Is Labeling Evolution as Just a Theory in Textbooks a Reasonable Approach?

[hokie1]

Gnahtte, you act as if this is the first time such a false claim as you propose has been made. It is not.

Let me give you a simple example. I've been to lots of creationist hoopla festivals so I know the sorts of statements and comebacks to expect.

I have been to vast areas of limestone examining the fossils. These limestone beds spread across vast areas. They represent an ancient sea. What is conspicuously missing from these rocks are fossilized fish. Here is a vast ancient sea without a fish. These rocks are found across the Earth. At one time in Earth's history there were no fish. Now there are fish. Something changed. The change in life forms from then to now includes the change from no fish to fish. That's evidence of evolution.

Let me give you another. There is a moth in Hawaii that feeds exclusively on banana plants. The moth is a member of a family of moths exclusive to Hawaii. Banana plants were brought to Hawaii by people. This moth has evolved since plants were brought to Hawaii.

But there is still not a shred of sound evidence and people that believe in evolution are ultimately believing by faith for it is unprovable.

You are confusing the fact of evolution with the theories of how evolution happened. Here are 2 facts. There are an overwhelming number of these facts.

 

[JaredJames]

I have been to vast areas of limestone examining the fossils. These limestone beds spread across vast areas. They represent an ancient sea. What is conspicuously missing from these rocks are fossilized fish. Here is a vast ancient sea without a fish. These rocks are found across the Earth. At one time in Earth's history there were no fish. Now there are fish. Something changed. The change in life forms from then to now includes the change from no fish to fish. That's evidence of evolution.

All these fossils, fish/no fish, lab proved evolution in micro-cultures, all these facts, surely it's more believable that God made it so in 6000 years.

 

[mgb_phys]

I have been to vast areas of limestone examining the fossils. These limestone beds spread across vast areas. They represent an ancient sea. What is conspicuously missing from these rocks are fossilized fish. Here is a vast ancient sea without a fish. These rocks are found across the Earth. At one time in Earth's history there were no fish.

Or the lack of fish prove that limestone deposits are not marine.

There is a moth in Hawaii that feeds exclusively on banana plants. The moth is a member of a family of moths exclusive to Hawaii. Banana plants were brought to Hawaii by people. This moth has evolved since plants were brought to Hawaii.

There are people in America that feed exclusively on McD. McD was only invented in the 50s so obese Americans have evolved since the 1950s

 

[JaredJames]

Or the lack of fish prove that limestone deposits are not marine.

Sticking my neck out here, but aren't the White Cliffs of Dover Limestone? Not sure how they got there, but they are by the sea.

 

[mgb_phys]

Sticking my neck out here, but aren't the White Cliffs of Dover Limestone? Not sure how they got there, but they are by the sea.

They are by the sea now. So are the granite cliffs on Skye - doesn't mean that granite is marine.

I was just proving a point before - but this is an important point. The limestone cliffs of dover were deposited in an ancient (Cretaceous) sea - that they are currently on the edge of a modern sea is pure coincidence. The same formations are across the whole of south west England and northern France and would be even without the channel.

 

[hokie1]

Or the lack of fish prove that limestone deposits are not marine.

The rocks are full of fossils, just not fish fossils. Bryozoans, ammonites, corals, crinoids, brachiopods, and trilobites to name some. No fish. No birds. No mammals.

Marine refers to oceans and seas, i.e. saltwater.

 

[vivesdn]

"These are undisputed scientific facts. We can Observe, Experiment, Hypothesize, and Repeat the experiment.
These are Scientific facts; whereas with evolution, we cannot even attempt to repeat the processes about which many people have theorized.
"

Take a bacteral strain. Put it on a media with low nutrients, but with some potential nutrient: something that this strain is known to not to grow with. Culture it fore some generations and you'll see colonies growing on the 'new' nutrient. You can repeat the experiment twice, tenths, thousands of times. You'll get the same qualitative result: new strains growing on new nutient. What can be diferent are mutations and number of colonies.

