S/of evolution

[LittleIzumi]

As a strong advocate of science literacy and evolutionary literacy, I have to comment one of your statements.

 

 

 

Science does not prove things "beyond question." As Einstein said, "No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong." Pending replication by other institutions, the recent LHC neutrino experiments might just do that. This is one of science's greatest strengths, allowing our perception of the universe to change as we get new data. That applies to all science. As strongly as I support evolutionary literacy, if valid remains of a Bronze Age village were discovered in the Precambrian rocks at the bottom of the Grand Canyon, I would have to reevaluate my scientific views. Of course, I don't expect that to happen, but then Newton didn't expect our discoveries in quantum physics when he formulated his Laws of Motion.

 

Second, can you point me to the journal article that was the source for this information? I am curious about the claim that there were a minimum of 10,000 individuals in the original breeding population that evolved into H. sapiens. Unless their behavior was drastically different from modern primates (small, family groups with large territories), that number seems awfully large.

 

:001_wub::001_wub::001_wub:

 

I am even gladder now that I subscribed to your videos through the co-op, lol. :D

[LizzyBee]

I was checking to see if my library has some of the books mentioned in this thread, and came across these two books written from conflicting viewpoints.

 

The Evolution of a Creationist by Jobe Martin, about the author's journey from traditional scientist to creationist

 

The Genesis Enigma by Andrew Parker, an evolutionary biologist who concluded that the writing of Genesis must have been divinely inspired, because there is no other way to explain how the writer(s) knew that evolution occurred in the order it did, yet the order of the creation story parallels evolutionary theory

 

I requested both books because I think it will be interesting to compare the authors' arguments, considering their very different views of Genesis 1-3.

Edited February 5, 2012 by LizzyBee

[Happy Scientist]

Technically, you're right, of course. But, for example, sunrise theory tells us that the sun will rise tomorrow morning. Other than when speaking pedantically, even most scientists would agree that this statement is true "beyond question".

 

 

I'm trying hard not to be argumentative, but you seem to be misusing the word "theory" too. In science, a theory is an explanation of phenomena, based on a body of tested principles, laws, and facts. The fact that the sun will rise tomorrow is just that, a fact. It is not explanatory, so it is not a theory.

 

I read the article (You can get it cheap here.), and while it is quite an interesting study, it is far from "beyond question" proof of your previous statement. It is a single study, and even the authors do not claim that it is absolute proof of anything.

 

Those of us on the science side of things have to hold ourselves to the same standards that we demand from those that support Creationism. Actually, we should hold ourselves to an even higher standard for accuracy, since we are claiming to represent the views of the scientific community. We have to be very accurate in the way that we use scientific terms and make scientific claims, and be sure that we have significant documentation for those claims. If we don't, then we are doing a poor job of presenting science.

Edited February 5, 2012 by Happy Scientist
more thoughts

[tntgoodwin]

:bigear::lurk5:

[Way2blessed]

[science does not prove things "beyond question." As Einstein said, "No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong." Pending replication by other institutions, the recent LHC neutrino experiments might just do that/QUOTE]

 

This got me thinking about a recent trip our family made to our local LIGO facility. If you are unfamiliar with LIGO, it is a large experimental facility which is trying to prove the existence of gravitational waves based on Einstein's theory. Supposedly, if LIGO is successful, we will soon see gravitational waves back to the original Big Bang. When my son was on the tour, he asked the Phd scientist giving the tour if the majority of scientists at the facility were hoping to prove the existence of the Big Bang, or would they be more interested in disproving the theory. The scientist, and at this level these folks are all assuredly real scientists, replied that it was probably evenly split among the scientists working at the facility of whether they wished the theory proved or disproved.

[Beth in SW WA]

 

Those of us on the science side of things have to hold ourselves to the same standards that we demand from those that support Creationism. Actually, we should hold ourselves to an even higher standard for accuracy, since we are claiming to represent the views of the scientific community. We have to be very accurate in the way that we use scientific terms and make scientific claims, and be sure that we have significant documentation for those claims. If we don't, then we are doing a poor job of presenting science.

 

I appreciate your gentle spirit, Rob.

 

:lurk5:

[TheHomeScientist]

I'm trying hard not to be argumentative, but you seem to be misusing the word "theory" too. In science, a theory is an explanation of phenomena, based on a body of tested principles, laws, and facts. The fact that the sun will rise tomorrow is just that, a fact. It is not explanatory, so it is not a theory.

