Theory of Evolution -- do you avoid teaching it?

[Perry]

How/why did the animals freeze to death in a block of ice while eating fresh vegetation? If they had first died, then froze then surely they would not be so well preserved, or have vegetation in their mouths that was likewise preserved. How did this come about?

 

Here is an explanation:

Preserved frozen remains of woolly mammoths, with much soft tissue remaining, have been found in the northern parts of Siberia. This is a rare occurrence, essentially requiring the animal to have been buried rapidly in liquid or semi-solids such as silt, mud and icy water which then froze. This may have occurred in a number of ways. Mammoths may have been trapped in bogs or quicksands and either died of starvation or exposure, or drowning if they sank under the surface. The evidence of undigested food in the stomach and seed pods still in the mouth of many of the specimens suggests that neither starvation nor exposure are likely. The maturity of this ingested vegetation places the time period in autumn rather than in spring when flowers would be expected.[16] The animals may have fallen through ice into small ponds or potholes, entombing them. Many are certainly known to have been killed in rivers, perhaps through being swept away by river floods. In one location, by the Berelekh River in Yakutia in Siberia, more than 9,000 bones from at least 156 individual mammoths have been found in a single spot, apparently having been swept there by the current.[17][18]

[WishboneDawn]

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2007/04/18/farewell-lucy

 

oops, I meant to type "died"

 

That's not much of an article. I think if someone wanted to claim Lucy wasn't in the family tree then there would have to be a much more persuasive and in depth attempt then that.

 

I'd reccommend taking a real look at the case for Lucy being an ancestor and then see if the claims being made in that article are accurate.

[WishboneDawn]

How/why did the animals freeze to death in a block of ice while eating fresh vegetation? If they had first died, then froze then surely they would not be so well preserved, or have vegetation in their mouths that was likewise preserved. How did this come about?

 

All you need is an animal that's dies a death that puts it in the environment that prevents decay while it happens to be chewing on something. :) National Geographic had a good article a couple of issues ago on a well preserved baby Mammoth that was discovered and examined and I think it has a pretty good explanation of how such a scenario might play out. Here's the link.

[WishboneDawn]

Question: "Why doesn't the earth stop spinning?"

Answer: "Because an object will remain in its present state of motion unless acted upon by a force."

 

Question: "How can the earth's motion be changed?"

Answer: "By having a force act upon it."

 

I guess it does explain the why and how. :)

 

Nice try but that's circular logic, not an explanation. :D

[dangerdad]

Expelled, No Intelligence Allowed and then ask yourself if you think evolution is "just science".

 

Expelled is one of the most slanted, agenda-driven things I've ever seen. It makes "An Inconvenient Truth" look like the apex of documentaries.

 

Blargh. I lost a lot of respect for Ben Stein on that one. Not only did they lie to interview subjects in production, but much of the movie is deceptive or simply wrong.

 

It especially annoys me because it makes me defend Richard Dawkins, who's a terrible person IMO.

Edited June 29, 2009 by dangerdad

[Jorsay]

Nice try but that's circular logic, not an explanation. :D

 

Labeling something as "Circular Logic" (albeit incorrectly) doesn't change my argument. You said the law doesn't answer why or how. That is exactly what it answers. The question is "Why doesn't the earth stop spinning." The answer is "because an object remains in its present state of motion; because it follows the laws of physics". If not, what answer would you propose? The same goes for the question and answer as to 'How'. It is the inductive nature of science that it provides answers that are based upon theories and laws arrived at through observation.

[WishboneDawn]

Labeling something as "Circular Logic" (albeit incorrectly) doesn't change my argument. You said the law doesn't answer why or how. That is exactly what it answers. The question is "Why doesn't the earth stop spinning." The answer is "because an object remains in its present state of motion; because it follows the laws of physics". If not, what answer would you propose? The same goes for the question and answer as to 'How'. It is the inductive nature of science that it provides answers that are based upon theories and laws arrived at through observation.

 

I was thinking about your post after and thinking I'd sort of missed your point.

[WishboneDawn]

It especially annoys me because it makes me defend Richard Dawkins, who's a terrible person IMO.

 

Not terrible, just terribly tiring. Same as Hitchens in my books. Two mean men with an axe to grind who simplify complex matters (religion, faith) so they can achieve their ultimate aim - to be right and to prove others wrong.

 

EDIT: Um...I'm not sure how "mean" made it into that sentence.