"Not a single of these facts are proved."
I am puzzled by this comment...
Call it lexical abuse. You could read 'explanations to these facts'.

 

[junglebeast]

Anything that reproduces according to a blueprint and has a small chance of translation error in the blueprint will experience evolution under a selective force.

It's a statistical fact that this will occur under tolerable circumstances such as the amount of redundancy in the blueprint, the type of translation error, the probability of translation error, the size of population, the gravity of selective force, etc.

This is evolution, and it is NOT a theory...because it is not based on observational evidence. Although the initial idea was based on observational evidence by Alfred Wallace, it can now be proven mathematically without regard to any observations. Thus, it is a fact, not a theory. It is extremely easy to create circumstances in which evolution will occur, and evolution is used in solving many everyday problems using computers.

What is a theory is the idea that the conditions have been amenable to evolution on Earth, and that it is responsible for the development of all organisms on the planet...but arguing that evolution itself is not a hard fact is simply false. However, the observation of DNA, and observation of evolution in progress, the fossil record, the observation of transcription and translation of DNA/RNA, and many other things provide an overwhelming amount of observational evidence that this theory is correct.

 

[BoomBoom]

But there is still not a shred of sound evidence and people that believe in evolution are ultimately believing by faith for it is unprovable.

The mountain of evidence that supports the theory of evolution is undeniable.

Your statement and premise is utterly false.


Just look at the things that have evolved out of the slime...like trolls.

 

[JaredJames]

As with all debates like this, the religious people attack evolution, when in reality their problem is / what they are actually attacking is how life began. I find that a lot of times they have trouble distinguishing between the two.

Evolution has been proven. How life began hasn't, these are just hypothesis. The most believable of these is clearly "god put us here, we just appeared 6000 years ago" argument, don't you think?

The arguments then become mangled with false analogies and claims which are very convincing to those without any scientific understanding/those easily brainwashed without question. The evidence for evolution is undeniable, but when someone doesn't understand it, they are open to these ridiculous arguments.

I'm surprised you are allowing this thread to continue so long, especially given the claims being made which are clearly false.

 

[baywax]

"God" is a hypothesis based on an ignorance of nature and the ignorance of the study of nature (science).

Evolution is a theory that has been proven in labs and in nature... as well as by the study of nature (science).

Betwixt the two shall never meet.

The "intelligent design" crowd is forgetting one thing. Intelligence is a human trait, bourn out of our instinct to survive. Recognizing intelligence in nature is akin to seeing faces in clouds... or bearded guys with lightning bolts in the clouds... many of us are projecting our own image and our own mode of thinking onto nature. Its a form of narcissism. We have to attach significance to nature by seeing ourselves in it. Everything has to revolve around our existence... in our opinion. The idea that nature is something that was invented to support humans is another example of our narcissism and ego-centric behaviour... which are again a manifestation of the instinct to survive.

The configurations we find in nature are a result of a long, long series of trial and error... 13.5 billion years of evolution... that's why they appear so well put together, almost "intelligent". But, that is our interpretation of nature. How could we be wrong? All I can tell you is, we've been wrong many times before. And we are wrong to imagine any kind of "intelligence" exists in the processes and machinations of natural selection.

 

[arunma]

But there is still not a shred of sound evidence and people that believe in evolution are ultimately believing by faith for it is unprovable.

Gnahtte, this isn't a matter of faith, nor do scientists "believe in" evolution. Rather than taking anything on faith, scientists have observed many things in nature, and constructed the model of evolution on that basis. Evolution is provable in the same way that other theories in science are provable.

I assume that rather than evolution, you believe in some form of creationism (please correct me if I'm wrong). There are varying degrees of credibility among those in the creationist community, and a few people are even respectable. But I've heard a lot of ridiculous and unsubstantiated arguments from this community. Jared has correctly pointed out that people who don't have formal scientific education are unfortunately more susceptible to these ridiculous arguments. Usually creationists attack evolution by poking holes in the theory or by providing possible but implausible alternatives (e.g. universe created with the appearance of age). Ultimately, they don't provide any alternative models that are testable in any way. An example of this is the starlight problem. Young Earth creationists often propose that light from distant stars was created en route to Earth to give the universe an appearance of age. Now technically, this is a possibility. But in proposing this alternative, the creationists are indirectly admitting that the laws of nature seem to be contradictory to the creationist model, and that the only solution to this problem is to assume that the laws were broken in just the right way such that the creationist model will work. You might take the creationist model on faith. But as far as science goes it's a cop out.

