Evolutionary Science-v- Creationism

[OnyxCougar]

Originally Posted by alphageek31337

Since this got dredged up from the dark, horrible recesses of the Cellar, I feel I must add my opinions. I don't necessarily buy evolution part and parcel, but I see it as a much stronger jumping off point than "God made the world as it is today and it has not changed at all ever".

Taking up the Creationist Science side, no one in Creation Science thinks "God made the world as it is today and it has not changed at all ever". Of course it has changed. Of course speciation and mutations occur. That is observable. It happens.

Darwinian competition ("Survival of the Fittest") can be observed in the world today, with the evolution (yes, whether you believe evolution started it all or not, you cannot deny that it is happening today) of such things as antibiotic-resistant bacteria and the commonly cited case of Peppered Moths in Britain.

What you are describing is speciation, or mutation, which are one of the 6 definitions of evolution. Again, speciation and mutation happens. No question of that.

For those of you unfamiliar with the moths, the basic idea is thus: there are moths in England that tend to gather on a tree with white bark. These moths varied in color from almost pure white to pure black. A pure black moth is easy for predators to spot, so the population tended to include very few pure or mostly black moths, with the dominance of color leaning toward the white moths. Around the time of the industrial revolution, however, a shift occurred. Coal smoke from nearby factories blackened the trees, suddenly making white moths very visible and black moths quite well hidden. Thus, obviously, the population swung toward black moths.

Actually, the peppered moth experiment was proven to be a hoax. They glued the moths to the trees. I cited the many references in this or a another EvC thread here on the cellar, but it's not hard to find if you google it.

Now, it has been argued that since no new genetic information was created, that evolution did not occur, and this is true.

Exactly so. Evolution in the "molecules to man" sense means a GAIN of information. Which we NEVER see. All we can see (and prove) is a LOSS of information.

The moths are simply an example of natural selection, the driving force, the keystone if you will, behind evolution.

Evolution in the "mutation or speciation" sense, absolutely.

If an omniscient, omnipotent being created all the creatures of Earth, why do things like this have to change? Creatures needn't adapt, because they were created in perfect balance by a perfect being.

You are correct. God did make a perfect world. Then Adam and Eve ate the apple, and God told them, in effect, that's it, you've screwed it up for everyone now, and things began to deteriorate and change. In the bible, everything, every animal and person, were vegetarian. After the fall, it was open season, and animals began eating each other, and God made the first clothes from animal skins.

One might also note Albert's Squirrel on one side of the Grand Canyon versus the Kaibab Squirrel on the other side. The two are almost perfect genetic matches, with minor physical variations, and cannot interbreed. New genetic material and a new species were both created, theoretically by the Grand Canyon forming and splitting the populations. There we have proof that evolution does happen, though it will be impossible without some interesting manipulations of the fourth dimension to prove that it *did* happen.

No, we have proof speciation and mutations happen. Not proof that man evolved from a primordial soup billions of years ago.

Never has it been observed that God plopped a new species onto the Earth, though if Creationism is correct in its assumptions, he wouldn't have to. There will also always be gaps in the fossil record, because we must note that it is an extremely rare occurence for an animal to be fossilized after death. Even in extremely successful species with millions in population at one time (and, we must assume, an exponentially greater number of deaths), there are not terribly many preserved fossils, especially those of full bodies of a single organism, which would prove infinitely more useful than single or small groups of bones, which could easily be attributed to the animal before or after the transitional species. Transitional species are just that, transitional. They exist for a short time as one archetype moves toward another. There are not nearly as many of them as there are of successful archetypes, and they do not exist for as long a time (hence, fewer bodies and exponentially fewer fossils).

Agreed, and more "evidence" that we can't prove transitional species even existed. They may have, but we don't have proof. And isn't observable and/or recreatable proof what science is based upon?