Edited June 30, 2009 by WishboneDawn

[KidsHappen]

Kidshappen-

You are such a peacemaker!:001_smile:

 

I wasn't trying to be. The first time I called someone on this, in this thread, it was new person and I thought maybe she didn't know the rules. She did apologize and remove the comment. Then Peek did the same thing and I know she knows the rules. Since I had already called a person from one side of the isle on it, I then felt, to be fair, I had to call Peek, from the other side of the isle, on it. I did see it happen a third time in this thread but I figure at this point everyone reading this thread should knows the rules and well, I just got tired of playing peacemaker. :)

[Marylou]

That's not much of an article. I think if someone wanted to claim Lucy wasn't in the family tree then there would have to be a much more persuasive and in depth attempt then that.

 

I'd reccommend taking a real look at the case for Lucy being an ancestor and then see if the claims being made in that article are accurate.

 

:bigear: which statements/claims in the article are inaccurate?

 

Expelled is one of the most slanted, agenda-driven things I've ever seen. It makes "An Inconvenient Truth" look like the apex of documentaries.

 

Blargh. I lost a lot of respect for Ben Stein on that one. Not only did they lie to interview subjects in production, (references?) but much of the movie is deceptive or simply wrong. :bigear: would really like to hear your examples, really.

 

It especially annoys me because it makes me defend Richard Dawkins, who's a terrible person IMO.

:001_huh: and he's a terrible person because . . . .? If you know of a place where I can read in his own words his explanation of what he said in that interview (namely the space alien thing) I am very interested in seeing it. I read his work and find his writings very fascinating.

[jplain]

:bigear: which statements/claims in the article are inaccurate?

I haven't studied the paper myself, not am I familiar enough with the field to offer an educated opinion, but this blog posting provides one criticism. In a nutshell, the authors of that Au afarensis article previously published another paper demonstrating the wide range of variation within Neanderthal jawbones. Why then would they not assume a similar range of variation in australopithecine jawbones?

 

An earlier post by the same blogger includes several other interesting thoughts.

[KingM]

To me, evolution/universe origin theories are there to try to explain why the things that exist now are here. Where did these things come from?

 

With religion it appears that believing in a God/designer you answer that question, but then create another one. Where did God come from?

 

At some point does everyone believe that something (God, universe, whatever) just existed?

 

 

To be fair, this question doesn't go away, no matter what your worldview. Well then, where did God come from? Or, well then, what was there before the Big Bang?

 

I can't wrap my mind around any explanation for where it all came from. Wasn't there always something before, and where did that come from.

[herbalgirl]

I am just beginning the homeschool journey, with a 7 and 5 year old, and we're Creationists, but we're using SL and that certainly doesn't shy away from bringing up evolution (Usbourne books, etc.) My husband and I think this is a perfect time to talk about it with the children, let them know what we believe, that not everyone believes that way, there are different theories, etc. We do let them know we believe evolution is wrong and that we believe the Bible proves it wrong, BUT we also teach them that even though others have differing viewpoints, we still need to love them as our neighbors. We still need to be gracious. Sometimes, I think totally shying away from discussing anything "controversial" with our children makes them grow up smug and yet naive to the world in general. That is not what we're aiming for in teaching our children!

[nmoira]

If you know of a place where I can read in his own words his explanation of what he said in that interview (namely the space alien thing) I am very interested in seeing it. I read his work and find his writings very fascinating.

You'll find an explanation about 1/5 of the way down this page.

 

Here's most of the first paragraph:

 

Another example. Toward the end of his interview with me, Stein asked whether I could think of any circumstances whatsoever under which intelligent design might have occurred. It's the kind of challenge I relish, and I set myself the task of imagining the most plausible scenario I could. I wanted to give ID its best shot, however poor that best shot might be. I must have been feeling magnanimous that day, because I was aware that the leading advocates of Intelligent Design are very fond of protesting that they are not talking about God as the designer, but about some unnamed and unspecified intelligence, which might even be an alien from another planet. Indeed, this is the only way they differentiate themselves from fundamentalist creationists, and they do it only when they need to, in order to weasel their way around church/state separation laws. So, bending over backwards to accommodate the IDiots ("oh NOOOOO, of course we aren't talking about God, this is SCIENCE") and bending over backwards to make the best case I could for intelligent design, I constructed a science fiction scenario. Like Michael Ruse (as I surmise) I still hadn't rumbled Stein, and I was charitable enough to think he was an honestly stupid man, sincerely seeking enlightenment from a scientist. I patiently explained to him that life could conceivably have been seeded on Earth by an alien intelligence from another planet (Francis Crick and Leslie Orgel suggested something similar -- semi tongue-in-cheek). The conclusion I was heading towards was that, even in the highly unlikely event that some such 'Directed Panspermia' was responsible for designing life on this planet, the alien beings would THEMSELVES have to have evolved, if not by Darwinian selection, by some equivalent 'crane' (to quote Dan Dennett). My point here was that design can never be an ULTIMATE explanation for organized complexity. Even if life on Earth was seeded by intelligent designers on another planet, and even if the alien life form was itself seeded four billion years earlier, the regress must ultimately be terminated (and we have only some 13 billion years to play with because of the finite age of the universe). Organized complexity cannot just spontaneously happen.

