S/of evolution

[Lang Syne Boardie]

Tibbie,

 

I remember reading a lengthy article from the Vatican about the intersection of faith and evolution. Unfortunately, it's eluding me today.

 

I did find this article, from EWTVs website, which covered much of the same ground. I'm not Catholic, but I find that I frequently turn to the Catholic church for thoughtful insight on this topic.

 

Thank you! I spent a very pleasant evening last week studying all about the Catholic church and science over the generations. I found some wonderful articles to share with my dc.

[TheHomeScientist]

You cannot argue with faith. You can argue when someone claims something is demonstrably false. When an irrational creationist starts talking about people running around with dinosaurs, that is (to the extent of observing evidence) demonstrably false. If the creationist believes that God wove the fossil record into existence along with a 7-day creation process, well, I can't really argue with that. I do not believe it, but I can't demonstrate that it is false - I wasn't there. I don't find it to be a particularly irrational approach to reconcile observable reality with faith, and certainly not worth of contempt.

 

You do not have to demonstrate the falsity of extraordinary claims that are unsupported by any evidence, let alone those that are contradicted by evidence. As Carl Sagan said, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. When someone makes a truth claim, it is up to that person to provide evidence to support that claim. That's what science is all about.

[Ellesmere]

First, bravo for you! Many people refuse to expose their children to anything that does not agree with their personal beliefs.

 

I doubt that you will find a text that does a good job of explaining evolution, creation, and intelligent design. The creation/ID books always seem to make a mess of the science, and books on evolutionary science don't address religion, because religion is outside the scope of science. Books that cover both always come across as quite arrogant towards views that don't agree with the author. That is a shame, because that arrogance usually causes anyone of the other belief to immediately stop listening.

 

I have had several long, pleasant conversations with creationist ministers, with the goal of understanding things from their point of view. The first, big step is finding common ground on definitions. If you compare definitions for words such as theory, species, law, evolution and science, you will find that the two sides of the conversation have very different definitions for the same words. Once both sides agree on what the words mean, it suddenly becomes much easier to carry on a meaningful, civil conversation.

 

That does not mean that we resolved the difference between evolution and young Earth creationism. From a scientific point of view, evidence is everything. No matter how much scientists may want something to be true, if the evidence indicates otherwise, the idea is either changed or discarded. We may see that if the recent neutrino experiments show that e=mc2 is not correct. If the physical evidence did not support the idea of evolution, it would be discarded.

 

On the other hand, religion puts scripture above physical evidence. If the physical evidence does not support the scripture, then the evidence must be wrong. You can't rewrite the scripture to make it fit what you see, and there is no evidence that would convince a religion to discard its scripture.

 

I'm sorry this got so long, but it is a subject that is important to me. If there is anything that I can do to help with your study, please let me know.

I so appreciate the tone of this message to someone who (thankfully) is realizing he was misinformed. I'm glad for your response.

 

However, I would just disagree that all religious people put scripture over physical evidence. Certainly, I've met people who do. But not everyone who identifies as religious is "Bible-alone" and not everyone treats Genesis as a science text or a work that was meant to tell us exactly when the Earth was formed.

 

From an author, Stratford Caldecott (this is, however, not from a book dealing with YEC): "The divorce of faith from reason lead to the subordination either of faith to reason ... or of reason to faith (in the various form of fideism and extreme biblical fundamentalism)". Earlier, Caldecott quotes Pope John Paul II who said "Faith and reason are like two wings on which the human spirit rises to the contemplation of truth;" and then makes his argument as to why faith need not be chosen over reason or contradict it. Doesn't work for everyone, but I think it at least is an example of why I don't feel that I have to buy YEC (I don't) and still have faith.

 

On another note, you hit the nail on the head about the definition of terms. This is true when talking about so many things. If each "side" defines the terms differently then each has to understand how the other is using the term or they'll go mad. Eventually somebody has to do their best Inigo and say, "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means," or admit that their argument might depend on what the definition of a word like, say, "is" is.

 

OP, best wishes! :)

Edited February 3, 2012 by Clairelise
using, not saying!

[KristenR]

Eventually somebody has to do their best Inigo and say, "You keep saying that word. I do not think it means what you think it means," or admit that their argument might depend on what the definition of a word like, say, "is" is.

 

OP, best wishes! :)

 

For your viewing pleasure...

 

[hmschooling]

This may be an odd question, but I will attempt it anyway.

We are Young Earth Creationists, but I want to make sure my kids get a very solid understanding of evolution, being the current, widely accepted, prevalent scientific understanding of things. I was taught science using aBeka, and thought I understood evolution, but it turns out I was completely misinformed about what evolutionists believe or accept.

Is there a good science curriculum out there that does a solid job explaining both evolution and Creationism /Intelligent Design?

