Is there a resource refuting evolution

[Ellie]

 

Can you start with one thing?

 

Only one? It's a vast subject, something which people have discussed and researched and debated since Darwin. I am reluctant to engage in debate with anyone about it, especially with someone who is relatively hostile about the subject. There are already exhaustive reports and articles and books which discuss special creation versus evolution and which don't rely on Scripture to support the evidence; if these resources are not compelling, then my two cents' worth won't make that much difference.

 

For myself, I cannot believe that life began as slime on a rock. I cannot believe that the complexities of anatomy alone of all the species on the earth could possibly have evolved from any single source, regardless of how many millions of years old some say it took. We could just start with fruit flies. Researchers have watched thousands of generations of fruit flies, exposed to the kind of radiation that supposedly contributed to evolution, and those fruit flies are still...fruit flies. Not bottle flies, not horse flies, not anything except fruit flies.

 

Anyway, that's my story and I'm sticking to it. :-)

[JDoe]

Snip

My use of the word "doctrine" above was not in the formal Catholic sense, but rather as expressed papal opinion which disallowed alternatives.

 

As you point out parts the church was indeed favorably disposed early on, however they had at the time some major political difficulties on their hands, ie Luther & Co, which probably forced their hand on this matter.

 

In any case, what I attempted to point out is that whereas it is clearly untenable for religion to deny science, and that when, from time to time, science come to contradict prevailing religious beliefs, science does not eliminate religion, however it does force religion to adapt to new facts.

 

Any religion that sets out to do battle with science is bound to loose, and the wiser religious leaders recognize this situation and will leave science to the scientists, and concentrate on spiritual matters instead.

[Ellie]

Happily, it is "religion" that is actually making more sense scientifically regarding special creation versus evolution.

[JDoe]

We could just start with fruit flies. Researchers have watched thousands of generations of fruit flies, exposed to the kind of radiation that supposedly contributed to evolution, and those fruit flies are still...fruit flies. Not bottle flies, not horse flies, not anything except fruit flies.

 

 

Not fruit flies, but E.Coli: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolution_experiment

[Ellie]

 

Here's a scholarly discussion of the position of the Catholic Church regarding science. It's a long read, but it addresses your assertion regarding "wiser religious leaders" and scientists. I don't expect it to change your mind; I'm just putting it out there.

[jetted4]

 

Any religion that sets out to do battle with science is bound to loose, and the wiser religious leaders recognize this situation and will leave science to the scientists, and concentrate on spiritual matters instead.

 

 

Where scientists (as distinguished from science) are capable of remaining completely objective, this would be a fair statement; however, there are plenty of topics (origins; global warming; does life begin at conception, birth or somewhere in-between...) where there are few scientists (being human that they are) are infallible in their pursuit of science. Just not within the nature of man...so you end up with claims being purported as fact plenty of times by scientists that are based on flawed assumptions or not asking the right questions.

 

A well known example is a skeleton that was touted as being a great proof of early man and used widely to that end...finally some time later someone tested the skeleton and discovered that it was of small size and hunched over because the person had had arthritis...that part of the discovery wasn't exactly broadcast as widely. You don't ask questions that you don't have any reason to believe are relevant, so you can easily miss something that would be obvious if only the right question had been asked...

[JDoe]

Happily, it is "religion" that is actually making more sense scientifically regarding special creation versus evolution.

That would presumably depend on the specific religion, however about that which science have no proof (yet) there is (still) room for alternative explanations.

 

Which one you find more "likely" is up to personal preferences, however sometimes your preferences run headlong into some (new) piece of science, and then either you keep banging your head on that piece, or you adapt.

 

What I have tried to point out, obviously without much success, is that science cannot disprove the existence of gods in themselves, however science may disprove some elements contained within such beliefs. Unless the religion adapts to, that is accomodates new science the religion is unlikely to survive.

 

 

You see the faith in science is stronger than faith in gods, and the funny thing is that in the end science (and mathematics) is essentially unprovable, and just a matter of faith.

[Guest cares]

Here you are (Basic points commonly overlooked by microbe-to-man evolution believers):

http://evolutionfact...h.blogspot.com/

http://evolutiondism...d.com/evolution

[Spy Car]

 

 

Where scientists (as distinguished from science) are capable of remaining completely objective, this would be a fair statement; however, there are plenty of topics (origins; global warming; does life begin at conception, birth or somewhere in-between...) where there are few scientists (being human that they are) are infallible in their pursuit of science. Just not within the nature of man...so you end up with claims being purported as fact plenty of times by scientists that are based on flawed assumptions or not asking the right questions.

 

You are confusing policy issues with science.