There's more.

 

Bowing out of this now.

 

:leaving:

[Spy Car]

Bowing out of this now.

 

:leaving:

 

But you got dragged in :D

[nmoira]

 

But you got dragged in :D

And I suppose you're proud of yourself? :tongue_smilie:

[Spy Car]

And I suppose you're proud of yourself? :tongue_smilie:

 

I have mixed emotions.

 

It's kind of like watching Godfather III :D

[nmoira]

I have mixed emotions.

 

It's kind of like watching Godfather III :D

Just don't compare me to Sofia Coppola (unless it's as a director).

[Spy Car]

Just don't compare me to Sofia Coppola (unless it's as a director).

 

I was thinking of you in the Al Pacino role. Maybe that doesn't help? :D

[Lovedtodeath]

 

:bigear: which statements/claims in the article are inaccurate?

Well, I don't think Lucy was an early human or missing link, and I immediately tuned out the article because of the fascination with the jaw bone. Evolutionists that accept Lucy as a missing link do not deny a simian skull, but rather say that simians must have started walking upright (which is what is different about Lucy, her legs seem to indicate that she walked upright) before skull changes occured.

[Marylou]

You guys crack me up :lurk5:

 

"Organized complexity cannot just spontaneously happen." love, LOVE, LOVE this quote. Thanks for sharing it!

[Marylou]

I haven't studied the paper myself, not am I familiar enough with the field to offer an educated opinion, but this blog posting provides one criticism. In a nutshell, the authors of that Au afarensis article previously published another paper demonstrating the wide range of variation within Neanderthal jawbones. Why then would they not assume a similar range of variation in australopithecine jawbones?

 

An earlier post by the same blogger includes several other interesting thoughts.

 

Excellent! Thank you!

[lovemyboys]

I hope this clears the matter up somewhat. A theory is not a baby law. A law is not a theory that's been proven. Next time you're discussing the matter with someone defending the theory of evolution you will know that you simply can't, with any honesty, claim evolution is a theory because it's unproven. Next time you're discussing the matter with a creationist you will know that when you insist evolution is the truth, you're using inexcusably sloppy language.

 

With all due respect, it's interesting that the creationists are considered the extremists who won't consider and accept other (evolution) viewpoints. From this thread, I would have to say that the evolutionists have built a pretty high altar to their theory as well. It is sacrosanct and not-to-be-questioned.

 

Imnsho, that doesn't sound like good science either. But hey, there are a lot of learned members of the club.

[dangerdad]

There's no such thing as an "evolutionist".

 

I accepted the theory of evolution based on the scientific evidence. And there's a lot of it. Say, as much as gravity. So yes, I believe in gravity. Oh, and evolution.

[Spy Car]

We teach "gravitism" as if it's a theory :tongue_smilie:

[funschooler5]

Expelled is one of the most slanted, agenda-driven things I've ever seen. It makes "An Inconvenient Truth" look like the apex of documentaries.

 

Blargh. I lost a lot of respect for Ben Stein on that one. Not only did they lie to interview subjects in production, but much of the movie is deceptive or simply wrong.

 

It especially annoys me because it makes me defend Richard Dawkins, who's a terrible person IMO.

 

:iagree:

 

I couldn't even make it through the whole movie.

[RegGuheert]

The ONLY way to conclude we are descended from Lucy is through circular reasoning based on an a priori belief in evolution. There is NO scientific evidence of any sort that indicates Lucy is an ancestor. In fact, it should be stated that Lucy is NOT our ancestor since ALL scientific observation shows that species ONLY reproduce their own species.

 

Since there is not scientific evidence Lucy is an ancestor, then it is also entirely circular to claim Lucy as evidence for evolution. Unfortunately, most of the so-called "evidence" I see put forth for evolution from the fossil record is of this circular variety.