Now, I'm certainly not trying to attack any religious belief, here. I myself believe in a creator God. At the same time, I recognize that there is substantial legitimate evidence that favors the evolutionary model. So I have to ask: can you provide an alternative explanation to the biological development of life on Earth that could be tested by some sort of experiment? If any testable altenatives to evolution existed, then I think most scientists would be open to testing them. I haven't seen any legitimate alternatives yet.

 

[JaredJames]

I don't believe in any form of a god, I can't, there just isn't any evidence. I find there are two types of creationist, the type who simply ignore all evidence and simply go with what they believe no matter how ridiculous, and then there's the type which accepts science, but (and it's a big but), they then take out the science bit and substitute god (as in the starlight example above). They cut away the truth of the matter and simply say 'god did it' whether because he could or because he wanted to fool us and create an illusion of age (like with carbon dating when they claim 'god skews the results to throw us off', and then they expect you to believe it. Unfortunately people do. And when asked why god does it, the answer is always 'it's a test of faith'. Now to me, I would rather live this life (the only life we have), the way I want and enjoy it, than spend my life believing and worshipping in some all powerful god who, given the lack of evidence, probably doesn't exist.

Until you can put incontrovertible proof in front of me that there is a god, I just can't accept it. Don't get me wrong, what everyone else wants to believe is up to them.

 

[ideasrule]

When I see physicists argue over the merits of string theory or biologists debate the causes of extinction events, I feel thrilled. Those are examples of new hypotheses being tested and challenged, of science improving itself, and of intelligent people contributing to the collective knowledge of mankind.

I am enraged, however, when I see creationists exploiting the scientific illiteracy of the general public to declare well-established science a joke or a fraud. If they are so smart, where are their Nobel prizes? Where are their revolutionary discoveries and groundbreaking research papers? When creationists claim Earth is a few thousand years old and force scientists to debunk their nonsense, the resulting argument is not an intellectual debate; it's a farce. It's an epitome of stupidity and an insult on intellectuals in almost every field: anthropology, astronomy, cosmology, biology, genetics, history, linguistics, physics, geology, and even chemistry. Such stupidity does nothing but slow the progress of humanity, brainwash the ignorant into believing lies, and threaten to throw the world into a primitive dark age. Creationism is nothing but a despicable, dishonest, and dangerous delusion.

 

[ideasrule]

What I find interesting is that religious people often criticize science for constantly proving itself wrong, and contrast this with the stability of religious dogma.

Science updates its theories and creates new hypotheses in response to new evidence. It improves, becoming more and more accurate in explaining the natural world. In doing so, it opens the door to better technology, more effective medical treatments, and more fulfilling lives. This process of continuous self-improvement is called "progress".

Most religions, on the other hand, have the immutability of their dogma as one of their central tenets. They declare a set of beliefs to be the absolute truth, and do not allow it to be challenged or corrected in response to new insights. This refusal to improve is called "stagnation", and it is an ideology that is rotten to the core.

 

[drankin]

I just watched the Ben Stein movie "Expelled". I found it interesting. Biased but interesting. Their are many accomplished highly esteemed intelligent scientists who question Darwinism. He makes the point that whether wrong or right, the questions should not be silenced. I tend to agree. Darwin titled his book "Origin of Species". But could not, of course, determine an origin of a species. Noone has. Putting together at least 250 particular proteins (how are proteins created in a sterile environment?) in a particular way in a particular order in perfect conditins to create a living cell and then then that cell being able to survice and replicate, deviate, evolve...