 

A scientist knows that life begins prior to conception. Eggs and sperm are both live cells. Human gamete cells (while being alive) lack the capacity to develop into human beings. When gametes fuse via "fertilization" the resultant cell gains the genetic capacity to develop into a human being. Hardly controversial.

U

What is controversial is when that fertilized cell becomes a "person" (either legally or philosophically/theologically). And whether this fertilized cell has a "soul." And questions of whether this "soul" pre-existed conception, entered the cell at the moment of conception, or enters the developing embryo/fetus at some time after conception. But these latter questions are beyond science. We have no tools to measure or quantify "souls."

 

 

A well known example is a skeleton that was touted as being a great proof of early man and used widely to that end...finally some time later someone tested the skeleton and discovered that it was of small size and hunched over because the person had had arthritis...that part of the discovery wasn't exactly broadcast as widely. You don't ask questions that you don't have any reason to believe are relevant, so you can easily miss something that would be obvious if only the right question had been asked...

 

Scientists can (and do) make mistakes in how they interpret evidence. But the great thing about science is they can also discover the errors and prove a hypotheses wrong.

 

If valid evidence shows that a previously held scientific understanding to be wrong (or incomplete) then the operating assumption has to be scrapped or modified. With the Theory of Evolution all the evidence (and it is massive evidence) corroborates the Theory of Evolution.

 

Had there been refinement of the Theory since Darwin's time? Sure.

 

Are their specific areas where scientists have disagreements on fine points of evolutionary mechanisms? Yes.

 

But is there any valid evidence to refute the Theory of Evolution? No.

 

Instead we have a massively validated Scientific Theory. One that has properly predicted the archeological record that has emerged since Darwin wrote The Origin of the Species, and properly predicted the DNA and genetic sequencing data that unfolds daily.

 

To replace scientific understanding with Ken Ham-like nonsense is to willfully cultivate ignorance.

 

Bill

[JDoe]

Here's a scholarly discussion of the position of the Catholic Church regarding science. It's a long read, but it addresses your assertion regarding "wiser religious leaders" and scientists. I don't expect it to change your mind; I'm just putting it out there.

Why should it change my mind? It seems mostly to coincide with what I have observed. Naturally the writer seem to be a devout Catholic, and obviously thus believe in some things that I do not, but on the substance of what is within the realm of what is known (or knowable), the writer seems to coincide with my assertion that there is no necessary conflict between science and religion.

 

He does of course try to explain away some historical mistakes made by the church, which is to be expected, and I am not immediately disposed to accept those excuses, but that is about all the difference I have with the author on what is knowable.

[albeto]

The main challenge with this topic is that most of the people involved in the exploration have a "need" for either one answer or the other to be right...there's hardly anyone out there who can truly be objective enough to ensure that they are asking all of the right questions and able to interpret the answers objectively (for any of you who have read Jurassic Park, it has an interesting illustration of the pitfalls of not recognizing what the right questions are). I know people on both sides will swear that they're being thorough, but I'm just not sure it's possible, if you have a strong opinion going in which side is right, to design your analysis without SOME sort of bias built into your assumptions. When you are trying to interpret info about Origins, you can't exactly redo the experiment and see how it works this time thru, so you MUST make some assumptions. And there's no real way to test whether assumptions that may work when applied to hundreds of years or even thousands remain valid when applied to a time frame of millions and billions of years....

 

This is an interesting theme I keep coming across. One person tried very hard on another forum to explain to me that Charles Darwin developed the theory of evolution ultimately for the purpose of justifying his rejection of God so he and others like him would no longer feel guilty for sinning. An historical look at the scientific findings will reveal many of the discoveries that help support the theory of evolution were discovered long before Charles Darwin was born, and discovered by faithful Christians. The idea that scientists "need" a particular answer to be "right" is one that has yet to find any credible support, and in fact, the very opposite is readily shown. One might find this resource on the subject to be interesting.

[albeto]

Only one? It's a vast subject, something which people have discussed and researched and debated since Darwin. I am reluctant to engage in debate with anyone about it, especially with someone who is relatively hostile about the subject. There are already exhaustive reports and articles and books which discuss special creation versus evolution and which don't rely on Scripture to support the evidence; if these resources are not compelling, then my two cents' worth won't make that much difference.

 

If I have posted something that reveals a hostility, I would appreciate a link so I can see what I said that was interpreted so. It's not my intent to suggest a hostile response to the subject, and would be frankly surprising to me since I feel no hostility towards this subject in any way.

 

For myself, I cannot believe that life began as slime on a rock. I cannot believe that the complexities of anatomy alone of all the species on the earth could possibly have evolved from any single source, regardless of how many millions of years old some say it took. We could just start with fruit flies. Researchers have watched thousands of generations of fruit flies, exposed to the kind of radiation that supposedly contributed to evolution, and those fruit flies are still...fruit flies. Not bottle flies, not horse flies, not anything except fruit flies.