On another note, one of the more common arguments for intelligent design is what I refer to as the automobile theory, essentially that evolution is just as likely as a tornado blowing through a junkyard and assembling a complete, running automobile. The problem with this theory is that it assumes one junkyard, one planet on which life could possibly have evolved. Given that the universe is infinite (space is nothingness, nothingness can extend onward indefinitely, therefore the universe must be infinite in size), and that there are an absolutely mindblowingly large number of planets in the universe (a number large enough that it can be considered, for practical purposes, infinite), what is the likelihood that there is *not* a planet on which life could evolve? Essentially, given 1 junkyard and one tornado, the chances of assembling an automobile are infintessimally small, but given an infinite number of junkyards and an infinite number of tornados blowing through each of them, it is almost a guarantee that, at least once, the parts will come together by chance and form a running automobile. This is the same theory I present to people who don't believe that intelligent life exists off of the planet Earth: given an infinite number of attempts over time, even at infintessimally small odds, Earth cannot be the only place in the universe that fell within that precise range on the bell curve that permits intelligent life to develop. In fact, it is safe to assume that there are a vast multitude of civilzations throughout the universe.

I don't buy the "intelligent design" theory as put forth as "God used evolution". In my opinion, that is a cop out theory that tries to fit man's theory of evolution into a biblical framework. I'm a literal creationist. God did it like he said he did it in the bible. Trying to fit man's theories into that framework doesn't work for me. That is mostly because if I accept that God was lying when he said "DAY" (yom) and "he saw it was good", then what else is he lying about? That is why this issue is so important to Christianity, Judaism and Islam.

Also, as a sidenote for intelligent design theorists who wish to argue, "your theory is wrong" != "my theory is right". Simply poking holes in evolution does not mean that there is a God. Come up with scientifically backed data that withstands scrutiny and provides mechanisms to explain the changes in organisms that we have observed, and you will begin to actually prove your theory.

www.answersingenesis.org

Pokes holes in evolutionary theory AND puts forth new SCIENTIFIC theories that prove a young earth could have happened just as easily as an old earth.

[Troubleshooter]

Originally Posted by OnyxCougar

I'm a literal creationist. God did it like he said he did it in the bible.

Which one?

Which one?

[OnyxCougar]

Originally Posted by Troubleshooter

Which one?

Which one?

The hebrew text of the old testament and the (mostly) greek text of the new. Yes, there are some minor changes between different translations, and when they differ completely in mean from one to another, I consult the hebrew text and dictionaries, and use the translation most closely matching that.

[Undertoad]

Good summary alph! Good work by you!

The junkyard thing is just a dumb analogy; there are plenty of junkyards right here on this planet, given that you have billions upon billions of years to wait and every day is another combination of the primordial soup.

More importantly, it only looks like a tornado because we experience things in such a short burst of time. We experience a split-second in our lifetimes, of all the time that we could be aware of. We have but a moment to make sense of it all. It's like the whole thing was set up all day and we wake up at 11:59:59 PM and only have until midnight to figure out the previous 24 hours.

[Kitsune]

Agreed -- some very nice takes on various sides in here, recently.

One thing that bugs me about Creationists is that they "cannot believe that we evolved from apes". Even though this is a poor (and incorrect) simplification of a very complex theory, there is one aspect about this that bugs me: many creationists, in argument, indicate that humans are so vastly different from other species in the animal kingdom that we should be effectively removed from the catagory entirely. Why is this? The accomplishments of civilization aside, we really aren't much different when you get down to it. We bleed, we eat, we reproduce, we die.

[OnyxCougar]

Originally Posted by Kitsune

many creationists, in argument, indicate that humans are so vastly different from other species in the animal kingdom that we should be effectively removed from the catagory entirely. Why is this? The accomplishments of civilization aside, we really aren't much different when you get down to it. We bleed, we eat, we reproduce, we die.

Well, I can't speak for all creationists, (there are differing opinions even within the Creationist circles) but Genesis tells us that Adam actually named all the animals and was given dominion over all the animals. (The hebrew verbage is important here, specifically, the word nephesh, which indicates an animal with a soul, ie NOT insects.) This gets rather complex, so I'll refer you to the AIG site I go to alot when I think about stuff like that.

http://www.answersingenesis.org

[Torrere]

Originally Posted by OnyxCougar

The hebrew verbage is important here, specifically, the word nephesh, which indicates an animal with a soul, ie NOT insects.

