Creationism (or religion's love/hate relationship with science)

[Faint]

Enlighten me. Why is it that those who don't believe in evolution place so much value and acceptance of so many other things that science has given us?

These (mostly religious) folk trust science in so many aspects of their lives. They start their cars with faith that the gas tank won't explode even though most don't comprehend mechanics and engineering (not to mention physics). They let their pictures be taken without fear that the camera will steal their soul (althought they won't be able to tell you specifically how film or digital sensors catch light). They turn on the light switch and accept electricity as non-supernatural without really understanding the complexities of a power plant.

And there are thousands of other little things we do daily, scientific discoveries and gifts that we just accept as "the way it is" without wondering why.

So now I'm wondering if they can trust and accept so many other fruits of science, why should they think of evolution as being any different?

 

[Willamena]

Sounds like a wee bit of a strawman, Faint.


But the final question is a good one if we generalize it a bit: So now I'm wondering if [these people] can trust and accept so many other fruits of science, why should they think of evolution as being any different?

In talking with learned Creationists, as opposed to those who simply voice rhetoric, it's been my experience (and this may or may not be typical) that their main objection with the Theory of Evolution is in what it doesn't do for us: the technicalities, like the idea of the original evolutionary event --abiogenesis, or something similar, which while not really a part of the ToE, is certainly implied in it. (If every creature evolved from some prior life-form, and if we don't assume an unending chain, then there must have been a first life-form that evolved from non-life... and how could that be?) These technicalities are holes that have yet to be filled. Lacking anything better to fill the holes, they fall back on what they consider to be the "best" explanation, as unscientific as it is (God did it). Until there is a good reason to change, they see no need to change.

But I think the people you refer to above probably are just stubbornly objecting.

 

[Faint]

Sounds like a wee bit of a strawman, Faint.


But the final question is a good one if we generalize it a bit: So now I'm wondering if [these people] can trust and accept so many other fruits of science, why should they think of evolution as being any different?

In talking with learned Creationists, as opposed to those who simply voice rhetoric, it's been my experience (and this may or may not be typical) that their main objection with the Theory of Evolution is in what it doesn't do for us: the technicalities, like the idea of the original evolutionary event --abiogenesis, or something similar, which while not really a part of the ToE, is certainly implied in it. (If every creature evolved from some prior life-form, and if we don't assume an unending chain, then there must have been a first life-form that evolved from non-life... and how could that be?) These technicalities are holes that have yet to be filled. Lacking anything better to fill the holes, they fall back on what they consider to be the "best" explanation, as unscientific as it is (God did it). Until there is a good reason to change, they see no need to change.

But I think the people you refer to above probably are just stubbornly objecting.

Maybe, but I would say that most of them aren't learned enough to know what the gaps are...they just assume that some god must fill those gaps.

 

[Smoke]

(If every creature evolved from some prior life-form, and if we don't assume an unending chain, then there must have been a first life-form that evolved from non-life... and how could that be?)

Is God a life-form? Where did he come from? Even if we grant that God exists outside of time and has no origin in time, we can still question how it is that he exists. How could the existence of an eternal, omniscient and omnipotent being be easier to explain than abiogenesis? If God exists, he must be infinitely more complex than a single-celled organism.

But I think the people you refer to above probably are just stubbornly objecting.

Yup.

 

[Willamena]

Is God a life-form? Where did he come from? Even if we grant that God exists outside of time and has no origin in time, we can still question how it is that he exists. How could the existence of an eternal, omniscient and omnipotent being be easier to explain than abiogenesis? If God exists, he must be infinitely more complex than a single-celled organism.

I don't know anyone who thinks God is a life-form, but I'm sure they're out there.

Nothing in the world is easier than the explanation that need not explain anything (the supernatural).

 

[Ryan2065]

So now I'm wondering if they can trust and accept so many other fruits of science, why should they think of evolution as being any different?

Because science is sometimes wrong, and in their eyes, God is always right. I really think its just that simple =)

 

[Smoke]

I don't know anyone who thinks God is a life-form, but I'm sure they're out there.

