, it becomes a theory. So, a theory has some proof.

A fact is something known to be absolutely true. The probelm is, it is very difficult to porve some things beyond any doubt.

An example being the theory of gravity. Gravity exists, that is a fact. What it is, and how it works, are in the realm of theories.

As for asking about what need there could be for the curled horns or coloured feathers, they are both probably the result of sexual reproduction. The curled horns probably developed from the head-butting displays the males use to extablish dominance and, therefore, get to mate more. The brightly coloured feathers seemed to have developed as displays to attract the females. As generations passed, these traits became more distinct.

The exotic fish aren't quite as exotic as they look to us. If you see them in their environment, a lot of them fade into the background, or into a confusing display when viewed in a school. A lot of what we view as exotic are variations on camouflage.

 

[MrFungus420]

I can find alot of holes in that theory. For science to suggest that man comes from the monkey, and so on, is totally stupid.

No, evolution says that we evolved from a simian-like ancestor, not from monkeys.

Many people were "spoonfed" that this learning is acceptable as truth. The earth is too complicated to come by random chance, or necessasity. It is simply the fruit of an outside intervention.

To say that the earth, and I assume you mean life on earth by that, considering the thread, is too complicated so there must be outside intervention is called an argument from incredulity. Basically, it is saying that since you can't see how it could be, there can be no explanation other than a god (outside intervention).

This is the same thought process that brought about Thor. At the time, they didn't know how lightning and thunder could possibly be. So, it must have been the work of an outside force.

Basically, it is an argument of exteme arrogance. It is saying that since you don't understand something, there can be no possible explanation.

 

[MrFungus420]

How could an intelligent mind, or guiding force possibly be behind evolution?
As Einstein said, there cannot be a watch without a watch-maker. All of you who believe that we come from the monkey through a slow, evolutionary process, believe that the beautiful watch we are, has built itself by accident. It is a bit like saying that if we put all the components of a watch together in a bag and shook it around for awhile, we would eventually get a perfect working watch. Try a million times if you want.....

Apples and oranges. This is trying to compare the assembly of inanimate objects with living creatures that can react to their environment.

This makes as much sense as saying that because books don't print themselves, there's no way that bees can polinate flowers.

 

[MrFungus420]

I'm sure if I went to a natural history museum, and asked questions, I'm more than convinced that they would give me one-sided answers. Supporting evolution Only.

Probably because it's a theory with a lot of supporting evidence.

Creationism (Intelligent Design, if you prefer), can only be supported if you believe in some sort of supreme being. I have never seen anything resmbling proof of ID. It doesn't even rate the classification of theory.

 

[gdalton]

Who is to say that God didn't create evolution?

 

[gdalton]

I posted this in a different thread but I figured it could also be used as an argument here.

As humans we only have five senses to rely on, but we know things exist beyond our limited means of perception. In order to find all the things we have (such as germs, molecules, atoms, etc), that we could not detect at first, we had to come up with a theory of what to look for. Then we created instruments that could search, measure, and translate that data into an understandable format for us.
God is most probably not as described in religious text. As pointed out before we as humans attempt to explain things we don’t understand in terms that we do (like creating the story of Thor to explain lightning). Proof of god could be all around us but without an idea of what to look for we will never be able to see it.
If we had kept our minds closed to the possibility of things beyond our current level of knowledge we would be stuck in the dark ages. We can not find new things with out first opening our minds to new possibilities.
So in summary, without first coming up with a theory that can be used to create the instruments needed to prove said theory it would not be possible to understand things beyond our current means of perception. Closing your mind to possibility of god only guarantees that proof won’t be found, not that proof doesn’t exist.

 

[walrus]

How could an intelligent mind, or guiding force possibly be behind evolution?
As Einstein said, there cannot be a watch without a watch-maker. All of you who believe that we come from the monkey through a slow, evolutionary process, believe that the beautiful watch we are, has built itself by accident. It is a bit like saying that if we put all the components of a watch together in a bag and shook it around for awhile, we would eventually get a perfect working watch. Try a million times if you want.....