 

Uh, no. A fact is something that has been observed. That the sun rose this morning is a fact. We watched it happen, or if we didn't actually observe it at least many trustworthy people did observe it. That the sun will rise tomorrow morning is not a fact; it is a prediction based on theory, since it has not yet been observed.

 

One of the most common errors made by beginning scientists is recording as facts things that they have not actually observed happen, but merely expected to happen.

[WishboneDawn]

Uh, no. A fact is something that has been observed. That the sun rose this morning is a fact. We watched it happen, or if we didn't actually observe it at least many trustworthy people did observe it. That the sun will rise tomorrow morning is not a fact; it is a prediction based on theory, since it has not yet been observed.

 

One of the most common errors made by beginning scientists is recording as facts things that they have not actually observed happen, but merely expected to happen.

 

Prediction based on repeated observation perhap but in most people's minds, not theory. One of the biggest frustrations I have whe talking about science is that the term theory is tossed around as if it had all the weight of a Cheesie.

[MSNative]

Since we're clarifying terms now, I'm gonna jump in. I assume that when we are saying evolution we are discussing macro-evolution - one species evolving into another completely different species. Has this been observed? I would be very interested in reading about that.

[TheHomeScientist]

Prediction based on repeated observation perhap but in most people's minds, not theory. One of the biggest frustrations I have whe talking about science is that the term theory is tossed around as if it had all the weight of a Cheesie.

 

Any theory must by definition be predictive.

[TheHomeScientist]

Since we're clarifying terms now, I'm gonna jump in. I assume that when we are saying evolution we are discussing macro-evolution - one species evolving into another completely different species. Has this been observed? I would be very interested in reading about that.

 

The terms microevolution and macroevolution are more commonly used by religious apologists than by scientists. Most evolutionary biologists do not differentiate between them. In simple terms, microevolution occurs as a series of small changes that eventually may result in speciation. (Scientists are not even agreed about what comprises a species, although phylogenetics is now yielding huge advances on that issue.)

 

What many people do not understand is that evolution operates on populations, not on individuals, and typically occurs over a period of thousands of generations or more. Accordingly, actually observing speciation in complex organisms is, although theoretically possible, extremely unlikely simply because the observer doesn't live long enough.

 

That said, we can in numerous ways observe speciation that has occurred in the past. For example, by examining the fossil record and observing transitional forms, we can "watch" one species evolve into another. Similarly, phylogenetics allows us to see the footprints left in DNA as species evolve.

 

And scientists have observed speciation in microorganisms, whose generational periods may be 20 minutes or less. To observe speciation occurring in complex organisms might require regular observation over a period of thousands to hundreds of thousands of years or more, but bacteria may run through 1,000 generations in a couple of weeks. I don't have the reference at hand, but a year or so ago scientists set up such an experiment and watched as one species of bacteria evolved into an entirely new species.

[camikins2010]

For example, by examining the fossil record and observing transitional forms, we can "watch" one species evolve into another.

 

Can you please provide one example of a transitional fossil?

[Happy Scientist]

Uh, no. A fact is something that has been observed. That the sun rose this morning is a fact. We watched it happen, or if we didn't actually observe it at least many trustworthy people did observe it. That the sun will rise tomorrow morning is not a fact; it is a prediction based on theory, since it has not yet been observed.

 

Again we are back to definitions. The folks over at TalkOrigins are fairly rigorous about scientific definitions. Take a look at: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html

 

Getting back on track, I do not see anything in the article you indicated that supported your statement that:

But one of your items has been falsified indisputably by science, more specifically population genetics. We know beyond question that the population of H. sapiens was never at any time smaller than about 10,000 individuals, which utterly falsifies the Adam and Eve myth.

 

I may have missed it. Can you direct me to the section you were basing your statement on?

[Happy Scientist]

Can you please provide one example of a transitional fossil?

 

To a paleontologist, most fossils would qualify as transitional fossils. No credible scientist believes that a fish suddenly produced offspring that were half fish and half salamander.

 

The evolution of a species is much like the evolution of a language. Spanish and Italian both developed from Latin, but there was not a point in time which Latin speaking parents suddenly discovered that their children were speaking Spanish. Instead, the language changed slowly from generation to generation. You can easily see how the same thing is happening to English. Just read some old English: Fæder ūre þū þe eart on heofonum

Today we would write it as: Father of ours, thou who art in heaven

 

Looking back at written documents, we can see the gradual change, but there is no clear line where a linguist could draw a line, saying that everything before this point is Old English, and everything after this point is Modern English. If you asked for a transitional document, pretty much anything written between 1000 AD and today would work.