This is why ID looks like a viable theory. There are just too many questions that aren't allowed to be asked. This is the question that doesn't have a satisfactory answer.

 

[WaveJumper]

I just watched the Ben Stein movie "Expelled". I found it interesting. Biased but interesting. Their are many accomplished highly esteemed intelligent scientists who question Darwinism. He makes the point that whether wrong or right, the questions should not be silenced. I tend to agree. Darwin titled his book "Origin of Species". But could not, of course, determine an origin of a species. Noone has. Putting together at least 250 particular proteins (how are proteins created in a sterile environment?) in a particular way in a particular order in perfect conditins to create a living cell and then then that cell being able to survice and replicate, deviate, evolve...

This is why ID looks like a viable theory. There are just too many questions that aren't allowed to be asked. This is the question that doesn't have a satisfactory answer.

Evolution is observed and is already fact. Abiogenesis is not. Evolution doesn't mean life came about naturally, it only hints so. Nobody knows why molecules group together in certain patterns(cells) that become alive(you might say it looks kind of supernatural).

Evolution doesn't preclude a creator.

 

[arunma]

I fully agree that the debate over creationism is an absolute farce. At the same time, we need to be careful how we communicate legitimate science to the general public. There are people out there who use science as a sort of atheist religion, and go on endless diatribes about how science has freed us from the primative bond of belief in the supernatural. I won't bother to discuss the legitimacy of this line of reasoning (I think the last thing we all want is a science vs. religion debate, whether on this thread or in public policy). I will, however, say that misusing science for this purpose detracts from the issues of evolution, big bang cosmology, and any other areas of science that concern the origin of the universe as we know it. A common creationist charge is that evolutionary biology is the enemy of faith and thus ought to be eliminated. When we, as scientists, take the role that the creationists have set up for us, we're defeating our own cause. Going on tangents about how only stupid people believe in God is not going to convince many people to give the evidence for evolution a fair hearing.

There's also the issue of the ridiculous arguments that creationists cite in favor of their models and against evolution/cosmology. We all know these arguments, because they've been around for upwards of thirty years: inaccurately carbon-dated mollusks, the statistical improbability of evolution, dust on the moon, the Earth's magnetic field, the second law of thermodynamics, the lack of transitional forms, etc. All of these arguments have been refuted by legitimate scientific research, so why do creationist organizations still cite them? Rather than writing angry emails to these organizations and getting the same form letter, maybe it's a better idea to engage people more directly. We have such a person right here on this forum, and it might be helpful to go through the evidence for evolution with him, as well as his creationist models (if he has any).

While I don't know that creationist organizations actually practice brainwashing or have the capacity to throw the world into a dark age, they do employ dishonest methods of argument, and their activities could cause America to fall behind the rest of the world scientifically (hmm...that might explain the demographic in my physics department). Employing the same appeals to emotion and fear tactics as them isn't going to work. Yes, creationism is without any merit whatsoever. I think the best response is a calm but frank explanation as to why it has no scientific legitimacy. And that explanation shouldn't devolve into fruitless debates that pit science and religion against each other.

 

[ideasrule]

I just watched the Ben Stein movie "Expelled". I found it interesting. Biased but interesting. Their are many accomplished highly esteemed intelligent scientists who question Darwinism. He makes the point that whether wrong or right, the questions should not be silenced. I tend to agree. Darwin titled his book "Origin of Species". But could not, of course, determine an origin of a species. Noone has. Putting together at least 250 particular proteins (how are proteins created in a sterile environment?) in a particular way in a particular order in perfect conditins to create a living cell and then then that cell being able to survice and replicate, deviate, evolve...

You do know the difference between speciation and abiogenesis, right? Wait, let me rephrase that...you DON'T know the difference between speciation and abiogenesis, right?

You might be interested to know that Expelled scored 10% on Rotten Tomatoes (http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/expelled_no_intelligence_allowed/). It's filled with academic dishonesty and ignorant speculation.

 

[arunma]

This is why ID looks like a viable theory. There are just too many questions that aren't allowed to be asked. This is the question that doesn't have a satisfactory answer.