 

By all means, if your religious beliefs compel you to believe that you are descended from Lucy, then do so. But please do not expect others to accept this circular argument as any form of scientific evidence.

[WishboneDawn]

With all due respect, it's interesting that the creationists are considered the extremists who won't consider and accept other (evolution) viewpoints. From this thread, I would have to say that the evolutionists have built a pretty high altar to their theory as well. It is sacrosanct and not-to-be-questioned.

 

Imnsho, that doesn't sound like good science either. But hey, there are a lot of learned members of the club.

 

I think you missed my point. I was simply defining law and theory and what boundaries the proper definitions imposed on discussions of creationism and evolution. In terms of creationism I was simply saying the use of the common refrain, "evolution is just a theory," is inappropriate.

 

That's not setting science on an altar. That's just acknowledging that if we're going to talk about creationism in a scientific context then there are rules and definitions to respect. If we're going to talk about creationism in a scientific context then we can't replace the definition of a scientific theory with the layman's definition of theory and call that science. If we're going to play a game of baseball we can't replace the definition of a baseball strike with a labour union related definition of strike and still call it baseball.

 

When you step from one sphere of knowledge (say religion) into another (science) or vice versa, language changes. If that step is going to be meaningful and informative then you have to acknowledge that.

[WishboneDawn]

Well, I don't think Lucy was an early human or missing link, and I immediately tuned out the article because of the fascination with the jaw bone. Evolutionists that accept Lucy as a missing link do not deny a simian skull, but rather say that simians must have started walking upright (which is what is different about Lucy, her legs seem to indicate that she walked upright) before skull changes occured.

 

Thanks for that. :) I think that's what annoyed me about the article. It focused on the jaw bone as if there was no reasonable explanation for it in an evolutionary model - was fascinated with it, as you said, to the exclusion of all the other possible evidence Lucy offers up and then seemed to think that in a few paragraphs that dealt with the matter.

 

I like your brain Lovertodeath. It doesn't settle on the easy explanation. :D

[KingM]

There is NO scientific evidence of any sort that indicates Lucy is an ancestor.

 

I love how you can state this, and without backing up your claim negate virtually every anthropologist alive, who do believe that there is ample scientific evidence that Lucy is a human ancestor.

 

In fact, it should be stated that Lucy is NOT our ancestor since ALL scientific observation shows that species ONLY reproduce their own species.

 

It might help if you think of species as being much like the Chinese language of a hundred years ago. A person living in village A might think the people in village B had a strong accent, but would easily understand them. By the time you got to village C, thirty miles away, these people would be difficult to understand, and village D would be unintelligible. The change is gradual from village to village and each can understand their neighbors, but the end result is a dialect so different that it could be called a separate language.

 

So it would be with human evolution. Change is gradual and takes place over thousands and thousands of generations. If a modern human and an archaic human of 80,000 BCE were matched up, they could produce viable offspring. By the time you get to 200,000 BCE, things are more doubtful. You might get non-viable offspring. Eventually, reproduction would be impossible.

 

Clearly, modern humans become a different species at some point, but this is not something that occurs from one generation to the next. There are times when the two "dialects" could communicate, but only with difficulty, and eventually a time when they couldn't.

 

You can even see this in modern human populations, who are very closely related, as we all branched from a common ancestor relatively recently. There is a very small, but not statistically insignificant increase in the incidence of spontaneous abortion the more genetically separated two human parents are.

 

For example, if you take someone whose ancestors have been living on and adapting to the Tibetan Plateau for 20,000 years and they are married to someone whose ancestors have been living in Europe for that same time, there are rare cases where disparate genetic drift and selection pressures create a non-viable offspring that the body rejects rather than carry to term.

[Marylou]

With all due respect, it's interesting that the creationists are considered the extremists who won't consider and accept other (evolution) viewpoints. From this thread, I would have to say that the evolutionists have built a pretty high altar to their theory as well. It is sacrosanct and not-to-be-questioned.

 

Imnsho, that doesn't sound like good science either. But hey, there are a lot of learned members of the club.

 

There is a verse in Romans (in the Bible) that says, "They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator--who is forever praised. Amen." Previously when I read that verse I never really understood why someone would worship a created thing instead of the one true God. What is the verse talking about . . . worshipping the sun, the moon, the sand on the beaches? (BTW I am not talking about any PP's on this thread, but the word altar reminded me of my thoughts on this).