 

Anyway, that's my story and I'm sticking to it. :-)

 

 

The complexities of biology are vast indeed, but I'm sure you understand the argument from incredulity ("I cannot believe...") doesn't actually explain the claim that a divine creator is/was at work. It would be most illuminating for research to reveal this divine agent. How is it identified? How is it measured? In what way does it react to different variables? How are these variables isolated so that one can explore particular details? I understand people to suggest the Grand Canyon is evidence for a young earth, which is in turn evidence for the creation myth as written in Genesis to be considered an accurate account of historical events. These ideas are conclusions, however, and not evidence. Where is the evidence of spontaneous creation? Where is the evidence of divine intervention?

 

Insect evolution, on the other hand, is enormously well studied and there are multiple peer-reviewed journals that exist to share these findings. Speciation is well documented in many fields of biology.

 

I understand your personal desire to maintain your belief, and I won't attempt to challenge that or persuade you in any way. I am simply responding to the OP's question about scientific resources that refute evolution. The resources that refute evolution are not scientific, even if they do use scientific jargon along the way. The idea of scientifically studying divine agency is problematic for reasons already mentioned. How, then, can one suggest there is scientific evidence for something that science itself is not equipped to explore or make comment on?

[sassenach]

You know what would be awesome? If the evolutionists on the board would just recognize that there are some threads that your input is not needed. We already know you think we're idiots. WE KNOW!!! You can leave now. Seriously.

 

Calming tea asked for very specific information. It's abundantly clear that you don't have that specific information. Despite your passionate desire for us to be enlightened, some of us still would like to gather this information. You're input into this thread is not needed.

 

If you would like to debate evolution on this board for the umpteenth time, please start your own thread.

 

It's just so uncool that these threads always get derailed.

[joannqn]

 

Not fruit flies, but E.Coli: http://en.wikipedia....tion_experiment

 

 

 

I find it interesting that after 50,000 generations, it is still E. Coli.

[Ellie]

That would presumably depend on the specific religion, however about that which science have no proof (yet) there is (still) room for alternative explanations.

 

Which one you find more "likely" is up to personal preferences, however sometimes your preferences run headlong into some (new) piece of science, and then either you keep banging your head on that piece, or you adapt.

 

What I have tried to point out, obviously without much success, is that science cannot disprove the existence of gods in themselves, however science may disprove some elements contained within such beliefs. Unless the religion adapts to, that is accomodates new science the religion is unlikely to survive.

 

 

You see the faith in science is stronger than faith in gods, and the funny thing is that in the end science (and mathematics) is essentially unprovable, and just a matter of faith.

 

 

Are you trying to be offensive in your use of the word "gods"? Seriously?

 

Also, it is you who keep bringing religion into the conversation. Other than the article I linked (which I was pretty sure you would discount but I thought I'd throw it out there in case anyone else was actually interested), I have not talked about my faith or "gods."

 

You have probably not noticed that the people promoting special creation are not church leaders. They are scientists, who can demonstrate through scientific means that evolution is not nearly as likely a possibility as special creation. And although those who are Christians will point out the spiritual implications of special creation, they don't need to, as their science holds up.

[*Michelle*]

My use of the word "doctrine" above was not in the formal Catholic sense, but rather as expressed papal opinion which disallowed alternatives.

 

As you point out parts the church was indeed favorably disposed early on, however they had at the time some major political difficulties on their hands, ie Luther & Co, which probably forced their hand on this matter.

 

In any case, what I attempted to point out is that whereas it is clearly untenable for religion to deny science, and that when, from time to time, science come to contradict prevailing religious beliefs, science does not eliminate religion, however it does force religion to adapt to new facts.

 

Any religion that sets out to do battle with science is bound to loose, and the wiser religious leaders recognize this situation and will leave science to the scientists, and concentrate on spiritual matters instead.

 

 

A papal opinion never disallows alternatives. The only papal opinion that mandates a certain belief is one that is made ex cathedra.

 

I'm not sure I understand the reference to Luther. Luther condemned heliocentric theory.

 

Said Martin Luther: ``People gave ear to an upstart astrologer who strove to show that the earth revolves, not the heavens or the firmament, the sun and the moon. Whoever wishes to appear clever must devise some new system, which of all systems is of course the very best. This fool wishes to reverse the entire science of astronomy; but sacred Scripture tells us that Joshua commanded the sun to stand still, and not the earth.''

 

Meanwhile, Copernicus had dedicated Revolutions of the Heavenly Bodies to the pope.