It doesn't matter whether God is an organism. If he exists, his existence is much harder to explain than the existence of carbon-based life forms.

 

[fantome profane]

Of course many religious people have absolutely no problem with evolution, but for some it conflicts with their faith. It reminds me of a quote, but I can’t remember where I read it or who said it. So if anyone knows where this comes from I would be grateful.

“If the dominant religion in our culture was sun worshipping, nuclear fusion would be an extremely controversial theory.”

I think that describes the situation we find ourselves in with regards to evolution.

 

[pmerkt]

Thats simple, evolution is just bad science. It takes more faith to believe in evolution than it does Christianity. Even Darwin himself has said that evolution relies heavily on the "simple" cell. He admitted if it were complex there is no basis for his theory (notice it is a theory, not a fact).

Well we now know the "simple" cell is anything but simple. Millions of components zagging around performing jobs all in one cell. The cell is more complex than anything man has ever made or dreamed of ever making.

Also where are the inbetween forms of man/animal? We have fossils that are "millions " of years old according to scientists, don't you think there would be at least one found?

What is your biggest reason for believing in this theory? I would love to hear what makes you so sure about it.

 

[jewscout]

Enlighten me. Why is it that those who don't believe in evolution place so much value and acceptance of so many other things that science has given us?

These (mostly religious) folk trust science in so many aspects of their lives. They start their cars with faith that the gas tank won't explode even though most don't comprehend mechanics and engineering (not to mention physics). They let their pictures be taken without fear that the camera will steal their soul (althought they won't be able to tell you specifically how film or digital sensors catch light). They turn on the light switch and accept electricity as non-supernatural without really understanding the complexities of a power plant.

And there are thousands of other little things we do daily, scientific discoveries and gifts that we just accept as "the way it is" without wondering why.

So now I'm wondering if they can trust and accept so many other fruits of science, why should they think of evolution as being any different?

there's a difference between using the tools of technological advancements and believing and supporting a scientific theory that underminds literalist interpretation of creation and faith especially when you've been raised or come to believe that anything that deviates from such an interpretation is evil or "of the devil"

 

[Willamena]

My question (re pmerkt's response) is why do all Creationist sing the same tune? Do they, like, go to Creationist School and all learn from the same curriculum?

 

[Mr. Hair]

(notice it is a theory, not a fact).

Talking of bad science...

Also where are the inbetween forms of man/animal?

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

Enjoy!

 

[Booko]

Thats simple, evolution is just bad science. It takes more faith to believe in evolution than it does Christianity. Even Darwin himself has said that evolution relies heavily on the "simple" cell. He admitted if it were complex there is no basis for his theory (notice it is a theory, not a fact).

Well we now know the "simple" cell is anything but simple. Millions of components zagging around performing jobs all in one cell. The cell is more complex than anything man has ever made or dreamed of ever making.

Also where are the inbetween forms of man/animal? We have fossils that are "millions " of years old according to scientists, don't you think there would be at least one found?

What is your biggest reason for believing in this theory? I would love to hear what makes you so sure about it.

The thing about these kinds of discussions that always intrigues me is that someone with very little background in biology will make pronouncements on the subject, but then ask for an explanation short enough that it can be offered on a forum.

One of the things about evolutionary theory is, in order to have enough background to really understand the theory, you'd need to know some biology. OK...so you start reading up on biology. You study biology to the point where you are really in a position to judge whether any evolutionary theory holds water or not.

And when you're in that position, you find....you've become a biologist.

Well, I'm not a biologist, and my knowledge of that science is pretty brief compared to what I'd need to know. I'm a chemist. If you want to do a coumarin synthesis -- call me. I have some knowledge from chemistry that relates to the subject of evolutionary theory, though mostly it would relate to paleontology and spectrographic dating methods. But it ain't nearly enough for me to claim that I can judge the worth of any biologists work on the subject. I just don't have the background.

But what I do know very well from the work I've done in chemistry is how science is done. I know what peer review is and how credible journal articles get published. I know how they are held up to scrutiny by others in the field who actually know enough to poke holes in those papers, and I know what repeatable results are.