 

Now that I see all the hoopla surrounding Darwin with the anniversary of his birth and his writings, this verse makes me wonder if the "created things" in that verse refer to people, men and women who think that God is dead, or never existed in the first place (Charles Darwin?). As a PP mentioned earlier, the whole Darwin anniversay stuff is much bigger in the UK than in the US, but believe me it is still a big deal here, and I think it will be for a long time. It seems like there is a huge and growing number of people who not only like Darwin's work, but now venerate him. (And this is different than the other topic about evolution being a religious belief).

 

As many others have said in these creation/evolution (alpha order!) debates, it all boils down to a person's worldview. What you believe to be true has a huge influence on how you interpret the evidence. Not one of us was alive 100 years ago, nevermind a thousand, million or billion years ago. Added into that mix is the whole concept of general and special revelation (topics for another forum).

 

I am glad to have a place like this where I can learn what others believe and teach their children. My husband and I don't avoid teaching our girls anything, because all things serve Him. There is a verse about that, too, Psalm 119:91. It even has the word laws in it :001_smile:

 

Well, it's 4-H project time, so I'm out the door. Happy discussing!

[RegGuheert]

I love how you can state this, and without backing up your claim negate virtually every anthropologist alive, who do believe that there is ample scientific evidence that Lucy is a human ancestor.

That is a simple appeal to authority. Heaping one fallacy upon another does not change the fact that it is a fallacy. The anthropologists who believe Lucy is an ancestor of humans are basing this belief on an a priori commitment to evolution, not to any scientific evidence found with Lucy that links her (or him, as many believe) to us.

It might help if you think of species as being much like the Chinese language of a hundred years ago. A person living in village A might think the people in village B had a strong accent, but would easily understand them. By the time you got to village C, thirty miles away, these people would be difficult to understand, and village D would be unintelligible. The change is gradual from village to village and each can understand their neighbors, but the end result is a dialect so different that it could be called a separate language.

 

So it would be with human evolution. Change is gradual and takes place over thousands and thousands of generations. If a modern human and an archaic human of 80,000 BCE were matched up, they could produce viable offspring. By the time you get to 200,000 BCE, things are more doubtful. You might get non-viable offspring. Eventually, reproduction would be impossible.

 

Clearly, modern humans become a different species at some point, but this is not something that occurs from one generation to the next. There are times when the two "dialects" could communicate, but only with difficulty, and eventually a time when they couldn't.

 

You can even see this in modern human populations, who are very closely related, as we all branched from a common ancestor relatively recently. There is a very small, but not statistically insignificant increase in the incidence of spontaneous abortion the more genetically separated two human parents are.

 

For example, if you take someone whose ancestors have been living on and adapting to the Tibetan Plateau for 20,000 years and they are married to someone whose ancestors have been living in Europe for that same time, there are rare cases where disparate genetic drift and selection pressures create a non-viable offspring that the body rejects rather than carry to term.

I understand the idea of evolution. It's an interesting story, but there is the small matter of scientific evidence. Several here have proclaimed that a theory is strongly supported by the scientific evidence. However, evolution predicts that one species can turn into another species. Where is the evidence of this? It is NOT in the fossil record, I think we can all agree that the fossils we find record species which are fully formed and die out with only insignificant changes. According to evolutionist timescales, species are around for 100s of millions of years and they are UNCHANGED TO ANY IMPORTANT DEGREE OVER THE ENTIRE PERIOD. There are not smooth transitional forms between different types of fossils: instead the record ALWAYS shows abrupt gaps between different species. This is the lack of evidence that punctuated equilibrium was designed to address. In reality, punctuated equilibrium is another way of saying "we don't have the fossil evidence we need to support evolution and we never will". In other words, it is just a way to make the theory of evolution non-falsifiable. After 50,000 generations of E. coli, we still get E. coli. Yes there are some mutants that are surviving, even thriving, but we do not have a new species. That would be equivalent to 0.75 MILLION years of humans. I'm pretty sure the current models predict that we should see different species of humans after that amount of time, but E. coli says no. (Who knows whether E. coli would even be a good model for human evolution if it did occur. Doubtful.)

 

The point is that if you do not have evidence of one species turning into another in the fossil record, but rather have the opposite case of species staying the same, and you don't have any observational evidence of speciation in living populations, then upon what evidence is this "theory" based. Truly, the theory of evolution is merely a hypothesis which is being put forth by its supporters as a theory.