 

The Church welcomes what science reveals about the world. Galileo's problem was that he refused to leave religion to religion and insisted that the Church declare his science infallible.

[HejKatt]

I've been reading Dr. Jay Wile's blog, and he focuses more on scientific rather than theological topics

http://blog.drwile.com/

 

Just yesterday, he had a blog post where someone asked him why he believed in creationism. I felt his answer was well put - listing some factors that point toward evolution, but also those that point toward creationism. It's the first (bolded) question on the page.

http://blog.drwile.com/?p=10275

[albeto]

You know what would be awesome? If the evolutionists on the board would just recognize that there are some threads that your input is not needed. We already know you think we're idiots. WE KNOW!!! You can leave now. Seriously.

 

A number of people have requested this thread maintain a polite tone so that it doesn't get closed off. I'm not particularly knowledgeable about how these boards are moderated, but I think this kind of response just might be considered antithetical to that end. No one is calling (or even implying) idiocy.

 

Calming tea asked for very specific information. It's abundantly clear that you don't have that specific information. Despite your passionate desire for us to be enlightened, some of us still would like to gather this information. You're input into this thread is not needed.

 

She asked for information. It has been provided. Someone asked a follow-up question. That's how these threads roll.

 

If you would like to debate evolution on this board for the umpteenth time, please start your own thread.

 

It's just so uncool that these threads always get derailed.

 

 

I hope in time you can see the irony of this statement.

[sassenach]

No one is calling (or even implying) idiocy.

 

 

 

 

 

Correction: the quote is "ignorant (or just intentionally misinformed)."

 

I'm sorry my response wasn't calm and level-headed. It's just really old. I should know better, this is a message board, which means every carefully framed question will still attract those who want to argue over the opposing view. I just thought it was such a great question, something new on a subject where the old has been beat to death, and I was disappointed to see it go the way of every other evolution thread. Sometimes I expect more of this group than the same old internet board behaviors, but I'm not sure why I would!

 

And for the record, it bothers me when Christians/conservatives (which I am) derail liberal type threads. Like so many of the threads about homosexuality, paganism, ect that have been run off the tracks.

[...................]

Bill said :

 

"It is far better to understand the "actual" workings of evolution (not the "straw-man" version you get from AiG) as it is a massively validated Scientific Theory."

 

I'm thinking my kids will get tons of this in school and college so I just want to present the other side if there is one, Scientifically if possible.

 

[Spy Car]

Bill said :

 

"It is far better to understand the "actual" workings of evolution (not the "straw-man" version you get from AiG) as it is a massively validated Scientific Theory."

 

I'm thinking my kids will get tons of this in school and college so I just want to present the other side if there is one, Scientifically if possible.

 

 

The schools actually tend to tread away from the subject in many locales due to pressure, so I would not automatically assume children will get an in depth study of the Theory of Evolution. We can see the misconceptions about the ToE in this thread (and others). It is worthwhile to have at least a basic understanding of valid scientific theory.

 

There is no valid scientific evidence against the Theory of Evolution. If there were—and it would make the name of any scientist who found such evidence—the theory would have to be scrapped or modified. It is (like all valid science) a "disprovable" proposition.

 

But the evidence and proof, including massive evidence that was unavailable in Darwin's time, all validates a Theory that becomes stronger every day. Spend your time learning valid science.

 

The output of AiG is not valid science. It is pseudo-science that does not hold up to scientific scrutiny. The "evolution" they present to young minds has little (or nothing) to do with the actual Theory of Evolution. Anyone who has a basic understanding of the ToE will be in for a jaw-dropping experience when they see how AiG presents evolution ("anyone who thinks their grandmother was a monkey raise your hand") to children.

 

Bill

[albeto]

Correction: the quote is "ignorant (or just intentionally misinformed)."

 

Okay, but ignorant and misinformed isn't idiocy. I'm ignorant about how jet engines work, but I'm an idiot for other reasons. ;)

 

I'm sorry my response wasn't calm and level-headed. It's just really old. I should know better, this is a message board, which means every carefully framed question will still attract those who want to argue over the opposing view. I just thought it was such a great question, something new on a subject where the old has been beat to death, and I was disappointed to see it go the way of every other evolution thread. Sometimes I expect more of this group than the same old internet board behaviors, but I'm not sure why I would!

 

Level heads contribute to a more effective discussion, I think, but yeah, we all get short-tempered from time to time. I get that. If the OP had asked for creationist information, I would agree that imposing information about evolution would be derailing, but she asked a different question.

[Erin]

You need to look for resources specifically put out with a Christian bias. That's the only way you're going to find Creation referred to as a science.

Science doesn't acknowledge anyone's creation story, even a bloc as powerful as we Christians.