 

Thanks!

 

If you want one that truly informs you all about it and refutes the arguments against it with solid scientific information, Answers In Genesis has loads of excellent DVDs and books and curricula. It is wholly YE Creationist, and they are wonderfully educated about evolutionary beliefs and want us and our kids to know it well and know creation origins even better, and how to take the info from evolutionary beliefs and be knowledgeable enough about them to also be able to show where they are wrong.

 

Oh the interruptions! Sorry...I can't explain it better right now. :001_huh:

[Georgiana Daniels]

You're relatively new to the forum, so you missed the raging debates here in the past over this topic. (Search Kerfluffle if you're inclined to read about one of them.) The debate wasn't new last summer, but it was loud.

 

Name calling, whether it is heretic, compromiser, or lying weasel haven't been the means to encourage calm discussion of issues that people have questions about. Those are the sort of terms that have resulted in angry replies and locked threads.

 

:iagree:

[Sebastian (a lady)]

If you want one that truly informs you all about it and refutes the arguments against it with solid scientific information, Answers In Genesis has loads of excellent DVDs and books and curricula. It is wholly YE Creationist, and they are wonderfully educated about evolutionary beliefs and want us and our kids to know it well and know creation origins even better, and how to take the info from evolutionary beliefs and be knowledgeable enough about them to also be able to show where they are wrong.

 

Oh the interruptions! Sorry...I can't explain it better right now. :001_huh:

 

The problem I have with going to AIG for an explanation of evolution is that it is in the interest of their position to put an emphasis on the areas that they think are problematic.

 

I don't have an issue with their pointing to the areas they are in disagreement. But not when they don't put forth the strongest, most complete arguments that are presented by the other side.

 

My son is in a chess class. He often has chess problems to try to solve. The guideline is that black always has to play its best game. In other words, you don't come up with a good solution by making the other side play less than 100% in their best interest.

 

So I want to see the very best argument from the side of evolution, that I can look at. In the same way, I want the side of faith to be presented in an unreserved fashion. As someone who grew up in the Christian faith, I can always sense when someone doesn't really understand how the Bible or tradition are understood (at least relative to my community). I have to think that someone from a science background has the same sense, that their understanding is being twisted in order to discount it.

 

The concept of Devil's Advocate, as I understand it, comes from religious scholastic communities, who would have topics or positions to discuss. Someone was always appointed to research and present avidly the other side. The idea was that only by fully exploring the best arguments of the opposition could one fully hone ones own point of view.

 

It would be interesting to see something that asked the same questions from both sides, allowing for each to give the questions their best shot. But I'm not aware of a work that really does that. I think you end up having to hold the questions in your own mind and see how they are answered in different books.

[lewelma]

If you are interested in doing a self-study on Evolution, the best book I have ever seen (and I have seen a lot) is Biozone's Evolution: http://www.biozone.co.nz/modular.php It is a 100 page summary of the topic with subtopics including: comparative anatomy, biogeography, natural selection, sexual selection, population genetics, molecular evolution, founder effect, genetic drift, speciation, coevolution, convergent evolution, extinction, etc. Each spread has a summary paragraph, a diagram/graph/example, and very difficult and interesting comprehension questions. It is a high school level text. The book costs $13 and the website has a nice preview and factsheet.

[mamaraby]

Speaking as a former Christian/believer in Creationism/ID, I would count myself among those who suggest reading the best sources from both sides on this one and most definitely skip the stiff from AIG. You really aren't going to get a fair picture about Evolution from them. I'm certain there are those that disagree with me there, but I've found that AIG's great at apologetics which really only convincing to those within the faith, not without (which is not something I could have seen myself saying back when I was taking apologetics classes in Bible college).

 

Karl Giberson's "Saving Darwin" might be a good place to start just to get things from the perspective of one who was once a Creationist/proponent of ID and who has changed his mind.

 

As far as resources on Evolution, my education was sadly lacking so when it came time to get a leg up, I actually started with children's books. To that end, Charlie's Playhouse has a fantastic book list. Many of the books on the list are what I use with my children.

 

HTH!

[Happy Scientist]

However, I would just disagree that all religious people put scripture over physical evidence. Certainly, I've met people who do. But not everyone who identifies as religious is "Bible-alone" and not everyone treats Genesis as a science text or a work that was meant to tell us exactly when the Earth was formed.

 

Clairelise, thanks for your great comments. My comment was influenced by growing up in a fundamentalist church. They would never dream of saying "Physical evidence shows that this scripture is incorrect, so we have to either rewrite the scripture to correct it, or remove it from the Bible." That is the approach that science takes when a flaw is found, but I have never heard of a religion doing that.