 

That is very much the way that scientists see the process of evolution. Finding a fossil that was half fish and half salamander would be like finding an old document that started a sentence in old English and finished it in modern English: Fæder ūre þū thou who art in heaven

 

Does that help? More questions?

[Happy Scientist]

Since we're clarifying terms now, I'm gonna jump in. I assume that when we are saying evolution we are discussing macro-evolution - one species evolving into another completely different species. Has this been observed? I would be very interested in reading about that.

 

The University of California Museum of Paleontology has a great site that explains micro and macro evolution: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/index.shtml

 

Under Speciation, their section on defining a species paints a very good picture of the challenge of determining "completely different species."

 

If you are looking for a specific (:D) example, read about the hawthorn fly, Rhagoletis pomonella. This is speciation that is occurring naturally, not in the lab. If you REALLY want to do some reading, this is the scientific paper: ^ Feder JL, Roethele JB, Filchak K, Niedbalski J, Romero-Severson J (1 March 2003). "Evidence for inversion polymorphism related to sympatric host race formation in the apple maggot fly, Rhagoletis pomonella". Genetics 163 (3): 939–53. PMC 1462491. PMID 12663534.

 

Hope that helps. As always, give a yell if that raises more questions.

[camikins2010]

Happy Scientist, your analogy doesn't really help because you start off with English and you end with English. It's just a different form of English, but it's still the same language, English. Is that correct?

 

Your post seems to imply that because language can change over time (sometimes gradually, sometimes quickly) that animals can change from one species to another such as your fish to salamander. The changing of languages does not prove how animals can evolve from one species to another.

 

Here's a quote from Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species...

 

"The number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed on the earth, (must) be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory."

[TheHomeScientist]

Again we are back to definitions. The folks over at TalkOrigins are fairly rigorous about scientific definitions. Take a look at: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html

 

Getting back on track, I do not see anything in the article you indicated that supported your statement that:

 

 

I may have missed it. Can you direct me to the section you were basing your statement on?

 

That page (and Gould) are using the word "fact" loosely, in an attempt to help non-scientists understand the level of likelihood that science assigns to the reality of evolution. A fact is a datum, something that has been observed. An expectation, such as the sun rising tomorrow, however high the likelihood we place on its future occurrence, is not a fact. It cannot be a fact because it has not yet occurred. It is conceivable, albeit extraordinarily unlikely, that a phenomenon could occur that would prevent sunrise from occurring tomorrow.

 

In reality, evolution is both a theory and a fact, but it is not a fact because of the arguments on that page. It is a fact because we can and have actually watched it occurring.

 

With regard to the population bottleneck, you're suddenly arguing the opposite side, unless I'm misunderstanding you. The data in that paper show a bottleneck of no less than 10,000 H. sapiens. It's extremely unlikely that those data are off by one order of magnitude, and unlikely beyond reason that they are off by four orders of magnitude. The likelihood that the population bottleneck was ever as small as two individuals is probably on the close order of the likelihood that the sun won't rise tomorrow.

[Matryoshka]

Happy Scientist, your analogy doesn't really help because you start off with English and you end with English. It's just a different form of English, but it's still the same language, English. Is that correct?

 

No. You're letting semantics get in the way of the analogy. Language changes slowly over time, sometimes branching off and changing in more than one way when isolated (just like can happen when there's some natural barrier to cross-breeding among members of what started as the same species).

 

Eventually, the language changes so much that it's mutually unintelligible. Just like eventually two animals that started from a common ancestor over time may result in two different animals that can no longer reproduce. Are you going to argue that Latin and modern Spanish and modern French etc. are all the same language? Is Proto-Indo-European the same language as all its modern decendants, from Hindu to Portuguese?

 

Although both with language and with species, there are gray areas. I speak Spanish, so I can understand some Italian, because not everything has changed. Domestic dogs can still mate with wolves (I actually don't even think they're classified as a separate species, but a subspecies). Grizzlies and Polar bears have been having offspring in the wild since the polar ice has been melting and they have been forced into closer proximity of late.

 

Small changes over a short time can result in large changes over a very long time - that's the analogy. And there is no one point one can mark as "this is the new thing" - as it's only a tiny bit different from yesterday. And two things that may seem on the surface to be very different may still have more common elements from their common ancestor than may be immediately apparent.

[nmoira]

Happy Scientist, your analogy doesn't really help because you start off with English and you end with English. It's just a different form of English, but it's still the same language, English. Is that correct?

And the Romance languages evolved from Latin, are they the same language?

 

Your post seems to imply that because language can change over time (sometimes gradually, sometimes quickly) that animals can change from one species to another such as your fish to salamander. The changing of languages does not prove how animals can evolve from one species to another.