 

 

Like I said, this is more of a personal theology issue, I think. You might want to just study your Bible more... Or look for religious studies that reconcile origins of the universe/mankind with faith. Given your first post, you seem to have reconciled Old Earth with the literal creation...

 

Personally, I think if you're planning on your kids running in to this in high school and college (which they probably will), you want them to be firm in their faith in the face of the science. Their faith is non-negotiable. That's why it's theirs.

OTOH, creation science as some sort of alternative to evolution is highly debatable, which of course is why it IS debated regularly.

[JDoe]

Are you trying to be offensive in your use of the word "gods"? Seriously?

Not at all, that is merely a reflection on what seems to me to be the reality in that different people around the world have different gods. If you find that offensive, well I can't fix it.

 

Also, it is you who keep bringing religion into the conversation. Other than the article I linked (which I was pretty sure you would discount but I thought I'd throw it out there in case anyone else was actually interested), I have not talked about my faith or "gods."

OK

 

You have probably not noticed that the people promoting special creation are not church leaders. They are scientists, who can demonstrate through scientific means that evolution is not nearly as likely a possibility as special creation. And although those who are Christians will point out the spiritual implications of special creation, they don't need to, as their science holds up.

Actually no, I have not noticed that they are biological scientists, not that it matters much of course, science is not something that INLY certified scientists can do. (Though presumably scientists would be more aware of the scientific method, and biologists presumably have some understanding of living beings).

[Dicentra]

I don't think I've waded into one of these threads before but I've been doing a lot of reading for personal interest lately so I thought I'd give it a go. :)

 

For the record - I am an agnostic who was once Christian (Baptist) and is slowly leaning towards... I'm not sure. :D I studied science (chemistry) at university.

 

I applaud all those who are seeking to gain more knowledge. In the creation/evolution debate, though, I wanted to voice a caution - mostly to keep in mind when reading the creationist materials but occasionally it may creep in on the other side - beware the fallacy of bifurcation. Proving evolution wrong doesn't make creationism right or vice versa. If someone wants to really delve into solid reasons for accepting one or the other, remember there may very well be Options 3, 4, 5, etc. that we simply haven't thought of yet. It would be like saying "If you're not a blond, you must be a redhead" even though you could also be a brunette, gray-haired, or even bald. :D If one can, one should try and avoid materials that seem to use this method for "proving" anything whether it be creationism, evolution, or anything else.

 

Just my two cents. :)

[JDoe]

A papal opinion never disallows alternatives. The only papal opinion that mandates a certain belief is one that is made ex cathedra.

Well, he basically told Copernicus to shut up and stop believing in nonsense.

 

I'm not sure I understand the reference to Luther. Luther condemned heliocentric theory.

Yes indeed Luther condemned heliocentricity. The reference was not to Luther per se, but to the challenge/threat to papal authority at the time which made church risk averse. If you wish to get some more insight on my observation there I may suggest: The foundation of modern political thought, by Quentin Skinner. Of course there are most likely a number of other books out there that deals exclusively with the Church and Heliocentricity that is much better on that specific issue, I just haven't read them.

 

 

Meanwhile, Copernicus had dedicated Revolutions of the Heavenly Bodies to the pope.

Indeed, I never did claim that Copernicus was an atheist.

 

The Church welcomes what science reveals about the world.

Indeed today that is largely the case in most religions. That it not always was so, is history mostly.

 

Galileo's problem was that he refused to leave religion to religion and insisted that the Church declare his science infallible.

That one I think you have fundamentally wrong, but quite honestly I do not think it so important

[Erin]

Yes indeed Luther condemned heliocentricity.

Interestingly, Protestants seemed to have had a much larger outcry against heliocentricity than Catholics...

[JDoe]

I find it interesting that after 50,000 generations, it is still E. Coli.

Indeed, but it now a different kind of E.Coli, which proves evolution, however only in one of the senses that you pointed out on the previous page.

 

In fact, I think your clarification of the different meaning of the term one of the better observations in this thread.

[sassenach]

Okay, but ignorant and misinformed isn't idiocy. I'm ignorant about how jet engines work, but I'm an idiot for other reasons. ;)

 

Level heads contribute to a more effective discussion, I think, but yeah, we all get short-tempered from time to time. I get that. If the OP had asked for creationist information, I would agree that imposing information about evolution would be derailing, but she asked a different question.

 

 

Only Bill can say whether or not he meant it as a pejorative, but I've "known" him on here for a long time, and I took my most educated guess.

 

The OP specifically asked for information to help her kids, "understand the theory of evolution but also to see where its holes, gaps, and problems lie," so that her kids could, "understand it from a Creationist perspective."

 

So, where's the confusion in what she was asking for?