[ChandlerMom]

Clairelise, thanks for your great comments. My comment was influenced by growing up in a fundamentalist church. They would never dream of saying "Physical evidence shows that this scripture is incorrect, so we have to either rewrite the scripture to correct it, or remove it from the Bible." That is the approach that science takes when a flaw is found, but I have never heard of a religion doing that.

 

There is a belief of some that if scripture and science disagree it is because of an error in our understanding of scripture. I just wanted to point out that the Catholic Church hasn't had an issue with evolution since Pope Pius XII in 1950. Pope Benedict has rejected "intelligent design" and instead supports the idea of theistic evolution (evolution in the presence of a deity).

 

The Episcopal church went further, stating that "the theory of evolution provides a fruitful and unifying scientific explanation for the emergence of life on earth, that many theological interpretations of origins can readily embrace an evolutionary outlook, and that an acceptance of evolution is entirely compatible with an authentic and living Christian faith."

[WishboneDawn]

There is a belief of some that if scripture and science disagree it is because of an error in our understanding of scripture. I just wanted to point out that the Catholic Church hasn't had an issue with evolution since Pope Pius XII in 1950. Pope Benedict has rejected "intelligent design" and instead supports the idea of theistic evolution (evolution in the presence of a deity).

 

The Episcopal church went further, stating that "the theory of evolution provides a fruitful and unifying scientific explanation for the emergence of life on earth, that many theological interpretations of origins can readily embrace an evolutionary outlook, and that an acceptance of evolution is entirely compatible with an authentic and living Christian faith."

 

It's that Episcopal/Anglican way of outting scripture on equal ground with reason and tradition that allows for that. Such a sensible, pragmatic denonination. :D

[WishboneDawn]

First, bravo for you! Many people refuse to expose their children to anything that does not agree with their personal beliefs.

 

I doubt that you will find a text that does a good job of explaining evolution, creation, and intelligent design. The creation/ID books always seem to make a mess of the science, and books on evolutionary science don't address religion, because religion is outside the scope of science. Books that cover both always come across as quite arrogant towards views that don't agree with the author. That is a shame, because that arrogance usually causes anyone of the other belief to immediately stop listening.

 

I have had several long, pleasant conversations with creationist ministers, with the goal of understanding things from their point of view. The first, big step is finding common ground on definitions. If you compare definitions for words such as theory, species, law, evolution and science, you will find that the two sides of the conversation have very different definitions for the same words. Once both sides agree on what the words mean, it suddenly becomes much easier to carry on a meaningful, civil conversation.

 

That does not mean that we resolved the difference between evolution and young Earth creationism. From a scientific point of view, evidence is everything. No matter how much scientists may want something to be true, if the evidence indicates otherwise, the idea is either changed or discarded. We may see that if the recent neutrino experiments show that e=mc2 is not correct. If the physical evidence did not support the idea of evolution, it would be discarded.

 

On the other hand, religion puts scripture above physical evidence. If the physical evidence does not support the scripture, then the evidence must be wrong. You can't rewrite the scripture to make it fit what you see, and there is no evidence that would convince a religion to discard its scripture.

 

I'm sorry this got so long, but it is a subject that is important to me. If there is anything that I can do to help with your study, please let me know.

 

This is a great post that reflects my experience as well. Definitions of terms are often the first thing I have to discuss with creationists and I've also found that if I keep a civil and respectful tone then no minds will be changed (when does that ever happen?) but both parties will come out of the discussion with a greater understanding of each other's position.

 

I won't compromoise on the science though. Any science curriculum that claims neutrality by excluding evolution isn't, in my mind, going to have good science. I think a person won't get a reasonable or full veiw of evolution from any creationist source simply because their view of the whole field of science and it's terms are very different.

 

One source I found that I think a creationist could use that would give a decent understanding of science and evolution and would not make them feel uncomfortable is The Teaching Company's History of Science lecture series. I learned quite a bit about the early creationists and fundamentalists in the last century.

[Ellesmere]

Clairelise, thanks for your great comments. My comment was influenced by growing up in a fundamentalist church. They would never dream of saying "Physical evidence shows that this scripture is incorrect, so we have to either rewrite the scripture to correct it, or remove it from the Bible." That is the approach that science takes when a flaw is found, but I have never heard of a religion doing that.

 

I'm going to tread as carefully as I can and hope that this doesn't get me into trouble.

 

Hmmm. Nevermind.

 

I don't think I can cause too much of a ruckus by just saying "thank you" so maybe I should just thank you for keeping the Buechner quote in mind when you respond to people. :)

[Ellesmere]

For your viewing pleasure...

 

 

 

:hurray:

[cdrumm4448]

I disagree with your statement above (if I am reading correctly what you are asserting).

 

You should watch the documentary Expelled by Ben Stein.

 

:iagree:I was just about to post this.