My department (the Iowa State physics department) was recently at the center of an ID controversy, so I've been thinking about this recently. I'm certainly against censorship, even censorship of ID. The way I see it, meritorious research will get funding, and bad research won't. Certainly we should ask questions, but ultimately we need to arrive at answers. I think the problem with ID is hinted at within your own statement: ID asks questions about the origins of life and pokes a few holes in evolutionary theory, but it provides no testable alternative whatsoever. What testable predictions does ID make? What experiment could we perform to test for intelligent design? I already believe that the universe is designed by an intelligence (in fact I believe in the creation account found in the Bible), so I certainly have no personal biases against ID. But without testable hypotheses, ID isn't very useful.

Creationism can't simply cast doubt on evolution. Using the same creationist logic, one could cast doubt on gravity and invent their own explanation as to why objects fall. The creationists have to come up with a model that can actually be tested for validity.

 

[JaredJames]

My department (the Iowa State physics department) was recently at the center of an ID controversy, so I've been thinking about this recently. I'm certainly against censorship, even censorship of ID. The way I see it, meritorious research will get funding, and bad research won't. Certainly we should ask questions, but ultimately we need to arrive at answers. I think the problem with ID is hinted at within your own statement: ID asks questions about the origins of life and pokes a few holes in evolutionary theory, but it provides no testable alternative whatsoever. What testable predictions does ID make? What experiment could we perform to test for intelligent design? I already believe that the universe is designed by an intelligence (in fact I believe in the creation account found in the Bible), so I certainly have no personal biases against ID. But without testable hypotheses, ID isn't very useful.

Creationism can't simply cast doubt on evolution. Using the same creationist logic, one could cast doubt on gravity and invent their own explanation as to why objects fall. The creationists have to come up with a model that can actually be tested for validity.

The biggest problem I have with all religions is that they work on the basis of 'we don't understand it so it was god' and 'if science can't explain it now it never will'. I firmly believe that at some point in the future, science will come up with the answers, or at least a sound theory with evidence as to the creation of the universe, how life began etc.
I have seen countless debates where a 'respectable' scientist says "it must be god as we can't find any way how it could happen naturally". Now to me that is simply giving up. Just because you can't find the answer doesn't mean someone never will. It is this problem with religions, where they do not allow questioning of 'their facts', that they put to people without any evidence. And years ago, killing anyone who questioned them. We already know religions like christianity are based heavily on older religions, so how do we know what truth, if any, there is to a book such as the bible?

No Evidence, No Belief - That is my view of any matter scientific, religious or other.

 

[drankin]

You do know the difference between speciation and abiogenesis, right? Wait, let me rephrase that...you DON'T know the difference between speciation and abiogenesis, right?

You might be interested to know that Expelled scored 10% on Rotten Tomatoes (http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/expelled_no_intelligence_allowed/). It's filled with academic dishonesty and ignorant speculation.

No, I don't know crap about biology. And I've enjoyed many movies that the critics didn't. I don't really care about that. You should watch it and judge for yourself if you really care at all.

I care about allowing the questions to be asked. I believe Evolution to be good science and that ID is not a science at all. It's not allowed. But the questions (to me the really interesting questions) are avoided because of the religious connotation. The only science that could (maybe) be made of ID might be identifying those things that cannot be logically explained otherwise or that show that the only way biological structures could be particularly arranged is by design, which requires an intelligence.

 

[arunma]

The biggest problem I have with all religions is that they work on the basis of 'we don't understand it so it was god' and 'if science can't explain it now it never will'. I firmly believe that at some point in the future, science will come up with the answers, or at least a sound theory with evidence as to the creation of the universe, how life began etc.
I have seen countless debates where a 'respectable' scientist says "it must be god as we can't find any way how it could happen naturally". Now to me that is simply giving up. Just because you can't find the answer doesn't mean someone never will. It is this problem with religions, where they do not allow questioning of 'their facts', that they put to people without any evidence. And years ago, killing anyone who questioned them.