 

I guess I just don't understand why you guys jump into these threads when you have nothing to offer relative to the OP. Is it just to aggravate those of us who do want that information? Why is it so hard just to pass these threads up and let those of us who desire to share the information amongst ourselves? It just feels so dismissive and insulting to not be allowed the space to participate in these threads without having to be told how wrong we are.

[Guest cares]

Indeed, but it now a different kind of E.Coli, which proves evolution, however only in one of the senses that you pointed out on the previous page.

 

In fact, I think your clarification of the different meaning of the term one of the better observations in this thread.

 

It's called variation.

http://www.microrao.com/micronotes/variation.htm

[*Michelle*]

Well, he basically told Copernicus to shut up and stop believing in nonsense.

 

No, he didn't.

 

Opposition was first raised against the Copernican system by Protestant theologians for Biblical reasons, and strange to say it has continued, at least sporadic-ally, to our own days. A list of many of their pamphlets is enumerated by Beckmann. On the Catholic side opposition only commenced seventy-three years later, when it was occasioned by Galileo. On March 5, 1616, the work of Copernicus was forbidden by the Congregation of the Index "until corrected", and in 1620 these corrections were indicated. Nine sentences, by which the heliocentric system was represented as certain, had to be either omitted or changed. This done, the reading of the book was allowed.

 

That one I think you have fundamentally wrong, but quite honestly I do not think it so important.

 

I do, but I don't think anything either of us will change our opinion on that. :)

[joannqn]

Indeed, but it now a different kind of E.Coli, which proves evolution, however only in one of the senses that you pointed out on the previous page.

 

In fact, I think your clarification of the different meaning of the term one of the better observations in this thread.

 

 

True and that isn't under dispute. However, it does fail to prove what is under dispute, Universal Common Descent.

[albeto]

The OP specifically asked for information to help her kids, "understand the theory of evolution but also to see where its holes, gaps, and problems lie," so that her kids could, "understand it from a Creationist perspective."

 

So, where's the confusion in what she was asking for?

 

I don't feel confused, myself. I'm responding to her request: "Is there a resource refuting evolution...but which is not necessarily Young Earth and which takes it's facts mostly from Science?"

 

I guess I just don't understand why you guys jump into these threads when you have nothing to offer relative to the OP. Is it just to aggravate those of us who do want that information? Why is it so hard just to pass these threads up and let those of us who desire to share the information amongst ourselves? It just feels so dismissive and insulting to not be allowed the space to participate in these threads without having to be told how wrong we are.

 

 

But we are offering something to the OP. There are no scientific resources refuting evolution. The answer to the question is, "no." There are no "holes, gaps, and problems" with the theory of evolution, any more than there are "holes, gaps, and problems" with cell theory. Many people misunderstand the theory of evolution, and many people faithfully follow erroneous resources. Seeing that this forum is dedicated to education of children, it only makes sense to talk about what is accurate scientifically and what is not.

[Embassy]

Reasons.org is a good resource. They even have a curriculum called Good Science, Good Faith.

[joannqn]

[/size][/color][/font]

 

But we are offering something to the OP. There are no scientific resources refuting evolution. The answer to the question is, "no." There are no "holes, gaps, and problems" with the theory of evolution, any more than there are "holes, gaps, and problems" with cell theory. Many people misunderstand the theory of evolution, and many people faithfully follow erroneous resources. Seeing that this forum is dedicated to education of children, it only makes sense to talk about what is accurate scientifically and what is not.

 

 

 

I think equivocation is part of the problem. No one is refuting evolution when it is being used to describe small changes within a species, often called microevolution. I believe the OP, and others, are using the term "evolution" to mean Universal Common Descent and how natural selection works in the Universal Common Descent model. The Universal Common Descent theory has plenty of holes, gaps, and problems.

[...................]

 

 

The schools actually tend to tread away form the subject in many locales due to pressure, so I would not automatically assume children will get an in depth study of the Theory of Evolution. We can see the misconceptions about the ToE in this thread (and others). It is worthwhile to have at least a basic understanding of valid scientific theory.

 

There is no valid scientific evidence against the Theory of Evolution. If there were—and it would make the name of any scientist who found such evidence—the theory would have to be scrapped or modified. It is (like all valid science) a "disprovable" proposition.

 

But the evidence and proof, including massive evidence that was unavailable in Darwin's time, all validates a Theory that becomes stronger every day. Spend your time learning valid science.

 

The output of AiG is not valid science. It is pseudo-science that does not hold up to scientific scrutiny. The "evolution" they present to young minds has little (or nothing) to do with the actual Theory of Evolution. Anyone who has a basic understanding of the ToE will be in for a jaw-dropping experience when they see how AiG presents evolution ("anyone who thinks their grandmother was a monkey raise your hand") to children.