[lotsofpumpkins]

If you want one that truly informs you all about it and refutes the arguments against it with solid scientific information, Answers In Genesis has loads of excellent DVDs and books and curricula. It is wholly YE Creationist, and they are wonderfully educated about evolutionary beliefs and want us and our kids to know it well and know creation origins even better, and how to take the info from evolutionary beliefs and be knowledgeable enough about them to also be able to show where they are wrong.

 

 

:iagree:

 

(I know it's not the popular thing around here to be a Ken Ham supporter, but I am. And I'm a scientist too. :) But I'm a Christian first. I interpret science in light of the Bible, not the other way around.)

[Mergath]

Yeah, well, ask any of the real scientists who appeared in that nasty little propaganda piece and you'll find that "lying weasel" is about the nicest thing that any of them will have to say about Ben Stein. Search their blogs for the movie title, and you'll find that Stein entirely misrepresented the purpose of the movie and then proceeded to interview them under false pretenses and edit the interviews to intentionally distort their positions.

 

Here's a site maintained by the National Center for Science Education that tells you everything you need to know about Expelled.

 

http://www.expelledexposed.com/

 

:iagree: I'm going to try really hard not to get into yet another debate on this subject, but I do want to add that I heard about this, too. From what I remember, there was quite a kerfuffle on Pharyngula about it. No matter which side of the debate I fell on, I wouldn't look to "Expelled" as an accurate source. Way too much lying and creative editing on the part of Ben Stein.

[Mergath]

:iagree:

 

(I know it's not the popular thing around here to be a Ken Ham supporter, but I am. And I'm a scientist too. :) But I'm a Christian first. I interpret science in light of the Bible, not the other way around.)

 

And if you want to know all the ways in which AIG is wrong and intentionally distorts scientific fact to make their point, the Pharyngula blog is a good place to start.

 

:leaving:

[nmoira]

Any of these books would provide a good start in understanding evolution (links to amazon pages in url) :

http://skepchick.org/2012/01/ask-surly-amy-evolution-books/

 

Books on Evolution

 

1. Charles Darwin on the Origin of Species – The Illustrated Edition (It really is a beautiful book.)

 

2. Why Evolution Is True by Jerry Coyne (This was the number one most recommended books of the people I polled.)

 

3. The Beak of the Finch by Jonathan Weiner (This one also had a LOT of recommendations.)

 

4. At the Water’s Edge by Carl Zimmer.

 

5. Almost Like A Whale by Steve Jones.

 

6. Your Inner Fish by Neil Shubin (Also highly recommended.)

 

7. The Rough Guide to Evolution by Mark Pallen

 

8. The Tangled Bank by Carl Zimmer

 

9. Evolution: How We and All Living Things Came to Be by Daniel Loxton

 

10. Science On Trial by Douglas J. Futuyma

 

11. Evolution: The Story of Life on Earth by Jay Hosler

 

12. For the religious: Coming To Peace With Science by Darrel Falk.

 

13. Introducing Evolution: A Graphic Guide, by Dylan Evans & Howard Selina.

 

14. Evolution: What The Fossils Say And Why It Matters. by Donald Prothero

 

 

15. What Evolution Is by Ernest Mayr

[dangerdad]

And if you want to know all the ways in which AIG is wrong and intentionally distorts scientific fact to make their point, the Pharyngula blog is a good place to start.

Oof. Unfortunately, PZ Myers is so abrasive, it might be hard to stomach. (Also, dangermom tells me he's wildly against homeschooling.)

 

In my experience, Michael Shermer is much better at explaining this stuff in a more respectful way. He grew up Baptist, but is now atheist, and a luminary in the Skeptic movement. His politics are closer to mine, since he's libertarian, and that makes him easier for me to read and listen to.

 

Sadly, everything I've found in the Creationist/ID vs. Evolution camp is talking past each other. The evolution side tends to have a childlike understanding of religion (Myers, Dawkins, Hitchens, etc.) and the ID side has a tendency to have a very limited understanding of evolution, scientific method, etc. or haven't been honest in their explanation of evolution (Ben Stein being a prime example, but also Michael Behe).

 

I've read a number of ID supporters, and have been disappointed to find huge flaws in their reasoning, as well as intentional deception (sigh). I actually read the 700 pages of Behe's testimony in the Dover ID trial and IMO he's not an honest broker. I read "Of Pandas and People" and found it to have terrible reasoning (I have some notes on it somewhere).

 

Whereas Dawkins writings on evolution are quite good from what I've seen, I read his "The God Delusion" and found it to be a childish understanding of what we actual believers in God believe.

 

Let me point you to Shermer's "Why Darwin Matters" -- which I haven't read personally, but he's the only person I've found to address the topic reasonably and with minimal polemic.