You seem to be operating under the premise that religions exist for the purpose of explaining natural phenomena. I can't speak for others, but my reasons for theism have nothing to do with any desire to know how the world works. If your reasons for rejecting the existence of any god is borne out of your assumption that science is capable of answering questions about our origins (which isn't a bad assumption), then you might want to reexamine that. Example: notice how the modern theory of electrodynamics doesn't stop most theists from saying that God makes lightning. And I went through the same Jackson-based E&M torture as most others here, so I don't think the problem is a lack of understanding on my part.

But hey, as you said, what you choose to believe is up to you. I hope no one interprets my above comments as an invitation to some sort of a religious debate. The issue here is the evidence for evolution, not the legitimacy of theism.

We already know religions like christianity are based heavily on older religions, so how do we know what truth, if any, there is to a book such as the bible?

Be careful that you don't indulge creationist-like academic dishonesty when it happens to support a position that you approve of. I've read literature on the supposed connections of Christianity to older religions, and unlike most people I've gone back to read the primary sources. These arguments are academically-poor at best. Much like the creationists, there are others who use already-refuted arguments to make claims about connections of Christianity to other religions.

 

[arunma]

No, I don't know crap about biology. And I've enjoyed many movies that the critics didn't. I don't really care about that. You should watch it and judge for yourself if you really care at all.

I care about allowing the questions to be asked. I believe Evolution to be good science and that ID is not a science at all. It's not allowed. But the questions (to me the really interesting questions) are avoided because of the religious connotation. The only science that could (maybe) be made of ID might be identifying those things that cannot be logically explained otherwise or that show that the only way biological structures could be particularly arranged is by design, which requires an intelligence.

I haven't seen "Expelled!" yet. Could you give me an example of a question that's being avoided in science? Also, do you happen to know of any testable predictions that ID proposes?

 

[drankin]

I haven't seen "Expelled!" yet. Could you give me an example of a question that's being avoided in science? Also, do you happen to know of any testable predictions that ID proposes?

Was life created by an intelligent designer?

No, I don't know of any testable predictions that ID proposes. That's why I don't think it is a valid science... as I stated.

 

[baywax]

I just watched the Ben Stein movie "Expelled". I found it interesting. Biased but interesting. Their are many accomplished highly esteemed intelligent scientists who question Darwinism. He makes the point that whether wrong or right, the questions should not be silenced. I tend to agree. Darwin titled his book "Origin of Species". But could not, of course, determine an origin of a species. Noone has. Putting together at least 250 particular proteins (how are proteins created in a sterile environment?) in a particular way in a particular order in perfect conditins to create a living cell and then then that cell being able to survice and replicate, deviate, evolve...

This is why ID looks like a viable theory. There are just too many questions that aren't allowed to be asked. This is the question that doesn't have a satisfactory answer.

Just because there are, as you say, "too many questions" does not mean we jump to some imaginary answer like "intelligent design" or a "designer of the universe(s)".

There are two reasons intelligent design does not qualify as an answer to the questions concerning panspermia and abiogenisis...

1. "Design" is a subjective designation that is arrived at through the bias/fallacy of an observer. In this instance, "intelligence" resides in the observer, not in what they're observing.

2. intelligent design implies pre-meditated composition/arrangement of matter with "purpose" in mind. Yet there is no proof of a "brain (mind) in space" with a purpose. There is, however, proof that, over the last 13.5 billion years of nature's evolution, certain patterns and laws have emerged as the "surviving", most efficient modes of the behaviour of energy/matter.

The laws of nature that have survived the primal beginnings of this universe are the perfect examples of the "survival of the fittest" laws. They seem unfathomably well designed, efficient and grand because of the eons of trial and error that have gone into shaping these wonders of nature. And they continue to evolve, as we speak.

 

[ideasrule]

arunma: You seem to think that I'm a scientist ("When we, as scientists..."). That's not true; I'm simply a science enthusiast who trusts objective evidence over unfounded speculation. If I damaged the reputation of the scientists here, I apologize; the opinions I express here are my own, and should not be considered those of the scientific community.