And what I really know is, I've yet to see any creationist papers accepted by any peer review journal. Conclusion? They are just not up to snuff, scientifically speaking. Sorry.

And the other thing I know is, among biologists, there is not a debate over whether evolution actually occurs. There is a debate on mechanisms, of course. Science, unlike some anti-evolutionists would have us believe, is not such a cut-and-dried field, and debates are hardly unusual. I would be more worried if there weren't debates going on.

If you are truly interested in evolutionary theory and why anyone would believe in it, I would not suggest you start here. It would be better to pick up a biology book, so at some point you will have enough background to even understand the explanation.

I don't think "millions of components zagging around" is quite specific enough when it comes to putting yourself in a position that gives you the ability to judge whether evolutionary theory is good science or just hokum.

 

[Booko]

My question (re pmerkt's response) is why do all Creationist sing the same tune? Do they, like, go to Creationist School and all learn from the same curriculum?

They all read the same websites.

I just about choked from a fit of laughter when I read the bit about the cell. It reminds me so much of that argument: Oh, the eye is so very complex, it can't have happen through evolution!

Uh, yeah, because we can't understand a thing (yet) it couldn't *possibly* have happened.

I used to get real entertainment in turning the tables around and making the same argument vis a vis religious beliefs.

Sometimes, if I'm in an odd enough mood, I still do. :devil:

 

[Valjean]

Thats simple, evolution is just bad science. It takes more faith to believe in evolution than it does Christianity. Even Darwin himself has said that evolution relies heavily on the "simple" cell. He admitted if it were complex there is no basis for his theory (notice it is a theory, not a fact).

I don't understand your reasoning here, pmerkt. Why is evolution theory bad science? Is relativity or molecular theory bad science? Evolution theory is based on observable, repeatable, testable evidence. It's a synthesis of observed facts (a theory) and is strongly enough supported to be considered fact as well. Note that theory and fact are not mutually exclusive categories.
Christianity is not a synthesis of observed facts. It is not based on observable, repeatable, testable evidence, thus it is properly defined as myth.
I think it's Christianity that takes more faith to believe in.

Well we now know the "simple" cell is anything but simple. Millions of components zagging around performing jobs all in one cell. The cell is more complex than anything man has ever made or dreamed of ever making.

I'm not sure I get your point here. Complexity = magic (miracle)? >complexity = < mechanism?
The Mandelbrot equation is simple, yet it generates infinite complexity.

Also where are the inbetween forms of man/animal? We have fossils that are "millions " of years old according to scientists, don't you think there would be at least one found?

Man is animal -- how can there be intermediate forms?
Actually I think I know what you're getting at this time. You're saying that if there isn't a perfectly smooth, observable gradation in morphology between all forms of life, evolution theory is falsified.
May I respectfully recommend you read up a bit on biology and evolution before you form a hard opinion on it?

What is your biggest reason for believing in this theory? I would love to hear what makes you so sure about it.

 

[Snowbear]

...Evolution theory is based on observable, repeatable, testable evidence.

I agree the "evidence" is observable. But other than people repeatedly observing and testing the same "evidence" repeatedly, how is evolution theory repeatable and testable? Has someone actually seen (or caused) even a simple species undergo a morphological change into a completely different, reproductively viable species?

 

[JerryL]

I agree the "evidence" is observable. But other than people repeatedly observing and testing the same "evidence" repeatedly, how is evolution theory repeatable and testable? Has someone actually seen (or caused) even a simple species undergo a morphological change into a completely different, reproductively viable species?

Yep. Ameican Goatsbeard for example.

 

[Snowbear]

Cool! So a couple of varieties of flowers interbred until an eventual mutation allowed the offspring to breed. Though now classified as a new species that can't interbreed with the original varieties, it is still a variety of the goatsbeard flower. That's even been done in more complex species..... some mules (the offspring of a female horse and a male donkey that is usually sterile) have actually been fertile and able to breed with other mules! I suppose if someone kept at it long enough, breeding the fertile mules until their offspring was consistently fertile, they could develop a new species.... but they would still be equines... The result of interbreeding and occasional mutation. It does not in any way 'prove' how mammals with lungs and hair and octopus with gills and suction cups evolved from the same source.