Edited June 30, 2009 by RegGuheert

[theresatwist]

There is a verse in Romans (in the Bible) that says, "They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator--who is forever praised. Amen." Previously when I read that verse I never really understood why someone would worship a created thing instead of the one true God. What is the verse talking about . . . worshipping the sun, the moon, the sand on the beaches? (BTW I am not talking about any PP's on this thread, but the word altar reminded me of my thoughts on this).

 

Now that I see all the hoopla surrounding Darwin with the anniversary of his birth and his writings, this verse makes me wonder if the "created things" in that verse refer to people, men and women who think that God is dead, or never existed in the first place (Charles Darwin?). As a PP mentioned earlier, the whole Darwin anniversay stuff is much bigger in the UK than in the US, but believe me it is still a big deal here, and I think it will be for a long time. It seems like there is a huge and growing number of people who not only like Darwin's work, but now venerate him. (And this is different than the other topic about evolution being a religious belief).

 

As many others have said in these creation/evolution (alpha order!) debates, it all boils down to a person's worldview. What you believe to be true has a huge influence on how you interpret the evidence. Not one of us was alive 100 years ago, nevermind a thousand, million or billion years ago. Added into that mix is the whole concept of general and special revelation (topics for another forum).

 

I am glad to have a place like this where I can learn what others believe and teach their children. My husband and I don't avoid teaching our girls anything, because all things serve Him. There is a verse about that, too, Psalm 119:91. It even has the word laws in it :001_smile:

 

Well, it's 4-H project time, so I'm out the door. Happy discussing!

 

I do believe in God. However, I also have tremendous respect and admiration for Darwin.

 

I also don't think there is any necessary connection between not believing in God (or thinking God is dead) and admiration for Darwin.

 

For me, God is the center of my spiritual life, while Darwin is a part of my intellectual life. The two aren't competing for the same altar.

[KingM]

That is a simple appeal to authority. Heaping one fallacy upon another does not change the fact that it is a fallacy.

 

Well sure, if I were making that claim, it would be an argument from authority. But I'm not making the argument that evolution is true because authorities say so. The scope of evolutionary biology is much greater than anything that can be proven or disproven on a message board, so it's almost pointless to try.

 

But my point is this. You flatly stated there was no evidence for evolution. There is an entire field, filled with hundreds of people, whose work is 100% tied into the premise that evolutionary theory is the best explanation for the origin of Homo Sapiens. These people would be shocked to hear that you've dismissed an entire scientific discipline by stating that there is "no evidence."

 

But speaking of an argument from authority, isn't this what you're doing every time you lean on the Bible? A closely related logical fallacy in this case is an appeal to loyalty. You know the Bible is true, therefore, you feel the need to argue why the Flood could have really happened, why the Earth is only 6,000 years old, and why there really was a bowl of water outside of the Earth's atmosphere.

[KingM]

Now that I see all the hoopla surrounding Darwin with the anniversary of his birth and his writings, this verse makes me wonder if the "created things" in that verse refer to people, men and women who think that God is dead, or never existed in the first place (Charles Darwin?).

 

When people celebrate the birthday of George Washington, Columbus, or Martin Luther King, do you also feel like they're worshiping these individuals?

 

I think it's only natural to celebrate the lives of great individuals. Charles Darwin is one of the great luminaries in scientific thought. His studies laid the groundwork for our entire understanding of the natural world.

[RegGuheert]

Well sure, if I were making that claim, it would be an argument from authority. But I'm not making the argument that evolution is true because authorities say so. The scope of evolutionary biology is much greater than anything that can be proven or disproven on a message board, so it's almost pointless to try.

I agree.

But my point is this. You flatly stated there was no evidence for evolution. There is an entire field, filled with hundreds of people, whose work is 100% tied into the premise that evolutionary theory is the best explanation for the origin of Homo Sapiens. These people would be shocked to hear that you've dismissed an entire scientific discipline by stating that there is "no evidence."

It's an extreme position, to be sure, but I'm trying to make the point that the assumptions underlying much of the research/claims/assersions are suspect.

But speaking of an argument from authority, isn't this what you're doing every time you lean on the Bible? A closely related logical fallacy in this case is an appeal to loyalty. You know the Bible is true, therefore, you feel the need to argue why the Flood could have really happened, why the Earth is only 6,000 years old, and why there really was a bowl of water outside of the Earth's atmosphere.

It's true, I consider the Bible to be my authority. Hopefully it is trustworthy! :001_smile:

 

That, and we DO find "Billions of dead things buried in rock layers laid down by water all over the Earth."

[WishboneDawn]

I do believe in God. However, I also have tremendous respect and admiration for Darwin.