That said, I see that I have to clarify what I meant by "brainwashing" and "throwing the world into a dark age". Instilling a belief in a person using dishonesty by excluding evidence to the contrary IS brainwashing. It's not a pretty word, but it is very accurate in this case. As for the possibility of a dark age, the stats regarding Americans' scientific beliefs are worrying, to say the least, and they hardly bode well for the future. As a Canadian, I'm also deeply worried that a large percentage of high-school students here consider evolution and Big Bang to be silly beliefs, and not accurate models of the universe. That is hardly an encouraging sign.

I'm surprised that you think my posts contained fear tactics. Portraying creationism as harmful is hardly a "fear tactic"; using that logic, saying that anything holds back progress would also be a "fear tactic". And "emotional appeals"? If my support of objectivity appeals to your emotions, that's great, but it was intended solely as a logical argument.

 

[drankin]

Just because there are, as you say, "too many questions" does not mean we jump to some imaginary answer like "intelligent design" or a "designer of the universe(s)".

There are two reasons intelligent design does not qualify as an answer to the questions concerning panspermia and abiogenisis...

1. "Design" is a subjective designation that is arrived at through the bias/fallacy of an observer. In this instance, "intelligence" resides in the observer, not in what they're observing.

2. intelligent design implies pre-meditated composition/arrangement of matter with "purpose" in mind. Yet there is no proof of a "brain (mind) in space" with a purpose. There is, however, proof that, over the last 13.5 billion years of nature's evolution, certain patterns and laws have emerged as the "surviving", most efficient modes of the behaviour of energy/matter.

The laws of nature that have survived the primal beginnings of this universe are the perfect examples of the "survival of the fittest" laws. They seem unfathomably well designed, efficient and grand because of the eons of trial and error that have gone into shaping these wonders of nature. And they continue to evolve, as we speak.

1. This doesn't disqualify the question. Because if life was indeed designed an intelligence would have been required.

2. The proof to a purpose is the fact that life actually does "survive". What caused nonliving matter to arrange itself to become living organisms? And why would those living organisms try to survive? To me it suggests purpose. There is no logical mechanism that propels this activity.

 

[hokie1]

I just watched the Ben Stein movie "Expelled".

Drankin please take what was said in Expelled with a grain of salt. Here are a few of the incorrect notions in the movie:

1. The scene in the lecture hall was staged with extras, not students
2. The people that were 'fired' from the Smithsonian were never employees
3. The prof who went to Ames stopped publishing and you probably know that is bad if you want to be in an academic environment.
4. The claim that Darwin can never be questioned is rubbish - drop in on a conferrence and see the extent
5. The film's claim that Darwinism leads to all sorts of evils is again rubbish

Learning fromthis movie is like tryingto learn history from an Oliver Stone film - not happening.

 

[JaredJames]

You seem to be operating under the premise that religions exist for the purpose of explaining natural phenomena. I can't speak for others, but my reasons for theism have nothing to do with any desire to know how the world works.

I meant it with regards to creationism and why people believe in it, the purpose of which is to explain the creation of the universe, a natural phenomena if I've ever known one. Why you believe in any religious beliefs is totally your choice, however, why people choose to believe creationism with no evidence to back it up and disregard all of science with all its evidence is a true mystery to me.

If your reasons for rejecting the existence of any god is borne out of your assumption that science is capable of answering questions about our origins (which isn't a bad assumption), then you might want to reexamine that.

Re-examine what? I would rather wait for science to come up with a plausible reason for something (for example, origin of life), than make an unsubstantiated claim regarding some all powerful being again, with NO EVIDENCE to prove it exists.

Example: notice how the modern theory of electrodynamics doesn't stop most theists from saying that God makes lightning. And I went through the same Jackson-based E&M torture as most others here, so I don't think the problem is a lack of understanding on my part.

If you have a theory and its ascociated evidence and then disregard it, a theory which I might add has been tested numerous times by many people to ensure accuracy of the results, to disregard it is being truly ignorant. You are choosing to ignore perfectly valid and plausible evidence in favour of something which you have no proof of, you tell me where the logic in that is?

