Evolutionary Science-v- Creationism

[OnyxCougar]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

OC, have you ever - in your life - been "100% certain" about something, only to learn that you were wrong?

Yes, I have been. Again, I'm open minded. And it is possible that I'm completely wrong on this. And if you can PROVE to me beyond a shadow of a doubt that human beings evolved from a primordial ooze, then I will admit I am wrong.

Until then, I choose to believe 100% that evolution as it relates of origin of man didn't happen the way most scientists (who are proven wrong more often than right) try to force feed me it did.

[OnyxCougar]

This is snipped from talkorigins.org, one of the major evolutionist websites. My commentary is in italics.

"Evolution is only a theory; it hasn't been proved."

First, we should clarify what "evolution" means. Like so many other words, it has more than one meaning. Its strict biological definition is "a change in allele frequencies over time." By that definition, evolution is an indisputable fact.

Most people seem to associate the word "evolution" mainly with common descent, the theory that all life arose from one common ancestor. Many people believe that there is enough evidence to call this a fact, too.

I'd love to see this "evidence". Too bad they can't provide it.

However, common descent is still not the theory of evolution, but just a fraction of it (and a part of several quite different theories as well). The theory of evolution not only says that life evolved, it also includes mechanisms, like mutations, natural selection, and genetic drift, which go a long way towards explaining how life evolved.

Note the lack of words like "we think" or "how it could have".

Calling the theory of evolution "only a theory" is, strictly speaking, true, but the idea it tries to convey is completely wrong. The argument rests on a confusion between what "theory" means in informal usage and in a scientific context.

A theory, in the scientific sense, is "a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena" [Random House American College Dictionary]. The term does not imply tentativeness or lack of certainty.

However, the phrase "general propositions" doesn't imply absolute knowledge.

Generally speaking, scientific theories differ from scientific laws only in that laws can be expressed more tersely. Being a theory implies self-consistency, agreement with observations, and usefulness.

Observations is science. I agree with that.

(Creationism fails to be a theory mainly because of the last point; it makes few or no specific claims about what we would expect to find, so it can't be used for anything. When it does make falsifiable predictions, they prove to be false.)

This is not true. There are lots of predictions about what we expect to find, because science is science. What you're trying to prove has nothing to do with it, as long as you're using science to do it, it's scientific. Nutjob.

Lack of proof isn't a weakness, either.

According to who?

On the contrary, claiming infallibility for one's conclusions is a sign of hubris.

Agreed. But not "on the contrary." I love how they try to word this stuff.

Nothing in the real world has ever been rigorously proved, or ever will be.

Uh.... huh? I have a problem with that statement.

Proof, in the mathematical sense, is possible only if you have the luxury of defining the universe you're operating in. In the real world, we must deal with levels of certainty based on observed evidence.

OK, this is getting weird. So this guy is saying nothing has ever been proven, and we're dealing with levels of certainty based on observed evidence. um...ok... And they call Fundies nutcases!

The more and better evidence we have for something, the more certainty we assign to it; when there is enough evidence, we label the something a fact, even though it still isn't 100% certain.

Who is "we"? You got a mouse in your pocket? And let me see if I got this straight...we've never proven anything in the real world, but we can say it's a fact, because we're pretty dog-gone sure. Riiiiiiiight....

What evolution has is what any good scientific claim has--evidence, and lots of it. Evolution is supported by a wide range of observations throughout the fields of genetics, anatomy, ecology, animal behavior, paleontology, and others.

Those observations in and of themselves do NOT point as evidence of evolution. Show me proof life came from non-life. Don't guess. Recreate it. I wanna see it in the lab. Until then, you can't say it happened with 100% certainty.

If you wish to challenge the theory of evolution, you must address that evidence. You must show that the evidence is either wrong or irrelevant or that it fits another theory better. Of course, to do this, you must know both the theory and the evidence.

No, what I must show is that the "evidence" proposed can be interpreted another way using the same science. This makes the "evidence" irrelevant to the theory, and thus the theory falls apart.

Conclusion

These are not the only misconceptions about evolution by any means. Other common misunderstandings include how geological dating techniques work, implications to morality and religion, the meaning of "uniformitarianism," and many more. To address all these objections here would be impossible.

But I'm sure you'll try to discredit as much as possible with your convoluted "it has never been proven but it's a fact" arguements.

But consider: About a hundred years ago, scientists, who were then mostly creationists, looked at the world to figure out how God did things. These creationists came to the conclusions of an old earth and species originating by evolution.

Actually, we know for a fact many people, like Darwin, didn't set out to explain how God did things. How God did things is in the bible, Genesis, chapter 1. What they set out to do is discredit, disprove and undermine the authority of God. Darwin admitted that numerous times.

Since then, thousands of scientists have been studying evolution with increasingly more sophisticated tools. Many of these scientists have excellent understandings of the laws of thermodynamics, how fossil finds are interpreted, etc., and finding a better alternative to evolution would win them fame and fortune.

That is a lie. There are KNOWN cases where really good (and smart) scientists poke holes in the established theory and get railroaded, grants taken away, fired and pressured. You get rewarded if you try to further evolution's hold on society. This guy obviously not a scientist or he would know that. He was talking out his ass there.

Sometimes their work has changed our understanding of significant details of how evolution operates, but the theory of evolution still has essentially unanimous agreement from the people who work on it.

So...the theory changes, sometimes radically, and yet still is supposed to be a fact? Facts don't change. Facts are facts. How can it be a fact if it's changing?

Oh yeah...it can't.....