I guess I should have asked more specifically.... has anyone ever observed even simple life forms changing significantly into something completely different... morphologically and functionally and reproductively? How about just an observation of.... say.... something like a jellyfish that develops bony fins?

You said evolution is repeatable and testable. Even in the labratory, can evolution be repeatable in simple life forms mutating into more complex ones? Can scientists watch enough amoebas in enough pitri dishes to eventually see some of them develop into something more complex like a hydroid? or how about a single-celled bacteria (some of them mutate and adapt quite readily, but they're still bacteria) that mutates into something more complex like maybe a worm?

So far, the theory of evolution has in no way been repeatable and testable scientific process that 'proves' all current life forms like humans, insects, sharks, trees, bacteria, starfish, elephants and flowers all evolved from the same single, simple cell. It is an attempt to explain a part of the natural world. Even though some people try to say it is a full explanation, it's NOT. It's so controversial, especially with the "creationist crowd" because it does NOT fully explain how the huge variety of life forms came from a single simple source. The incredibly huge amount and variety of mutations that would have to occur is just as mind-boggling as attempting to understand the nature of God. Millions of years for all of this to happen just doesn't seem long enough.... quadrillions, maybe?

 

[JerryL]

Cool! So a couple of varieties of flowers interbred until an eventual mutation allowed the offspring to breed. Though now classified as a new species that can't interbreed with the original varieties, it is still a variety of the goatsbeard flower.

Your question was answered accurately and in the affirmative. Are you now asserting that you asked a stupid question?

The result of interbreeding and occasional mutation. It does not in any way 'prove' how mammals with lungs and hair and octopus with gills and suction cups evolved from the same source.

That isn't what you asked now is it? One easy way to prove that would be to look at the junk DNA in the midocondria of mammals and octopi.

I guess I should have asked more specifically.... has anyone ever observed even simple life forms changing significantly into something completely different... morphologically and functionally and reproductively? How about just an observation of.... say.... something like a jellyfish that develops bony fins?

I've seen a plant glow in the dark, a fly devlop legs on its head, and a person with three arms.

Bones appear to have developed twice in 4.5 billion years (one development resulting in exoskeletons and the other in endoskeletions). If I were seeing them develop at a rapid enough pace to observe them form from a complete lack now then I would have to declare palentology false.

Has anyone observed God make an animal from nothing?

You said evolution is repeatable and testable.

Actually, someone else said that.

So far, the theory of evolution has in no way been repeatable and testable scientific process that 'proves' all current life forms like humans, insects, sharks, trees, bacteria, starfish, elephants and flowers all evolved from the same single, simple cell. It is an attempt to explain a part of the natural world. Even though some people try to say it is a full explanation, it's NOT. It's so controversial, especially with the "creationist crowd" because it does NOT fully explain how the huge variety of life forms came from a single simple source.

It's only contentious in the creationist crowd.

Let me repeat that because it's pretty signifigant: THE ONLY PEOPLE WHO DISPUTE EVOLUTION ARE THOSE WITH A RELIGIOUS MANDATE TO. NO NON-RELIGIOUS GROUP DISPUTES EVOLUTION.

Here's another interesting statistic (since you brought up dissent) less than 1% of scientists in appropriate fields (biology, palentology, etc) dispute evolution.

Evolution is, within its field, universally accepted. It is proven theory (like bouyancy or gravity)... in fact, gravity is more disputed.

 

[Valjean]

I've noticed that a lot of anti evolutionists don't seem to appreciate the time involved in many evolutionary processes. Change in a species is often readily observable, but if it doesn't produce an entirely new species in a few years people discount the possibility that it ever could.
Tiny changes, repeated over hundreds, thousands or millions of years can produce results entirely unlike the prototypes. Chihuahuas were once wolves, the Grand Canyon was once a flat plain.
Has anyone ever observed a wolf turn into a poodle? a mountain worn down to a plain? a string of Pacific islands created by vulcanism? All we can observe are tiny segments of an ongoing process, but few people contend that these processes don't occur. But when it comes to biological change, some people seem extrapolation challenged.