But hey, as you said, what you choose to believe is up to you. I hope no one interprets my above comments as an invitation to some sort of a religious debate. The issue here is the evidence for evolution, not the legitimacy of theism.

I agree, don't construe any comments of my own as an attempt at a religious debate, but what I want to get an answer for is, why given all the evidence, people can simply ignore something like evolution, with no other plausible hypothesis to replace it other than "god did it".

Be careful that you don't indulge creationist-like academic dishonesty when it happens to support a position that you approve of.

An example please?

I've read literature on the supposed connections of Christianity to older religions, and unlike most people I've gone back to read the primary sources. These arguments are academically-poor at best. Much like the creationists, there are others who use already-refuted arguments to make claims about connections of Christianity to other religions.

They have shown various holdiays in christianity (christmas for example) to come from pagan festivals, in order to ease the implementation of a new religion by a new ruling power. Depending where you read in the bible christ was supposedly born on many dates, with different christian sects celebrating on different days. The 25th was simply chosen as it aligned with a holdiay the people already had (I'll look up an example now).

 

[JaredJames]

Here is a link to a Christian website, read the first few paragraphs and it explains exactly how christmas isn't a christian festival and was adopted from paganism:
http://www.loughbrickland.org/articles/mass-easter.shtml

You say people who make claims christianity is linked to other religions give "academically-poor" arguments, yet here is a site from the religion itself which disagrees with your claim. Why would the christians argue it as well? If these aspects are tuly christians as you imply by the above statement, it doesn't make sense for them to argue against thems does it? So I think you should re-think your claim of the arguments being academically poor.

 

[Hurkyl]

I bet I can find a scientific textbook that says that electrons orbit the nucleus of the atom like planets around a star. Will you promise to reject quantum mechanics if I do?

 

[JaredJames]

I bet I can find a scientific textbook that says that electrons orbit the nucleus of the atom like planets around a star. Will you promise to reject quantum mechanics if I do?

What? Would you like me to quote more references? I am yet to see one site which claims christmas on the 25th is purely a christian holiday.

And I'm pretty sure any secondary school textbook would make that electron claim. But before you reject anything you should look at all the evidence for it, if you must make a choice on believing in quantum mechanics, you should evaluate as much evidence for and against it as you can before doing so, and given evidence for religious claims is zero, I'd say it's good grounds to reject it.

I'm not asking anyone to reject anything, I'm simply pointing out that for arunma to say "I've read literature on the supposed connections of Christianity to older religions, and unlike most people I've gone back to read the primary sources. These arguments are academically-poor at best.", when a simple google pulls enough evidence to the contrary, is incorrect. Google 'when was jesus born' and the amount of articles regarding the inaccuracies of christian dating and celebrations, with none confirming the known 25th.

You can make all these claims and statements you want, but until someone can answer "how can you reject all evidence for evolution and substitute it with (in this case), god, with no evidence to back it up?", I can't see there's a valid argument for it.

 

[drankin]

Drankin please take what was said in Expelled with a grain of salt. Here are a few of the incorrect notions in the movie:

1. The scene in the lecture hall was staged with extras, not students
2. The people that were 'fired' from the Smithsonian were never employees
3. The prof who went to Ames stopped publishing and you probably know that is bad if you want to be in an academic environment.
4. The claim that Darwin can never be questioned is rubbish - drop in on a conferrence and see the extent
5. The film's claim that Darwinism leads to all sorts of evils is again rubbish

Learning fromthis movie is like tryingto learn history from an Oliver Stone film - not happening.

I understand the movie was extremely biased but it makes some intriguing points worthy of open debate.

 

[bassplayer142]

Nobody will question that 99% of animals that ever lived have gone extinct. We know this from fossils. So god just creates and destroys these animals until humans show up? Now since we are here to observe the process maybe he won't create anymore and all the animals will go extinct. Evolution has a ridiculous amount of evidence that point to its truth.