 

Bill

 

I don't like AIG either. And maybe refute was too strong of a word...but that's why I stated thus thread...I want my kids to see both sides. And you are right. I guess I can't assume much in either direction.

[...................]

I am excited about Reasons.org. Thank you!

[sassenach]

[/size][/color][/font]

 

I don't feel confused, myself. I'm responding to her request: "Is there a resource refuting evolution...but which is not necessarily Young Earth and which takes it's facts mostly from Science?"

 

 

 

But we are offering something to the OP. There are no scientific resources refuting evolution. The answer to the question is, "no." There are no "holes, gaps, and problems" with the theory of evolution, any more than there are "holes, gaps, and problems" with cell theory. Many people misunderstand the theory of evolution, and many people faithfully follow erroneous resources. Seeing that this forum is dedicated to education of children, it only makes sense to talk about what is accurate scientifically and what is not.

 

So, in summary, you believe what the OP asked for is something that is WRONG, so your input is just to tell her, and the rest of us, how WRONG we are for wanting that information? Yes, we know that. You can move on now. Thanks for proving my point.

[JDoe]

No, he didn't.

Oh, the he did, he didn't game:

 

Special Injunction (26 February 1616)

 

At the palace of the usual residence of the said Most Illustrious Lord Cardinal Bellarmine and in the chambers of His Most Illustrious Lordship, and fully in the presence of the Reverend Father Michelangelo Segizzi of Lodi, O. P. and Commissary General of theHoly Office, having summoned the above-mentioned Galileo before himself, the same Most Illustrious Lord Cardinal warned Galileo that the above-mentioned opinion was erroneous and that he should abandon it; and thereafter, indeed immediately, before me and witnesses, the Most Illustrious Lord Cardinal himself being also present still, the aforesaid Father Commissary, in the name of His Holiness the Pope and the whole Congregation of the Holy Office, ordered and enjoined the said Galileo, who was himself still present, to abandon completely the above-mentioned opinion that the sun stands still at the center of the world and the earth moves, and henceforth not to hold, teach, or defend it in any way whatever, either orally or in writing; otherwise the Holy Office would start proceedings against him. The same Galileo acquiesed in this injunction and promised to obey.

http://web.archive.o...ro.html#specinj

 

I do, but I don't think anything either of us will change our opinion on that. :)

Probably not, and I have an inkling on the reasoning behind the importance you give the matter

[albeto]

I think equivocation is part of the problem. No one is refuting evolution when it is being used to describe small changes within a species, often called microevolution. I believe the OP, and others, are using the term "evolution" to mean Universal Common Descent and how natural selection works in the Universal Common Descent model. The Universal Common Descent theory has plenty of holes, gaps, and problems.

 

Can you share one of the holes, gaps, or problems?

[Spy Car]

 

 

Only Bill can say whether or not he meant it as a pejorative, but I've "known" him on here for a long time, and I took my most educated guess.

 

You took the wrong guess. Lots of people, including many (most?) who have no reason to doubt the Theory of Evolution, are ignorant of a basic understanding of how evolution really works. This ignorance is a big problem in American society.

 

The OP specifically asked for information to help her kids, "understand the theory of evolution but also to see where its holes, gaps, and problems lie," so that her kids could, "understand it from a Creationist perspective."

 

So, where's the confusion in what she was asking for?

 

I guess I just don't understand why you guys jump into these threads when you have nothing to offer relative to the OP. Is it just to aggravate those of us who do want that information? Why is it so hard just to pass these threads up and let those of us who desire to share the information amongst ourselves? It just feels so dismissive and insulting to not be allowed the space to participate in these threads without having to be told how wrong we are.

 

The OP asked if there were resources that refute the ToE on a scientic basis, and there are none. If one wishes to get into disagreements between evolutionary biologists over fine details on sub-points in the ToE, these do exist, but it takes a sophisticated understanding of science to delve into the points of contention.

 

Bill

 

 

[Dicentra]

For those of you interested in understanding the other side, we had a great (and calm) discussion last year: the unscientific american watches a mammal walk into the water and grow fins

 

I must have missed this thread the first time around. :ohmy: :laugh: I've only read the first page (will keep on reading) but just wanted to say what a wonderful, well-written explanation for what evolution is and isn't - thank you to Lewelma and the others! If anyone is concerned that they are misunderstanding the term "evolution" and so are having a difficult time evaluating information to come to their own conclusion, Ruth does a wonderful job explaining in the thread linked above. :hurray:

[JDoe]

True and that isn't under dispute. However, it does fail to prove what is under dispute, Universal Common Descent.