 

I also don't think there is any necessary connection between not believing in God (or thinking God is dead) and admiration for Darwin.

 

For me, God is the center of my spiritual life, while Darwin is a part of my intellectual life. The two aren't competing for the same altar.

 

I'm a Christian who's fine with evolution too, as are the majority of Christians (that can't be said often enough). Honestly, if creationism is solid science then why do people seem to resort to religious arguments?

[WishboneDawn]

That sounded snarky. Sorry. My point is, if people are going to make the claim that creationism is science, why can we not have a debate on the matter based on science? If there's good science then good science should be presented, not scripture or complaints about the unfairness of "evolutionists".

 

If this is a matter of faith, then I understand the scripture quotes and maybe we can have a debate about scripture interpretation or just a sharing of views regarding faith.

 

But if the point is that creationism is good science then the onus is on those making the claim to support it.

[KingM]

I'm a Christian who's fine with evolution too, as are the majority of Christians (that can't be said often enough). Honestly, if creationism is solid science then why do people seem to resort to religious arguments?

 

I'm not a Bible believer, but if someone wanted to say, "Well, I believe in evolution, but why couldn't God have been nudging things along here and there, introducing the genetic mutations that he wanted, in order to bring about His purposes?" then this is an argument I could respect.

 

I just can't see using the Bible as a science text, when it was clearly written with a primitive understanding of the natural world, as has been pointed out in this thread.

[dangerdad]

The ONLY way to conclude we are descended from Lucy is through circular reasoning based on an a priori belief in evolution. There is NO scientific evidence of any sort that indicates Lucy is an ancestor. In fact, it should be stated that Lucy is NOT our ancestor since ALL scientific observation shows that species ONLY reproduce their own species.

 

You seem to not understand the predictive power of a genuine theory. Put simply, the theory said, "look there and you'll find X". People tested it by looking there and indeed finding X. This is no different from the discovery of Uranus, where gravitational perturbations in the other planets led people to say, "look there and you'll find a planet"--astronomers turned their telescopes there and indeed found a planet. General Relativity predicted that if you looked at an eclipse, you'd see gravitational lensing that would make stars near the disk of the sun appear to be slightly out of place. People looked, and that's what they found.

 

You use circular reasoning yourself about species here. The grade-school definition of a species is being able to breed fertile offspring. However, that's a classification definition prior to the development of the theory of evolution (hence the title "The ORIGIN of species). It gets more complicated than that once we understand genetic drift, population isolation etc. Take a look at this video for instance (I've linked right to the time about genetic drift).

 

The type of argument you're making is basically a "common-sense" argument, or argument from ignorance. Saying there is no evidence for evolution or that all the evidence can be dismissed is poor logic and unscientific reasoning. It's comparable to saying quantum mechanics or general relativity has "no evidence" and is "obviously wrong." Yet those theories also have been tested.

 

 

When teaching science, evolution fits among the theories that explain what we see, and make predictions that have been tested and found to have supporting evidence. Teaching that the evidence isn't good enough, or claiming (incorrectly) that it's circular reasoning is anti-scientific. Which is fine if you don't want to teach science, but is not if you do want to.

[Marylou]

The point is that if you do not have evidence of one species turning into another in the fossil record, but rather have the opposite case of species staying the same, and you don't have any observational evidence of speciation in living populations, then upon what evidence is this "theory" based. Truly, the theory of evolution is merely a hypothesis which is being put forth by its supporters as a theory.

 

Teaching that the evidence isn't good enough, or claiming (incorrectly) that it's circular reasoning is anti-scientific. Which is fine if you don't want to teach science, but is not if you do want to.

 

No one said, "not good enough", no one said "hard to understand", no one said, "I refuse to believe this". What we're saying is . . . PLEASE show your evidence so that we can discuss it. It is VERY hard to discuss something that isn't on the table! or on the floor, or how ever you say it!

[dangerdad]

The argument I was pointing to (the claim of circular reasoning) indeed was arguing from ignorance.

 

There is plenty of evidence out there--far too much for this thread. Read about the long-term evolution experiment I posted earlier. Pick any of the books out of this list, etc.

 

Oh, and the reason I pointed to teaching is because that's (at least originally) the topic asked for in the thread.

Edited June 30, 2009 by dangerdad

[KingM]

No one said, "not good enough", no one said "hard to understand", no one said, "I refuse to believe this". What we're saying is . . . PLEASE show your evidence so that we can discuss it. It is VERY hard to discuss something that isn't on the table! or on the floor, or how ever you say it!