He was using language an an analogy series of gradual transitions, rather than sudden and dramatic (which are often the forms demanded by literal 6-day creationists), not a "proof" of evolution. You asked for an example of a transitional fossil, but even conditions were such that we had fossilized remains of every species that ever existed, we'd usually end up with something giving a "flip book" effect moving from form to form (even "sudden" changes are defined as having happened within half a million years, IIRC -- for reference, it's estimated that elephants took 24 million generations to evolve from an animal the size of a mouse), with little perceivable different between successive forms. But for myriad reasons, we don't have a complete record. See Talk Origins for a concise explanation:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part1a.html#gaps

 

Wikipedia has a decent, well documented, page of transitional fossils. I've linked the Fish-->Tetrapod series.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils#Fish_to_Tetrapods

[Melora in NC]

 

Chance or Purpose: Creation, Evolution, and a Rational Faith, by Cardinal Schoenborn, is one that's on my wish list on the subject of evolution/creation. We are Episcopalians and are fine with God using evolution as a "mechanism" for creating life, but many of our homeschooling friends are YE creationists and I read about the issue so that I feel prepared to talk about it with my kids when questions come up!

[tntgoodwin]

Chance or Purpose: Creation, Evolution, and a Rational Faith, by Cardinal Schoenborn, is one that's on my wish list on the subject of evolution/creation. We are Episcopalians and are fine with God using evolution as a "mechanism" for creating life, but many of our homeschooling friends are YE creationists and I read about the issue so that I feel prepared to talk about it with my kids when questions come up!

 

Thanks!

 

Everyone else: This is a fascinating conversation to follow, but do you mind steering it back toward curriculum and resources? Thanks!

[camikins2010]

:001_huh::blink: Best to keep the religious doctrine separate from the science-- science could never, ever "prove that a biblical account is correct".

 

It is extremely difficult to separate religious doctrine from science and here is why...

Religion = "a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith"

(http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/religion) I like to use the 4th definition because the first two uses a form of the word within it's own definition and the third one archaic.

 

The Supreme Court has interpreted religion to mean a sincere and meaningful belief that occupies in the life of its possessor a place parallel to the place held by God in the lives of other persons. (http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Religion)

 

Based on the above stated definition of religion, a religion is a set of beliefs. Everyone believes something therefore everyone has a religion. Everyone applies their beliefs (or their religion) to how they live their lives (every aspect of their lives).

 

Therefore everyone applies their religious doctrines to their study of science.

Every science textbook that I know of is written by men who have beliefs, and those beliefs are evident in how the information is presented in the textbooks.

[Happy Scientist]

Happy Scientist, your analogy doesn't really help because you start off with English and you end with English. It's just a different form of English, but it's still the same language, English. Is that correct?

 

That is why I also mentioned the transition from Latin to Spanish and Italian.

 

Your post seems to imply that because language can change over time (sometimes gradually, sometimes quickly) that animals can change from one species to another such as your fish to salamander. The changing of languages does not prove how animals can evolve from one species to another.

 

No, my example is not an explantation of how the change happens. It is an analogy, to explain how scientists see evolutionary change.

 

Here's a quote from Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species...

 

"The number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed on the earth, (must) be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory."

 

First, continue reading past the end of your quote:

"The explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record. In the first place it should always be borne in mind what sort of intermediate forms must, on my theory, have formerly existed. I have found it difficult, when looking at any two species, to avoid picturing to myself, forms directly intermediate between them. But this is a wholly false view; we should always look for forms intermediate between each species and a common but unknown progenitor; and the progenitor will generally have differed in some respects from all its modified descendants. "

 

Taking the quote in context changes the meaning quite a bit.

 

Second, quite a few geologic discoveries have been made since Darwin wrote The Origin of Species. All of those discoveries fit the current version of evolutionary theory. As I said in an earlier post, it would only take one human artifact found in Paleozoic rocks to turn evolutionary theory upside down, but with all of the paleontologists, petroleum geologists, structural geologists, and millions of amateur collectors, no one has ever found a single human artifact or fossil in those rocks.

 

It would not even have to be a human artifact. Finding a fossil rabbit, elephant, ostrich, whale, horse, cow, duck, or other mammals or birds in those rocks would revolutionize evolutionary science. Again, with all of the millions of people looking, none has ever been found. That does not mean that it won't happen, and if such a discovery is ever made, it will be a very exciting time to be a scientist. Scientific revolutions are so much fun.

[nmoira]

It is extremely difficult to separate religious doctrine from science and here is why...