 

My personal background was growing up a Young Earth Creationist--I don't recall anyone teaching me that, but it's what I believed. It caused me massive religious worry in high school when I saw the tons of evidence for the age of the Earth and the Universe (I come at things more from the physical sciences). I eventually resolved the concerns and believe more strongly in God as an adult. However, I wish the evidence for an old Earth hadn't been ignored by my teachers and family -- I think if I'd been presented with an absolute choice of Young Earth vs. God I don't know if I would still be a believer today.

 

I now believe in an old Earth, and evolution as a scientific explanation of the process of how life came to be. However I believe that God authored the laws of physics, that Adam & Eve were real individuals, that Jesus performed miracles and that miracles still happen. And most importantly that without Jesus' sacrifice we could not return to God.

 

I also believe that Genesis was never intended to be a science text, and that we teach our children otherwise at their peril.

Edited February 4, 2012 by dangerdad

[WishboneDawn]

:iagree:I was just about to post this.

 

Expelled ilmay be interesting for those who agree with it but for those of us in a different camp I don't think it's either challenging or convincing. Sort of like Dawiins on religion. Easy to cheer for if you agree with him, completely irritating if you don't.

[TheHomeScientist]

Oof. Unfortunately, PZ Myers is so abrasive, it might be hard to stomach. (Also, dangermom tells me he's wildly against homeschooling.)

 

In my experience, Michael Shermer is much better at explaining this stuff in a more respectful way. He grew up Baptist, but is now atheist, and a luminary in the Skeptic movement. His politics are closer to mine, since he's libertarian, and that makes him easier for me to read and listen to.

 

Yes, PZ is radical left wing, as he'll be the first to tell you if you ask. (He thinks Obama is right-wing, literally.) But his science is impeccable. PZ and I exchange email, but we really don't like each other. I'm also a libertarian, which he regards as beneath contempt.

 

And you're correct that he's strongly opposed to homeschooling. That's ironic, since modern homeschooling really originated among liberals in the 1970's, before the religious right got so heavily involved.

 

Sadly, everything I've found in the Creationist/ID vs. Evolution camp is talking past each other. The evolution side tends to have a childlike understanding of religion (Myers, Dawkins, Hitchens, etc.) and the ID side has a tendency to have a very limited understanding of evolution, scientific method, etc. or haven't been honest in their explanation of evolution (Ben Stein being a prime example, but also Michael Behe).

 

I've read a number of ID supporters, and have been disappointed to find huge flaws in their reasoning, as well as intentional deception (sigh). I actually read the 700 pages of Behe's testimony in the Dover ID trial and IMO he's not an honest broker. I read "Of Pandas and People" and found it to have terrible reasoning (I have some notes on it somewhere).

Well, I'd say you got that half right. There's nothing childlike about the understanding of religion among most of those who strongly support evolution. Most of us understand it quite well, and consider it to be entirely bogus and not worth wasting our time on.

 

However, and I've been following this issue for at least 20 years, I have yet to find anyone on the creationist/ID side who has even a basic understanding of science in general, let alone evolution in particular. The sine qua non in science is that data trumps everything else. The creationist/ID supporters simply discard data that contradicts their arguments. That's not science, even remotely.

 

Whereas Dawkins writings on evolution are quite good from what I've seen, I read his "The God Delusion" and found it to be a childish understanding of what we actual believers in God believe.

Ah, the sophisticated-versus-simple argument. In fact, every survey and poll I've ever seen confirms that Dawkins' take on what believers actually believe is spot on. A very large majority of US people who self-identify as "Christian", for example, say flat out that if an observable fact contradicts their religious beliefs, they will ignore the fact.

 

Let me point you to Shermer's "Why Darwin Matters" -- which I haven't read personally, but he's the only person I've found to address the topic reasonably and with minimal polemic.

Shermer is what those of us who devote considerable time and effort to following this issue call an "accommodationist". That is, he attempts to convince YEC and other fundamentalist Christians of the reality of evolution without offending their religious beliefs. Those of us in the other camp (called New Atheists, although there's nothing new about us) believe that's futile. YECs can't accept scientific reality because it falsifies their religious beliefs. They, at least, are aware that it's one or the other. Accommodationists believe one can have it both ways.

 

I now believe in an old Earth, and evolution as a scientific explanation of the process of how life came to be. However I believe that God authored the laws of physics, that Adam & Eve were real individuals, that Jesus performed miracles and that miracles still happen. And most importantly that without Jesus' sacrifice we could not return to God.

Well, of course I'd argue that you have no evidence for any of that, so in my view you're simply attempting to fit science into your religious worldview. That, of course, is your right. 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.

[WishboneDawn]

And if you want to know all the ways in which AIG is wrong and intentionally distorts scientific fact to make their point, the Pharyngula blog is a good place to start.