No, that is exactly contrary to what I said. My belief is that the watch was built very intentionally and for a specific purpose, but that process was long. I am simply disputing the idea that the watch appeared "poof" fully formed approximately 6,000 years ago. Believing that God worked through the process of evolution does not take anything away from God. To me, it is all the more wonderful to imagine God patiently tending the Earth for billions of years, prodding a genome here and there, and preparing the world for the lifeform made in His image. I am suggesting that evolution occured, but it was anything but random.

That said, I believe trying to teach this, or anything like it in school is totally unworkable. School is a place to learn factual, applicable knowledge. Morals, beliefs, and mythologies should be taught in the home.

 

[nkgupta80]

it still worries me how this creationism debate has become such a hallmark issue in the US. Introducing the factor of God or intelligent being into science (which validly supports evolution) is just plain stupid and dangerous, as it undermines any scientific effort. No creationist seems to understand or care how important and relevant the current theory of evolution has been in the scientific research....

 

[nkgupta80]

No, that is exactly contrary to what I said. My belief is that the watch was built very intentionally and for a specific purpose, but that process was long. I am simply disputing the idea that the watch appeared "poof" fully formed approximately 6,000 years ago. Believing that God worked through the process of evolution does not take anything away from God. To me, it is all the more wonderful to imagine God patiently tending the Earth for billions of years, prodding a genome here and there, and preparing the world for the lifeform made in His image. I am suggesting that evolution occured, but it was anything but random.

all this speculation is great. Its good to try to compromise your beliefs with science, but such things shoudl be left in the philosophical realm not in the scientific realm. Science teachers should not be forced to teach evolution as a comparable theory to intelligent design, when such a notion is viewed as absurd in the greater scientific community (not just the American scientific community by the World scientific community).

 

[walrus]

all this speculation is great. Its good to try to compromise your beliefs with science, but such things shoudl be left in the philosophical realm not in the scientific realm. Science teachers should not be forced to teach evolution as a comparable theory to intelligent design, when such a notion is viewed as absurd in the greater scientific community (not just the American scientific community by the World scientific community).

As you were quoting my article, perhaps you should have quoted the rest of it...

That said, I believe trying to teach this, or anything like it in school is totally unworkable. School is a place to learn factual, applicable knowledge. Morals, beliefs, and mythologies should be taught in the home.

Then it wouldn't have sounded as though we disagree, although my own (large) amount of time spent in university science departments would lead me to believe that not quite as many scientists are purely secular humanists as you tend to think. Those who are not are simply rarely published in the "accepted" journals.

 

[nkgupta80]

sorry, i've been posting in a hurry..but yeah our points agree.

 

[gdalton]

That said, I believe trying to teach this, or anything like it in school is totally unworkable. School is a place to learn factual, applicable knowledge. Morals, beliefs, and mythologies should be taught in the home.

We need to teach our children how to think, if we only show then one idea they are more likely to dismiss other ideas that are in conflict of the original without doing any research to verify or disprove. If they had a class to teach kids that there are more theories on the origin of creation (not necessarily what the bible teaches) this will help them keep an open mind to new ideas. If we run out of new ideas we stop progressing (we won't evolve mentally).

 

[nkgupta80]

Then it wouldn't have sounded as though we disagree, although my own (large) amount of time spent in university science departments would lead me to believe that not quite as many scientists are purely secular humanists as you tend to think. Those who are not are simply rarely published in the "accepted" journals.

true, a majority come from various religious and spiritual backgrounds which in fact can aid them in becoming good scientists. However, good scientists always know to draw the line in the scientific method. Spirituality may drive their thirst for knowledge, but they are careful not to consider religious dogma in their scientific inquiries.

 

[steen]

As humans we only have five senses to rely on, but we know things exist beyond our limited means of perception. In order to find all the things we have (such as germs, molecules, atoms, etc), that we could not detect at first, we had to come up with a theory of what to look for.