I do not believe that experiment was designed to prove UCD, but rather to prove the main point in evolution which is survival of the fittest and adaptation to the environment.

 

UCD is, in as far as I am aware, an unproven hypothesis still. One may consider it likely, as many do, however scientific proof is an entirely different ball-game. In fact, I am unsure if it is even possible to prove such a hypothesis, but maybe someone else can clarify that aspect.

[Farrar]

 

So, in summary, you believe what the OP asked for is something that is WRONG, so your input is just to tell her, and the rest of us, how WRONG we are for wanting that information? Yes, we know that. You can move on now. Thanks for proving my point.

 

But if someone asked a question where the whole premise is off, then I think that would be answering it to say, I think that's the wrong question or I think you don't understand what you're asking. I didn't step in on the previous thread asking for creationist resources specifically because I didn't have anything to offer, but I totally understand why people from both sides stepped in on this one. She asked for both a scientific perspective AND a creationist one.

 

But it's been answered at this point with several potential resources, so if one's desire is to fulfill the original purpose of the thread, I think it's probably done and we should just leave off, honestly.

[JDoe]

The OP asked if there were resources that refute the ToE on a scientic basis, and there are none. If one wishes to get into disagreements between evolutionary biologists over fine details on sub-points in the ToE, these do exist, but it takes a sophisticated understanding of science to delve into the points of contention.

 

Bill

 

Would you mind taking a quick look at http://www.exploreevolution.com/ and give us your take? Thus far it seems to be the only concrete recommendation that have surfaced that seem to correspond to original request.

 

I might pick it up, as I like having, at least, two sides to any story, even if some points have been resolved later I don't mind.

[[email protected]]

Discuss the issues. Not each other. Or I'll have to delete a whole bunch of posts. You have been warned.

 

Moderator

[*Michelle*]

[/url]

Oh, the he did, he didn't game:

 

[/font][/color][/size]

http://web.archive.o...ro.html#specinj

 

 

 

 

You stated in your previous post, "Well, he basically told Copernicus to shut up and stop believing in nonsense." He did not tell Copernicus any such thing.

[Mergath]

 

Are you trying to be offensive in your use of the word "gods"? Seriously?

 

 

 

So now even the mere acknowledgement that there are multiple religions with varied deities offends the Christians? Is there anything in the entire world that doesn't offend you guys?

[Mergath]

If by "evolution" you mean the theory that life began as slime on a rock and all living creatures somehow evolved from that same slime on a rock, then no, evolution has not ever been "confirmed scientifically." Nor will it ever be. The very idea that the millions of life forms on earth could all have come from the same slime on a rock is just silly.

 

There is more evidence to support Special Creation (or "Intelligent Design," which is apparently the current favored term) than there is to support evolution. We don't even have to bring religion into it at all.

 

 

Google "vestigiality." If there was any truth at all to Intelligent Design, I imagine the living organisms on Earth wouldn't be full of quite so much junk DNA and vestigial structures. Personally, the fact that whales have vestigial hind legs is all the proof I need that species have evolved over time.

[joannqn]

Can you share one of the holes, gaps, or problems?

 

 

 

The fossil record offers several problems with fossil succession. New animal forms almost always appear abruptly, rather than gradually, in the fossil record without any obvious connections to the animals that came before. One would expect to see evidence of the intermediate forms between species in the fossil record. While a few fossils that suggest intermediate forms do exist, they are rare. Considering how many millions of changes that would have to occur between each evolutionary step, one would expect to find ample evidence in the fossil record, but it just isn't there. If millions of changes needed to occur to change one species into another species, where are the millions of fossils that show that? The fossil record also shows that there are problems with the sequence in which forms are suppose to have evolved. Predictions of the order in which animals should appear in the fossil record often do not match the actual appearance in the fossil record. Animals that should be older, because they would have evolved first, are found in strata above animals that should have evolved later. Intermediate forms predicted appear suddenly at the same time rather than in the sequence predicted. Different skeletons that are suppose to show transitional sequences are not found close together geologically, often found in widely separated layers representing tens of millions of years; the intervals are so huge that a possible connection cannot be made. There are also geographical holes. If one species is suppose to be the evolutionary/intermediate ancestor of the one preceding it, they should be found in relatively geographical proximity, but they often separated by thousands of miles. Size is also another problem. When looking at the sequence from mammal-like reptiles to mammals, the size of skulls vary significantly, though they are often drawn as if they are similar. These difficulties need to be resolved before Universal Common Descent can be seen as proven as undeniable fact.

 

That is a very short summary of the case against portion of one chapter of Explore Evolution. The chapter discusses a few other issues with fossil succession, goes into more detail, and includes 16 endnotes with sources should one want to explore further.