Does this mean that cats go to Heaven?

[OnyxCougar]

Originally Posted by Torrere

Does this mean that cats go to Heaven?

Let me check on nephesh and get back to you.

[Clodfobble]

And our DNA is 98% identical to a chimpanzee's.

[OnyxCougar]

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

And our DNA is 98% identical to a chimpanzee's.

And that means what?

[Happy Monkey]

"It was magic" is not a scientific theory. It is a religious assertion. It belongs in a comparative religions class, not a science class.

[Fudge Armadillo]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

"It was magic" is not a scientific theory. It is a religious assertion. It belongs in a comparative religions class, not a science class.

Actually, that statement is a theory. Taken literally, it might be rephrased as “this event had no cause”. I always liked that one, because I have heard the argument many times that such a statement does not qualify as a theory because it is fundamentally not testable (since it ignores causality, which all theories rely on). However, I would point out that the statement *is* testable; give that, in essence, one is simply trying to determine if causality is required. If one is to observe other non-causal events, then one might conclude that such events do happen, and therefore “magic” does exist. Most people don’t do this, though we observe many non-causal events every day (I mean in the strict sense that the actions that led to the state of the event were not observed by us). Usually, we possess other descriptions of reality that would lead us to believe that the event was indeed caused by something else (though we didn’t observe it). However, one that did not have such a background may indeed believe that the event was caused by “magic”.

That made way more sense in my head then it does on paper.

[elf]

Originally Posted by Fudge Armadillo

...

That made way more sense in my head then it does on paper.

You have no idea how many posts I have deleted just for that very exact reason. There's things that are so very clear in your head, and then when you try to enunciate them, they all of a sudden seem muddled up.

However, you did make plenty of sense to me. At least, if you meant something along the lines of what I tell my son: "If there's absolutely no reasonable explanation for it, it must be magic." To which he asked, "but, what IS magic? I told him, "Science we haven't figured out yet."

Queen of simplification? y/n?

[Fudge Armadillo]

Originally Posted by elf

"If there's absolutely no reasonable explanation for it, it must be magic." To which he asked, "but, what IS magic? I told him, "Science we haven't figured out yet."

Queen of simplification? y/n?

Sort of. Think of it this way – I walk outside to get in my car and leave (fully expecting my car to be there), only to discover my car isn’t where I parked it. I now need to develop a theory to explain what has happened to it. I might surmise that it was stolen. This would be reasonable, since I have prior experience with such events. However, I might also conclude that my car was transported to neverland. So I decide to test both theories; I call the police, report my car stolen, and sure enough, they tell me it has been found miles away. My theory is, therefore, adequately confirmed. Now I want to test the other theory. How do I do this? Most would say that I can’t, since there is nothing to test. However, what am I really testing? I am really trying to see if events that occur without explanation are reasonable. Since I encounter events like this numerous times every day (since most of what occurs I do not observe directly), I might conclude that such an explanation is reasonable. In fact, I would argue that all people who believe in what is generally described as “religious fundamentalism” most conclude that the aforementioned hypothesis is reasonable. I am not trying to put anyone down; the validity of one’s beliefs is none of my business. However, such an assertion is not, at its base “religious”. It is merely a judgment call on how much information is needed to validate a theory. Religion comes in when one believes that no justification is required or allowed.

The main point of all this is that a common argument for not teaching creationistic theories in public school is that such theories are “religious”. When pressed, people will sometimes say that since creationist theories are akin to magic, they are fundamentally not testable, and therefore should not be taught. My assertion is that they are testable; easily, in fact. Even a child should be able to recognize the weakness of the theories easily.

I think that if my child asked me a similar question, I might well reply in the same manner as you. Of course, I might try to explain what I meant as I did above, which would very likely be futile. Then I would buy us both ice cream.

: )

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by Fudge Armadillo

My assertion is that they are testable; easily, in fact. Even a child should be able to recognize the weakness of the theories easily.

No, they are not testable. If you spot a problem in a religious assertion, they can say "God is omnipotent and inscrutable, and He made it that way", and presto! The hole is gone.