 

:leaving:

 

I can't take Myers anymore myself. Talkorigins.org is a much better resource for refuting AIG methinks.

[cdrumm4448]

Expelled ilmay be interesting for those who agree with it but for those of us in a different camp I don't think it's either challenging or convincing. Sort of like Dawiins on religion. Easy to cheer for if you agree with him, completely irritating if you don't.

 

I don't know that I completely agree with any camp. I still have much of my own research to do before I am comfortable making a decision. There are *very* few gray areas regarding what I believe, but this is one of them. I do not discount any view, at this point.

 

However, I have attempted to read Dawkins at least three times. His voice is so arrogant and irritating to me, I've abandoned it. I will get through it some day. I just wish he didn't personally turn me off.

[cdrumm4448]

Well, I'd say you got that half right. There's nothing childlike about the understanding of religion among most of those who strongly support evolution. Most of us understand it quite well, and consider it to be entirely bogus and not worth wasting our time on.

 

However, and I've been following this issue for at least 20 years, I have yet to find anyone on the creationist/ID side who has even a basic understanding of science in general, let alone evolution in particular. The sine qua non in science is that data trumps everything else. The creationist/ID supporters simply discard data that contradicts their arguments. That's not science, even remotely.

 

I am trying very hard to hear what you are saying and give it serious attention, but it's difficult to get past rather offensive statements such as the bolded. And I'm not religious.

[nmoira]

However, I have attempted to read Dawkins at least three times. His voice is so arrogant and irritating to me, I've abandoned it. I will get through it some day. I just wish he didn't personally turn me off.

Try some of the books I listed above.

[dangerdad]

Shermer is what those of us who devote considerable time and effort to following this issue call an "accommodationist". That is, he attempts to convince YEC and other fundamentalist Christians of the reality of evolution without offending their religious beliefs. Those of us in the other camp (called New Atheists, although there's nothing new about us) believe that's futile. YECs can't accept scientific reality because it falsifies their religious beliefs. They, at least, are aware that it's one or the other. Accommodationists believe one can have it both ways.

And yet reasoned presentation of evolution convinced me of it. Shrill tirades against religion (PZ, et al) didn't. In fact debating with people such as that have strengthed my religious beliefs. So if they're right, they're not terribly effective.

 

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.

Except I don't claim that A&E were the sole progenitors of H. sapiens. See what I mean?

[Happy Scientist]

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

 

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.

 

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.

[WishboneDawn]

Shermer is what those of us who devote considerable time and effort to following this issue call an "accommodationist". That is, he attempts to convince YEC and other fundamentalist Christians of the reality of evolution without offending their religious beliefs. Those of us in the other camp (called New Atheists, although there's nothing new about us) believe that's futile. YECs can't accept scientific reality because it falsifies their religious beliefs. They, at least, are aware that it's one or the other. Accommodationists believe one can have it both ways.

 

Some of us, "who devote considerable time and effort to following this issue," don't call Shermer an "accommodationist". Some of us just call him reasonable.

 

Good grief. There's not some Great Evolution Supporter hive Mind where "our" opinions are decided for us is there? I somehow missed being hooked up to that.

[WishboneDawn]

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.

 

Thank you. I get itchy and uncomfortable when people who claim to be well-versed in science start to make truth claims. :)

[lewelma]

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.

 

Scientific American ran an article in August 2010 called When the Sea saved humanity by Curtis Marean. He has published in Nature, so is a scientist. This article is about coastal adaptation, so all the references at the end of the article concern that topic, so I have no references to give you. However, he summarizes the current understanding of the human population bottleneck as follows:

 

"Around 195,000 years ago, conditions [in Africa] began to deteriorate. The planet entered a long glacial stage...Much of the landmass would have been uninhabitable. While the planet was in the grip of this icy regime, the number of people plummeted perilously -- from more than 10,000 breeding individuals to just hundreds. Estimates of exactly when this bottleneck occurred and how small the population became vary among genetic studies, but all of them indicate that everyone alive today is descended from a small population that lived in one region of Africa sometime during this global cooling phase."

 

Ruth in NZ

[lewelma]

Also, Google offers a search engine for peer-reviewed scientific articles: http://scholar.google.co.nz/ . This resource actually contains the abstracts and sometimes whole articles of these scientific papers. They are NOT pre-digested by bloggers, journalists, or laymen.