Religion = "a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith"

(http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/religion) I like to use the 4th definition because the first two uses a form of the word within it's own definition and the third one archaic.

 

Above bolding mine.

 

The Supreme Court has interpreted religion to mean a sincere and meaningful belief that occupies in the life of its possessor a place parallel to the place held by God in the lives of other persons. (http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Religion)

Yes, for the purpose of defining what is within the scope of the First Amendment's Free Exercise Clause. Nothing more.

 

Based on the above stated definition of religion, a religion is a set of beliefs. Everyone believes something therefore everyone has a religion. Everyone applies their beliefs (or their religion) to how they live their lives (every aspect of their lives).

 

Therefore everyone applies their religious doctrines to their study of science.

Every science textbook that I know of is written by men who have beliefs, and those beliefs are evident in how the information is presented in the textbooks.

I disagree.

 

If we're going to have battling dictionaries, here's the entry from the Shorter Oxford (I've omitted two archaic definitions). Note that the example given under Definition 4 is marked as "figurative."

 

religion /0rɪˈlɪdʒ(ə)n/ noun. ME.

[ORIGIN Anglo-Norman religiun, Old French & Modern French religion from Latin religio(n-) obligation, bond, scruple, reverence, (in Late Latin) religious (monastic) life, prob. from religare: see religate, -ion.]

 

1 A state of life bound by religious vows; the condition of belonging to a religious order, esp. in the Roman Catholic Church. ME.

 

Hor. Walpole My father…was retired into religion.

 

2 A particular monastic or religious order or rule. Now rare. ME.

 

3 Belief in or sensing of some superhuman controlling power or powers, entitled to obedience, reverence, and worship, or in a system defining a code of living, esp. as a means to achieve spiritual or material improvement; acceptance of such belief (esp. as represented by an organized Church) as a standard of spiritual and practical life; the expression of this in worship etc. Also (now rare), action or conduct indicating such belief; in pl., religious rites. ME.

 

Gibbon The public religion of the Catholics was uniformly simple. H. Martineau The best part of religion is to imitate the benevolence of God. Day Lewis Religion…formed a natural part of my life. personified: Pope There stern Religion quench'd th' unwilling flame.

 

4 A particular system of such belief. ME.

 

W. Cather What religion did the Swedes have way back? fig.: Ladies Home Journal (US) Care of the hair has become a religion.

Edited February 5, 2012 by nmoira
typo

[Melora in NC]

sorry.

[Happy Scientist]

With regard to the population bottleneck, you're suddenly arguing the opposite side, unless I'm misunderstanding you. The data in that paper show a bottleneck of no less than 10,000 H. sapiens. It's extremely unlikely that those data are off by one order of magnitude, and unlikely beyond reason that they are off by four orders of magnitude. The likelihood that the population bottleneck was ever as small as two individuals is probably on the close order of the likelihood that the sun won't rise tomorrow.

 

Did you read the first page, second paragraph:

However, the statistical resolution of inferences from any one locus is poor, and power fades rapidly upon moving back in time because there are few independent lineages probing deep time depths (in humans, no information is available from mitochondrial DNA beyond about 200 kyr ago, when all humans share a common maternal ancestor).

 

As a reference for the common maternal ancestor, he cites:

Behar, D. M. et al, The dawn of human matrilineal diversity. Am J. Hum. Genet. 82, 1130-1140 (2008)

Edited February 5, 2012 by Happy Scientist

[Iucounu]

It is extremely difficult to separate religious doctrine from science

No, it's not. Science works the way it works, completely devoid of religion by definition, or it's not true science. I've posted links before to statements by the National Academy of Sciences which explain why better than I can do in a brief post here, and with more authority. :) Essentially, science excludes supernatural causation by definition, and is restricted to observable phenomena.

[Happy Scientist]

Thanks!

 

Everyone else: This is a fascinating conversation to follow, but do you mind steering it back toward curriculum and resources? Thanks!

 

For the science/evolution side of things, I highly recommend the University of California Museum site: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/index.shtml

 

It has clear explanations, lesson plans, links to explore further, and interactives. It is scientifically accurate and updated regularly.

[tammyw]

For the science/evolution side of things, I highly recommend the University of California Museum site: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/index.shtml

 

It has clear explanations, lesson plans, links to explore further, and interactives. It is scientifically accurate and updated regularly.

 

Off-topic, but Robert, I was wondering how you were doing with creating more of a science program? I'm excited about it!

[Happy Scientist]

Off-topic, but Robert, I was wondering how you were doing with creating more of a science program? I'm excited about it!