In science, that is called a Hypothesis, the initial step of the Scientific Method. In Science, the Theory is the last step. The two are very different.

 

[gdalton]

In science, that is called a Hypothesis, the initial step of the Scientific Method. In Science, the Theory is the last step. The two are very different.

Yep you are correct, I am not a scientist I was just sharing an idea.

 

[MrFungus420]

We need to teach our children how to think, if we only show then one idea they are more likely to dismiss other ideas that are in conflict of the original without doing any research to verify or disprove. If they had a class to teach kids that there are more theories on the origin of creation (not necessarily what the bible teaches) this will help them keep an open mind to new ideas. If we run out of new ideas we stop progressing (we won't evolve mentally).

My initial reaction is: other theories such as what? Intelligent design doesn't even qualify as a theory. It's nothing more than thinly veiled creationism, nothing more than mythology.

That is the true barrier to new ideas. Creationists want the answer to everything to be God (exuse me, an outside guiding force).

 

[argexpat]

We can not find new things with out first opening our minds to new possibilities.

Although your articulate plea for keeping an open mind is admirable, and no doubt rooted in sincere tolerance and intellectual curiosity, I believe it is ultimately misguided and can often lead to unwarranted acceptance of supertition and dangerously muddled thought.

Rather than an "open mind," I prefer to have a selective mind. Just as I'm particular about what I eat, and I have a firewall on my computer, I don't accept any ol' idea willy nilly into my head. Some ideas are nutritious; others are poisonous. Over the years, I've developed an epistemological filtering system that allows only the highest quality ideas into my head. I question, I verify, I compare, and only then do I decide.

So far, the most elegantly rigorous and trustworthy epistemology yet devised by man is the scientific method. But it is only a tool, and like any tool, it's only useful when used appropriately. Just as you don't hammer a nail with a screwdriver, you don't use science to prove the existence of God, or vise versa.

Creationism, and it's thinly veiled Trojan Horse bastard child "intelligent design," does not pass muster; evolution does.

 

[argexpat]

We need to teach our children how to think, if we only show then one idea they are more likely to dismiss other ideas that are in conflict of the original without doing any research to verify or disprove. If they had a class to teach kids that there are more theories on the origin of creation (not necessarily what the bible teaches) this will help them keep an open mind to new ideas. If we run out of new ideas we stop progressing (we won't evolve mentally).

This is a specious argument often made by Creationists: "We just want all theories taught." Never mind that Creationism and ID are not theories, but Biblical mythology and quackery respectively (and anyone who claims they are anything other display an egregious ignorance of, and even disdain for, the pinciples of science). And there are no valid scentific theories competing with evolution to explain the origin of species.

If Creationism is a valid competing "theory" to evolution, why stop there? Along with neurology, let's also teach phrenology. Follow a lesson in chemistry with a lesson in alchemy. Want to study astronomy? Great, then you'll also need to study astrology. The study of medicine should also include the study of voodoo, shouldn't it? After all, these are all competing "theories" to actual scientific learning, if what qualifies as a theory is simply anything that is claimed as such by anyone.

Say you go to your doctor complaining of chest pain. Instead of running tests on you, he inspects the bumbs on your head, checks your horoscope, hands you a rabbit's foot, then asks that you "keep an open mind." You probably wouldn't return to that doctor, mostly because you'd be dead.

No one would stand for this, of course. But somehow teaching Creationism in a biology class is OK? Please.

 

[Dezaad]

... Creationism and ID are not theories, but Biblical mythology and quackery respectively ... And there are no valid scentific theories competing with evolution to explain the origin of species.

If Creationism is a valid competing "theory" to evolution, why stop there? Along with neurology, let's also teach phrenology. Follow a lesson in chemistry with a lesson in alchemy. Want to study astronomy? Great, then you'll also need to study astrology. The study of medicine should also include the study of voodoo, shouldn't it? After all, these are all competing "theories" to actual scientific learning, if what qualifies as a theory is simply anything that is claimed as such by anyone.

...

:applaud Well Said, Well Said.