 

I put in "bottleneck humans africa" and found:

 

Nature 448, 346-348 (19 July 2007) | doi:10.1038/nature05951; Received 8 January 2007; Accepted 22 May 2007

 

The effect of ancient population bottlenecks on human phenotypic variation

 

Andrea Manica1, William Amos1, François Balloux2 & Tsunehiko Hanihara3

 

1. Department of Zoology, University of Cambridge, Downing Street, Cambridge CB2 3EJ, UK
   
2. Department of Genetics, University of Cambridge, Downing Street, Cambridge CB2 3EH, UK
   
3. Department of Anatomy, Saga Medical School, Saga 849-8501, Japan
   

The origin and patterns of dispersal of anatomically modern humans are the focus of considerable debate1, 2, 3. Global genetic analyses have argued for one single origin, placed somewhere in Africa4, 5, 6, 7. This scenario implies a rapid expansion, with a series of bottlenecks of small amplitude, which would have led to the observed smooth loss of genetic diversity with increasing distance from Africa. Analyses of cranial data, on the other hand, have given mixed results8, 9, 10, 11, 12, and have been argued to support multiple origins of modern humans2, 9, 12. Using a large data set of skull measurements and an analytical framework equivalent to that used for genetic data, we show that the loss in genetic diversity has been mirrored by a loss in phenotypic variability. We find evidence for an African origin, placed somewhere in the central/southern part of the continent, which harbours the highest intra-population diversity in phenotypic measurements. We failed to find evidence for a second origin, and we confirm these results on a large genetic data set. Distance from Africa accounts for an average 19–25% of heritable variation in craniometric measurements—a remarkably strong effect for phenotypic measurements known to be under selection.

 

 

There are lots and lots of articles about this topic to search through.

 

Ruth in NZ

Edited February 4, 2012 by lewelma

[Mergath]

I can't take Myers anymore myself. Talkorigins.org is a much better resource for refuting AIG methinks.

 

He is very snarky. (Maybe that's why I like him. ;)) Since the fracking cracker thing, I will forever be a fan.

 

Though, I probably shouldn't even bring that up here, because someone is going to google it and get horribly offended.

[Mergath]

Yes, PZ is radical left wing, as he'll be the first to tell you if you ask. (He thinks Obama is right-wing, literally.) But his science is impeccable.

 

Yup. And he's pretty good at explaining things so that even a science dummy like me can understand it. And he's funny.

 

It does grate that he's so against homeschooling, but given the vast numbers who use religious texts as science books, I really can't blame him much.

[Trish]

A minimum of 10,000 people popped out of the goo? With an intermediary Salamander Stage?

[camikins2010]

If this has been mentioned, as I didn't read through all the posts... Answers in Genesis does a good job in explaining both evolutionary concepts and the biblical account of creation. It also uses a variety of scientific discipline in proving that the biblical account is correct and that evolution is incorrect. http://www.answersingenesis.org

[Snowfall]

A minimum of 10,000 people popped out of the goo? With an intermediary Salamander Stage?

 

Evolution misrepresented again. Really, doesn't this silly sort of response get old? Goo? Salamanders? Honestly.

[lewelma]

A minimum of 10,000 people popped out of the goo?

 

Not quite.

 

A bottleneck in population numbers occurs when there was a large population that shrank dramatically to small numbers and then increased again. This historical event is recorded in an individual's genes. Given the observed rate of mutation, there is a certain amount of genetic variability expected in a species. When the population numbers crash, genetic variability is reduced because individuals with specific genes are removed from the population and that genetic variability is lost, never to be returned. Genetic studies of a species easily identify which species have gone through a bottleneck because of the reduced genetic variability compared to the expected variability.

 

Ruth in NZ

Edited February 5, 2012 by lewelma

[TheHomeScientist]

Science does not prove things "beyond question."

 

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".

 

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.

 

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature10231.html

 

Actually, it's worse than that. The 10,000 number refers to effective population size, and of course census population would almost certainly have been significantly larger. The last time the effective population dropped below 10,000 was about a million years ago, long before H. sapiens.

[Iucounu]

It also uses a variety of scientific discipline in proving that the biblical account is correct

:001_huh::blink: That's exactly the sort of thing that stands to highly confuse the OP's children. Best to keep the religious doctrine separate from the science-- science could never, ever "prove that a biblical account is correct".

Edited February 5, 2012 by Iucounu

[lotsofpumpkins]

And if you want to know all the ways in which AIG is wrong and intentionally distorts scientific fact to make their point, the Pharyngula blog is a good place to start.

 

:leaving:

 

 

Nope, I am not interested in reading a blog that picks apart AIG. I think that AIG is an excellent resource for learning about both evolutionary beliefs and the true biblical account of creation. (Which is what the op wanted, right?)

[lotsofpumpkins]

:001_huh::blink: That's exactly the sort of thing that stands to highly confuse the OP's children. Best to keep the religious doctrine separate from the science-- science could never, ever "prove that a biblical account is correct".