 

Thanks to the help of some homeschool families, I am making good progress. They volunteered to review and critique resources as I develop them, to help make the site more useful.

[tammyw]

Thanks to the help of some homeschool families, I am making good progress. They volunteered to review and critique resources as I develop them, to help make the site more useful.

 

This sounds wonderful. Can't wait!

[serendipitous journey]

Evolution and creationism/ID are utterly mutually exclusive. If one is right, the other must be wrong. There is zero debate among scientists about the reality of evolution. The theory of evolution is as universally accepted among scientists as, say, the germ theory of disease or atomic theory or gravitational theory.

 

Accordingly, you won't find any real scientist writing a text that treats creationism/ID as anything other than religious mythology. Scientists are simply not capable of adopting that mindset or of writing convincingly about it. Conversely, anyone who writes in support of creationism/ID, regardless of what supposed scientific credentials that person holds, is simply incapable of covering evolution properly.

 

 

I must respectfully and strongly disagree. I personally know at least 2 rigorous scientists & Christians (Caleb Kemere, a friend of mine and professor at Baylor; and William "Bill" Newsome, a neuroscientist at Stanford) who believe in intelligent design. And evolution :). Their academic work is impeccable (well, Bill's is; Caleb is young and prone to get carried away with enthusiasm!).

 

May I recommend this link to a talk Bill Newsome gave discussing his faith, his science, and their relationship to each other?

 

I haven't read the other posts yet, but wanted to share Bill's talk.

 

ETA: Thank you to the OP for being interested in what evolutionists actually believe :). I've been frustrated by some young earth writers -- Apologia's science books are a good example -- who ascribe to evolutionists beliefs that are absurd and are not actually held by the evolutionists/old earthers. This goes the other way too -- too many secular thinkers do not understand the positions held by the intelligent, religious IDers.

Edited February 5, 2012 by serendipitous journey

[laughing lioness]

Coming late to the party but has anyone mentioned Reasons to Believe, Hugh Ross' organization in California. Excellent resources!!

[hmschooling]

I have watched it. I had a very hard time sitting all the way through it. It was nauseating. Ben Stein is a lying weasel who understands nothing about science. Every one of the real scientists who appeared in that mess was mouse-trapped and quote-mined to intentionally distort their positions.

 

Just to be clear here, the issue is not religion per se. It's support for creationism/ID, which no scientist supports. There are many religious scientists. Ken Miller, for example, is a devout Catholic. If you ask him, he'll tell you that evolution is true and that creationism/ID is garbage. Similarly, Francis Collins is an evangelical Christian. If you ask him, he'll tell you that evolution is true and creationism/ID is garbage.

 

Those few so-called scientists who support creationism/ID are held in contempt by real scientists. Most of these supposed scientists have worthless degrees from religious colleges, and those few who do have graduate degrees from real colleges clearly went into the graduate programs determined not to actually learn anything about the subject.

 

Incorrect. There are numerous highly degreed scientists at Answers in Genesis and they believe in Creation. And they have scientific reasoning and evidence to do so. I can't imagine any real scientific mind being able to take the evidence and still believe in evolution just because they were told it's true in school and hence are able to make the evidence in their minds, even if it makes no sense, to fit evolution...I'm no scientist but if you want facts, scientific evidence, Answers in Genesis scientists are certainly the ones to go to. They are able to blow the evolution scientist out of the water.

[Iucounu]

This is a debate that is destined to be repeated as long as people have difficulty reconciling their faith with science. The development of pseudoscientific arguments such as at the Answers in Genesis site is completely predictable.

[hmschooling]

No, it's not. Science works the way it works, completely devoid of religion by definition, or it's not true scienceI've posted links before to statements by the National Academy of Sciences which explain why better than I can do in a brief post here, and with more authority. :) Essentially, science excludes supernatural causation by definition, and is restricted to observable phenomena.

 

And we all know the big bang was observable. Oh, and our monkey uncles. I saw mine jjust the other day :001_huh: Excluding by definition dosen't exclude the truth, it just excludes it from being called the secular definition of science.

 

Without literal creation, we are without adam and eve, and therefore is no gospel. So to believe God used evolution for his creation is without a doubt, denying creation, adam and eve, original sin, and our need for a Savoir, which totally invalidates Christ's death at the cross as well as our saving from eternal ****ation. It also insists that death occurred prior to adam and eve, if you still believe in Adam and eve, meaning the "first bloodshed" of their sacrifice after their sin wasn't truly the first. And that the curse of sin, which caused death and made what was good, not good, is in fact not true because there would have been death prior to adam and eve. You've destroyed the whole basis of the Bible by suggesting the very central core of it is false, your own system of beliefs crushed, if you are old earth creationist. The Bible and Evolution do not fit one another.