 

But that's like saying, please prove calculus. We can have a lay discussion, but realistically, an in-depth discussion of evolution is beyond the scope of this message board.

 

The information is on the table and has been for more than 100 years. Every year there is more information put down on the table. Several people have suggested good lay books about the subject.

[asta]

I understand the idea of evolution. It's an interesting story, but there is the small matter of scientific evidence.

 

I understand the idea of creationism. It's an interesting story, but there is the small matter of scientific evidence.

 

:auto:

[Lovedtodeath]

Thanks for that. :) I think that's what annoyed me about the article. It focused on the jaw bone as if there was no reasonable explanation for it in an evolutionary model - was fascinated with it, as you said, to the exclusion of all the other possible evidence Lucy offers up and then seemed to think that in a few paragraphs that dealt with the matter.

 

I like your brain Lovertodeath. It doesn't settle on the easy explanation. :D

Yes. that was my point about the article. No... never settle for the easy explanation. Never have, never will. I am a skeptic and you have to prove something to me. I "make sure of all things", as the Bible tells us to do.

 

It has been proven to me that the Bible was written by God, and that evolution by chance is mathematically impossible.

[Lovedtodeath]

I just can't see using the Bible as a science text, when it was clearly written with a primitive understanding of the natural world, as has been pointed out in this thread.

It is not a science text, but it is far from primitive. Is this primitive understanding where the Bible says that the earth hangs upon nothing, when most other religious texts at the time had turtles, gods and elephants holding it up? Is it where it instructs God's people to stay away from dead bodies, wash their hands before eating, bury their excrement outside of camp, isolate sick people, refrain from sexual acts during menstruation? Is it where the Bible describes the water cycle, or the formation of mountains and valleys?

 

Or should we take a stanza of a poem and decide that the author of the Bible thought the world was flat? I wonder if Harry Warren who wrote the song That's Amore really thought the moon was a big pizza pie?

[BillieBoy]

Asta,

 

To know a person's religion we need not listen to his profession of faith, but must find his brand of intolerance.

 

-- Eric Hoffer (1902-1983)

 

:iagree: I love this!

[theresatwist]

RegGuheert,

 

Believing in creationism means believing in God and scripture. Isn't creationism then trying to make the science fit into a preexisting belief system? If God were to be proven nonexistent wouldn't creationism immediately fall apart? (I'm not trying to be offensive or provocative here. I believe in God. However, I am not a Christian and my religious beliefs don't clash in any way with evolution. I bring this up because you have criticized scientists as being too committed to the idea of evolution before they have proof. Obviously, I don't believe that to be true.) To put in bluntly, I'm still not sure why I should see creationism as a product of science rather than as a product of theology.

 

(I'm sorry about the bold...I can't seem to get it back to normal type.)

 

(Just to clarify, I am aware that not all denominations of Christianity clash with evolution.)

[Spy Car]

That is a simple appeal to authority. Heaping one fallacy upon another does not change the fact that it is a fallacy.

 

 

With due respect Reg, your understanding of Informal Logic is as bad as your math.

 

An argument from authority (especially when it represents the consensus reasoning of recognized authorities in a field) is not, ipso facto, a "fallacy".

 

The consensus of expert opinion on a matter doesn't prove "truth". Consensus can (and has) proven to be incorrect (or partially incorrect), so any proposition has to be open to question and rethinking.

 

But appeals from authority, when the credentials of those authorities are well-established and they are recognized as experts on a matter under discussion, such appeals are fully valid under the rules of argumentation.

 

Bill

[RegGuheert]

You seem to not understand the predictive power of a genuine theory. Put simply, the theory said, "look there and you'll find X". People tested it by looking there and indeed finding X.

But you fail to acknowledge that the scientific creation model ALSO predicts you will find Lucy. However, scientific creation does not require you to imagine that species change into each other or that life springs from non-life in order to make this prediction. Occam's razor says that the scientific creation model, being simpler, is the more likely explanation of finding Lucy there. Again, finding Lucy gives less credence to evolution than to the creation model. So why not accept the scientific creation model for the origin and speciation of life? It's purely because of a belief among evolutionists that there is no God and doing so would require so many to change their worldview.

 

BTW, the scientific creation model also predicts things in the fossil record such as polystrate fossils that the old-Earth models upon which evolution depends rejects.

Edited June 30, 2009 by RegGuheert
Ooops! I hope no one responded to my original post! ;)