 

As Ken Ham says, we are viewing the world through different "glasses". My glasses come from having a strong faith in God, so the biblical account makes perfect sense to me. It sure makes more sense than evolution does. Look around you; do you honestly think all this happened by accident??? Religious doctrine has everything to do with science when you believe in the Creator.

[Iucounu]

As Ken Ham says, we are viewing the world through different "glasses". My glasses come from having a strong faith in God, so the biblical account makes perfect sense to me. It sure makes more sense than evolution does. Look around you; do you honestly think all this happened by accident??? Religious doctrine has everything to do with science when you believe in the Creator.

I believe that you think that your religious doctrine can incorporate some science. But no matter what sort of religious beliefs you hold, science cannot "prove biblical doctrine", by definition, since that doctrine is supernatural and science doesn't work that way.

 

You simply can't bootstrap into a valid falsification of a scientific theory by saying that your religious doctrine says it's so, or that science "proves" something it can't do by definition. No matter how strong religious belief may be, it isn't and can't be scientific evidence. You're right, you are viewing the world through different glasses-- completely unscientific ones.

[lotsofpumpkins]

You're right, you are viewing the world through different glasses-- completely unscientific ones.

 

 

If believing that the Bible is 100% inerrant and infallible makes me unscientific, then so be it. :D

[mcconnellboys]

I'm sorry, but I believe Francis Collins, head of the Human Genome Project, is a "real scientist" and he has written and spoken pretty extensively about his belief in God. Here's just one link to info about him:

 

http://franciscollinstalk.stanford.edu/

 

(One book he has written: Language of God)

 

I also think that Michael Behe's Edge of Evolution provides very compelling ideas about God's hand in change for organisms on earth. I believe that Dr. Behe is still a professor at Lehigh in Pennsylvania. I would classify him as a "real scientist." I believe biochemistry is his area of specialty.

 

I would class Guillermo Gonzalez as a "real scientist," despite the fact that his beliefs got him into trouble at various universities. I don't know where he is now. He co-wrote Privileged Planet a few years ago and it was turned into a movie. He is an astrobiologist....

 

There are others, in other fields of study, but those are some of the more well-known biologists I can think of, off hand....

 

I have also always personally felt that Gaia theory (Margulis, et al) beautifully details God's hand in the life of our world.... Margulis is NOT a proponent of intelligent design - I'm merely espousing my own feelings on the subject: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/04/lynn_margulis_criticizes_neo-d045691.html

 

I'll have to think about whether I've read anything else that compares the two ideas....

[mcconnellboys]

Hmmmm, I disagree.... I do not think there is anything in our scientific knowledge at this time that precludes a Creator from stirring the pot; sparking a big bang; tinkering with prions and proteins, viruses and bacteria. When leading scientists espouse theories that perhaps life was "seeded" on earth by extraterrestrials, I'm not sure why they're not willing to concede that said "extraterrestrial" might have been what some of us call "God"....

 

Chaos theory may dictate that there is order apparent even in places where we don't expect it, but the perfect order and symmetry of galaxies in deep space (which was NOT what cosmologists expected to see when they started mapping deep space), as well as the perfect order and symmetry of subatomic particles we can't even manage to see yet (seeing only the traces of their movements - and again, NOT what scientists expected), speak to me of a Creator.

 

I don't mean to try to sway anyone to change their beliefs. Everyone is free to believe as they see fit. I simply do not think that we can speak in absolutes about evolution precluding intelligent design any more than we can say that intelligent design precludes evolution. Who would expect an intelligent God to set in motion a planet (or a Universe) where everything is stagnant and no change can occur over time to adapt to life's changes?

[lewelma]

I simply do not think that we can speak in absolutes about evolution precluding intelligent design any more than we can say that intelligent design precludes evolution.

 

:iagree: as you have described it in your post. However, many equate intelligent design to YE creation, and YE creation is at odds with evolution.

 

However, any idea about intelligent design is not testable or falsifiable; therefore, by definition, it is not in the realm of science. And that is not a slam. There are many subjects our children study that are not science -- history, art, and rhetoric are a few that come to mind.

 

Ruth in NZ

Edited February 5, 2012 by lewelma

[Spy Car]

Nope, I am not interested in reading a blog that picks apart AIG. I think that AIG is an excellent resource for learning about both evolutionary beliefs and the true biblical account of creation. (Which is what the op wanted, right?)

 

No Tony asked for materials that would not set up "straw-men" to knock down.

 

AiG completely misrepresents what the Theory of Evolution says. Children who use AiG materials are going to end up deeply embarrassed (and probably quite angry) when they find out they have been lied to. There is no scientific support for the fairy-tales that are spun by AiG.

 

Bill

[mcconnellboys]

I agree that intelligent design is not within the realm of science. I do think that scientists can believe in the body of their work and also in intelligent design, however. And I do think that we can discuss and compare the ideas of the two areas....