[hmschooling]

This is a debate that is destined to be repeated as long as people have difficulty reconciling their faith with science. The development of pseudoscientific arguments such as at the Answers in Genesis site is completely predictable.

 

Fine, Institute for Creation Research. There are fine, wonderful, intelligent scientist at both, many of which were evolutionists at first until they were able to view the facts without their own scientific religion of evolutionary worldview.

[nmoira]

...I'm no scientist but if you want facts, scientific evidence, Answers in Genesis scientists are certainly the ones to go to. They are able to blow the evolution scientist out of the water.

AIG perhaps blows their own "interpretation" of evolutionary science out of the water. That of evolutionary biologists (not to mention supporting evidence from other disciplines), not so much.

[justamouse]

This is a debate that is destined to be repeated as long as people have difficulty reconciling their faith with science. The development of pseudoscientific arguments such as at the Answers in Genesis site is completely predictable.

 

Assuming you're married-do you stop being married when you go to work? There are many, many, Christian scientists (remember that convo about Newton, and how his work was an extension of his faith?) who fully believe that God used evolution to populate the world. They fully believe that God used the Big Bang. They don't stop being scientists because they're Christian.

 

Some people DO have to reconcile their faith with science, but please stop assuming ALL Christians need to. To some Christians, science is the way we learn how God made everything, and there's nothing TO reconcile. Seeing the beauty of science only makes me love God more, not question His existence.

 

And not only that, but we fully believe that God will use science to do things like eradicate things like cancer, make clean water, and bring health and wonder to everyone who lives on this planet.

Edited February 5, 2012 by justamouse

[lewelma]

Without literal creation, we are without adam and eve, and therefore is no gospel. So to believe God used evolution for his creation is without a doubt, denying creation, adam and eve, original sin, and our need for a Savoir, which totally invalidates Christ's death at the cross as well as our saving from eternal ****ation. It also insists that death occurred prior to adam and eve, if you still believe in Adam and eve, meaning the "first bloodshed" of their sacrifice after their sin wasn't truly the first. And that the curse of sin, which caused death and made what was good, not good, is in fact not true because there would have been death prior to adam and eve. You've destroyed the whole basis of the Bible by suggesting the very central core of it is false, your own system of beliefs crushed, if you are old earth creationist. The Bible and Evolution do not fit one another.

 

Wow! I hope you are not saying that anyone who does not believe this is not Christian. My father is a strong Christian, has a Doctorate of Ministry from a conservative Christian university, and until a few years ago was the head of one of the largest protestant denominations in the US. He believes in Evolution.

 

He has often stated that the bible is not a science book, but rather is a book about the faith of a people.

 

Ruth in NZ

Edited February 5, 2012 by lewelma

[justamouse]

And we all know the big bang was observable. Oh, and our monkey uncles. I saw mine jjust the other day :001_huh: Excluding by definition dosen't exclude the truth, it just excludes it from being called the secular definition of science.

 

Without literal creation, we are without adam and eve, and therefore is no gospel. So to believe God used evolution for his creation is without a doubt, denying creation, adam and eve, original sin, and our need for a Savoir, which totally invalidates Christ's death at the cross as well as our saving from eternal ****ation. It also insists that death occurred prior to adam and eve, if you still believe in Adam and eve, meaning the "first bloodshed" of their sacrifice after their sin wasn't truly the first. And that the curse of sin, which caused death and made what was good, not good, is in fact not true because there would have been death prior to adam and eve. You've destroyed the whole basis of the Bible by suggesting the very central core of it is false, your own system of beliefs crushed, if you are old earth creationist. The Bible and Evolution do not fit one another.

 

 

That is what YOU believe as a Christian. There are many Christians here who see no dichotomy between science and faith (you need to study the history of science). And, though you may think us less Christian, that judgment is on you.

 

I don't NEED to believe in a literal Adam and Eve to believe in Christ crucified. And I won't loose my faith or salvation for not believing in a literal interpretation of Genesis.

 

God bless.

[AvasMom]

And we all know the big bang was observable. Oh, and our monkey uncles. I saw mine jjust the other day :001_huh: Excluding by definition dosen't exclude the truth, it just excludes it from being called the secular definition of science.