This is just ONE article I found off the top, kitsune. Yes, people DO think it's a fact, and they are trying to convince everyone else it is a fact.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by OnyxCougar

Nothing in the real world has ever been rigorously proved, or ever will be.

Uh.... huh? I have a problem with that statement.

Proof, in the mathematical sense, is possible only if you have the luxury of defining the universe you're operating in. In the real world, we must deal with levels of certainty based on observed evidence.

OK, this is getting weird. So this guy is saying nothing has ever been proven, and we're dealing with levels of certainty based on observed evidence. um...ok... And they call Fundies nutcases!

The guy is right. Nothing has ever been proven, with the possible exception of "Cogito, ergo sum", though some think that that is just a grammar trick. Everything else could be wrong. Science is only the sum total of the current best explanations. ALL of science has levels of certainty less than 1.0. Not just evolution.

Textbooks for kids treat the latest science as fact in the same sort of shorthand as kids' history textbooks say "the Civil War was about slavery" and "the American Revolution was about tea taxes". If they put every detail about every intricacy of every theory, there wouldn't be room in the kids' backpacks. The chapter on Newton doesn't go into special relativity.

Evolution is not special in that regard just because certain religious groups still view it with the same suspicion Galileo once attracted.

[wolf]

The ACLU is suing the school district that mandated teaching intelligent design.

Interesting how the ACLU will trample free speech in it's quest to see to it's interpretation of the freedom of religion ...

[wolf]

Is anyone else getting from this ....

That's is okay to be 100% certain about the biblical notion of creation, but totally not okay to accept with a high degree of certainty the theory of evolution?

[Kitsune]

This is snipped from talkorigins.org

Talkorigins.org appears to just be an archive of a usenet newsgroup -- it is not a scientific journal or publication and isn't really any different than The Cellar. Their FAQ entry on why they keep referring to the evolutionary theory as a fact is based on the broken logic that because something is so overwhelming with evidence that is must be 100% correct. This isn't the way theories work.

[OnyxCougar]

Originally Posted by Kitsune

This is snipped from talkorigins.org

Talkorigins.org appears to just be an archive of a usenet newsgroup -- it is not a scientific journal or publication and isn't really any different than The Cellar. Their FAQ entry on why they keep referring to the evolutionary theory as a fact is based on the broken logic that because something is so overwhelming with evidence that is must be 100% correct. This isn't the way theories work.

I agree, Kit. My point in bringing this one up first was that whenever there are debates regarding E/C, the Christians bring up AiG and ICR, and the Evolutionists bring up talkorigins. This illustrates thinking on the topic. It's that kind of reasoning we're dealing with.

Like Wolf's post. NO WHERE did I say it's not ok to believe in Evolution, yet she implies it in her post. What's her belief about the subject? How sure is she? Why did she come to that conclusion? What evidence suggests I'm wrong?

I'd love a dialog without personal or condescending attacks. I really would. I'd love to explore this concept with intellectual people without the sarcasm. Like Clodfobble's post. He/She brought up a point, and I responded with information. That was great! Let's do more of that!!

I'm not trying to convert anyone, I'm just trying to reveal that perhaps the issue isn't so cut and dried as some of the evo's think it is.

[OnyxCougar]

Originally Posted by wolf

Is anyone else getting from this ....

That's is okay to be 100% certain about the biblical notion of creation, but totally not okay to accept with a high degree of certainty the theory of evolution?

Anyone can be 100% certain of their own beliefs. Who says it's not okay?

[xoxoxoBruce]

That is a lie. There are KNOWN cases where really good (and smart) scientists poke holes in the established theory and get railroaded, grants taken away, fired and pressured. You get rewarded if you try to further evolution's hold on society. This guy obviously not a scientist or he would know that. He was talking out his ass there.

Talk about snide pompous assholes, you're quoting one here. Rather than refute with these known cases he browbeats with "This guy obviously not a scientist or he would know that." Wow, that gives him lots of credibility...not.

[Undertoad]

Well, there's this way to go about it then.

Evidence of evolution: tons and tons

Evidence of humanity created by a Xtian god: a bunch of stories written a long time ago

Check.

[OnyxCougar]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Well, there's this way to go about it then.

Evidence of evolution: tons and tons

Evidence of humanity created by a Xtian god: a bunch of stories written a long time ago

Check.

Please show me your evidence for evolution, UT.

[OnyxCougar]

I found this:

we must remember that origin-science of whatever flavour is inherently different from operation science (how the universe presently works—gravity, physics, chemistry, etc.) because we can’t directly test or observe stories about the past.

[Kitsune]

I'd love a dialog without personal or condescending attacks.

And you came to an internet forum?

I'd love a dialog without personal or condescending attacks. I really would. I'd love to explore this concept with intellectual people without the sarcasm.

I think The Cellar is about the closest place you're going to get it. Of course, its all just armchair tactics -- I don't think anyone here is an expert on any of this.

I'll have to return, later, and describe what theory I subscribe to and why I've come to believe it more than the others I've heard. (Note: it is not Darwin's.)

[OnyxCougar]

Originally Posted by Kitsune

And you came to an internet forum?

Of course. Most of the people here I think of as extended family. I'm comfortable here. I've opened up here. Why wouldn't I talk to friends about this?

I think The Cellar is about the closest place you're going to get it. Of course, its all just armchair tactics -- I don't think anyone here is an expert on any of this.

Agreed. But I'm not looking to debate Hawking.

I'll have to return, later, and describe what theory I subscribe to and why I've come to believe it more than the others I've heard. (Note: it is not Darwin's.)

I can't wait

[Happy Monkey]

A public school system is not free to teach religion in science class.