 

Without literal creation, we are without adam and eve, and therefore is no gospel. So to believe God used evolution for his creation is without a doubt, denying creation, adam and eve, original sin, and our need for a Savoir, which totally invalidates Christ's death at the cross as well as our saving from eternal ****ation. It also insists that death occurred prior to adam and eve, if you still believe in Adam and eve, meaning the "first bloodshed" of their sacrifice after their sin wasn't truly the first. And that the curse of sin, which caused death and made what was good, not good, is in fact not true because there would have been death prior to adam and eve. You've destroyed the whole basis of the Bible by suggesting the very central core of it is false, your own system of beliefs crushed, if you are old earth creationist. The Bible and Evolution do not fit one another.

 

Thank you for so neatly summing up why so many kids leave the church as soon as they get to college and see real, concrete evidence for evolution. What do you THINK is going to happen when you tell them they have no choice but to join their faith with your opinions about science. This line of thinking is setting kids up to backslide. Frankly, it's shameful.

[mcconnellboys]

I was going to suggest his "Beyond the Cosmos," but it is really physics and not biology....

[mcconnellboys]

Thank you for this!

[Happy Scientist]

Incorrect. There are numerous highly degreed scientists at Answers in Genesis and they believe in Creation. And they have scientific reasoning and evidence to do so. I can't imagine any real scientific mind being able to take the evidence and still believe in evolution just because they were told it's true in school and hence are able to make the evidence in their minds, even if it makes no sense, to fit evolution...I'm no scientist but if you want facts, scientific evidence, Answers in Genesis scientists are certainly the ones to go to. They are able to blow the evolution scientist out of the water.

 

I have to disagree with you here. Answers in Genesis has improved. I was very pleased when they added their page on Arguments Creationist Should Not Use, but they have buried it, so it is hard to find. These are all arguments that AIG has used in the past, and surprisingly, articles on their site are still using many of the arguments that they say Creationists should not use.

 

In spite of improvements, their science is often either inaccurate or misleading. There are other Creation oriented sites that do a much better job.

[cdrumm4448]

I'm trying hard not to be argumentative, but you seem to be misusing the word "theory" too. In science, a theory is an explanation of phenomena, based on a body of tested principles, laws, and facts. The fact that the sun will rise tomorrow is just that, a fact. It is not explanatory, so it is not a theory.

 

I read the article (You can get it cheap here.), and while it is quite an interesting study, it is far from "beyond question" proof of your previous statement. It is a single study, and even the authors do not claim that it is absolute proof of anything.

 

Those of us on the science side of things have to hold ourselves to the same standards that we demand from those that support Creationism. Actually, we should hold ourselves to an even higher standard for accuracy, since we are claiming to represent the views of the scientific community. We have to be very accurate in the way that we use scientific terms and make scientific claims, and be sure that we have significant documentation for those claims. If we don't, then we are doing a poor job of presenting science.

 

I could listen to you all day.:001_smile:

[cdrumm4448]

Assuming you're married-do you stop being married when you go to work? There are many, many, Christian scientists (remember that convo about Newton, and how his work was an extension of his faith?) who fully believe that God used evolution to populate the world. They fully believe that God used the Big Bang. They don't stop being scientists because they're Christian.

 

Some people DO have to reconcile their faith with science, but please stop assuming ALL Christians need to. To some Christians, science is the way we learn how God made everything, and there's nothing TO reconcile. Seeing the beauty of science only makes me love God more, not question His existence.

 

And not only that, but we fully believe that God will use science to do things like eradicate things like cancer, make clean water, and bring health and wonder to everyone who lives on this planet.

 

:iagree::iagree::iagree:

[LittleIzumi]

Did you read the first page, second paragraph:

 

 

As a reference for the common maternal ancestor, he cites:

Behar, D. M. et al, The dawn of human matrilineal diversity. Am J. Hum. Genet. 82, 1130-1140 (2008)

 

I was wondering if mitochondrial Eve was a valid counterpoint to that argument. My lovely English degree doesn't give me enough confidence to throw that out there myself, lol.

 

OP, what about the graphic novels/e-books by James Dunbar? I have the Big Bang one and it's scientific but in an easy to understand and follow format (graphic novel/comic style and it rhymes). So far they only go through the origin of life on Earth, at least in the ones I found. It's free to view online. It looks like there should be another one eventually--a planned series of three.

[justamouse]

:iagree::iagree::iagree:

And that cdrumm and I agree is further proof that a miracle has indeed occurred! ;):D

[Iucounu]

Some people DO have to reconcile their faith with science, but please stop assuming ALL Christians need to.

Of course all Christians need to. You've chosen one particular way, which works for you; and I noted that as long as people had difficulty reconciling their faith with science, the pseudoscientific arguments would continue (as well as YEC textualism, which is another way of resolving the issue).