If Evolution Were True

[Alceste]

Then there is still room for the theory of creation ????

Just as religion has nothing at all to contribute to science, the theory of evolution has nothing at all to say about "creation", so there's plenty of room. Lots of people have no trouble believing evolution itself is the invisible hand of God ever creating new forms of life. Religion and science are not in conflict, except in pockets of ignorance where one or the other of them is not understood. Religion deals with spirit and ethics, science deals with the material world and how it works. There's no room for religion in explaining how the material world works, but there's also no room for science in teaching moral or spiritual lessons.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

I’m really not arguing against evolution. I was asking to be educated about it.

I’m skeptical. If you were genuine then would you really have posted your ‘contradictory evidences’ without researching to verify their validity?

Scepticize all you want. The reason I posted that stuff was to have a little fun with some people's misperceptions about me, what I know and what I really believe.

 

[Autodidact]

Yes.
My bad, three mentions are a lot. I should have limited it to two, but you keep asking me what I believe. All I originally asked was to have my ignant arse educated about evolution.

I think we've progressed well beyond that. Your original question was, "If evolution is true, why don't we see...?"And the answer was: We do. Thus your original objection was overcome way back at the beginning of the thread.

You keep asking me what I believe. I just don’t see what the Bible has to do with evolution.

Me neither. But every time I ask you what your position is, you point me to the Bible.

After the second and fourth days.

Are you trying to be evasive, or can't you help it? HOW LONG AGO????

I know you think you misunderstood what you think I said but what I said is not really what I meant.

Yeah, it was the whole contradicting yourself thing that threw me off..

The Bible doesn’t go into that much detail. I suppose it would be too large a tome to carry to Church on Sunday. God is merciful that way, praise the Lord.

Once again, when I ask you what happened, you refer me to the Bible, and that's the end of your inquiry. I find this more than strange. Remember, the onus is on you. You're trying to overthrow a scientific consensus. In essence, you're pointing to one of the most robust and well supported theories in the history of science, a huge advance in human knowledge, and saying, "That doesn't sound right to me. True, I have no idea what is right, or what's wrong with it, but I think it's wrong because it's not consistent with my holy book, which, however, I don't want you to talk about." To advance scientific knowledge, it's not enough to say you have a hunch that theory is wrong, you need to say what evidence contradicts it, and then what you think is right. You have failed to do either.

Here, since you keep pointing to the Bible, I'm just trying to figure out whether your hypothesis is even consistent with the Bible. According to you, God "spoke" (magicked) the various genera into existence, at an unspecified date, and all evolution is of new species within that genus. So, for example, then, God did not speak lions and tigers into existence separately, but some unknown progenitor of both, which evolved since that unknown date into lions and tigers, right? But OTOH, God "spoke" thousands of different genera of beatles into existence. That's what you're saying, right?

Now that’s a darned good question and puts a lot of doubt into my proposal. Perhaps reconciling the Biblical creation account and the natural world isn’t meant to be. They may be dichotomies that make it a clear choice.

Is this what you meant to say? That the Biblical account does not match up with reality?

I wouldn’t say that. I had ideas; vague ideas, but ideas nonetheless. Vague ideas achieved my purpose though.

Your assertion is that the process of evolution is somehow limited to new species, but you have no clue how or why. Again, the onus is on you; you're challenging the orthodox scientific view. You get to do that, but if you want to succeed, you need evidence, which you admit you don't have. FAIL.

I wasn’t aware I brought up “kinds.” I believe I studiously avoided that.

My bad, I thought you were referencing the Bible. So we'll just go for genera from now on. If I understand your position, it's that new species evolve, but no new genera, right? Just trying to make sure I understand what you're saying.

I may have the same distaste for “prominent creationists” that you have. I first researched this whole creation/evolution/abiogenesis debate about ten or twelve years ago and threw my hands up in disgust and fled from the scene. There seemed to be too much conflicting evidence and honestly, some creationist proponents hung on to obviously fallacious evidence long after even most creationists rejected it. The one I recall the most was that whole thing about discovering the footprints of men and three-toed dinosaurs in a riverbed in Mississippi.

Exactly. Not only was it a fraud, but you can still find creationists citing it as "evidence."

I’m often unique in what I think but not on this. My thought is that God created plants and animals close to how we see them today. I don’t think I’m all that unique there. One fish changes into another similar fish, one grass becomes a similar grass, ect. and the world goes on looking like it does today (I haven’t given a lot of thought as to what God’s created world will look like going forward. Perhaps a new topic for debate; “Will There be Evolution in Heaven?”) Obviously this does not match up with fossil evidence. But it does match up with actual observed species change. Also obvious is that the Biblical description of creation is not going to match up with the natural world account. That I was attempting to match the two up in a small way is turning out to be kinda lame. I may need to reverbiagize my paradigm.

I've bolded two important parts of your post. It seems like you're saying:

I get my position from the Bible.
The Bible doesn't match reality.
But I believe it anyway.

Is that right? Because that seems really weird to me.

Beneath that, I understand what you're saying. Yes, we see new species evolve, but it just seems counter-intuitive that an amoeba could evolve into a redwood tree. What I would say is that most scientific advances are counter-intuitive--that's why we need the scientific method to figure out what's really going on. The world does not match our preconcieved ideas.

To use a simple example, it is extremely counter-intuitive to me that the earth is round, is spinning rapidly, and revolving at a high speed in an oval. Say what?!?! It is not. It's staying right in one place here under my feet, and actually it's pretty flat. Isn't that obvious? It just turns out to be wrong. It doesn't account for all the data. A few hundred years ago, some really smart guys figured out that it was wrong. Using the scientific method, they figured out what is actually correct, and it doesn't matter a whit that it doesn't seem right to my preconceived "common sense." btw, Christianity fought long and hard to hold on to their preconceived, Biblical version.

Same with your version, derived from the Bible and your preconceived common sense. It doesn't seem like it would work. But think it through. You've told us that new species evolve, other new species evolve from them, and others from them. If you can't point to some stopping point, some limit, and why, then what you then have is a new genus.

After all, genus is really an arbitrary scientific category, the place where Biologists draw the line for convenience, not something that absolutely exists in nature. It's like the gradations from white to black along the gray scale. You can call 5 gradations a species, 10 gradations a genus, and 50 gradations an order, but it's still just one spectrum. If you keep moving along it, you get from white (amoeba) to black (redwood tree) without ever observing a jump from off-white to medium gray. It's all very, very, gradual. We have to look at the totality of the evidence to get the big picture. According to ToE itself, you will never observe a genus to genus jump.

If you think of it like a tree, every species emerges as a twig. Later it grows bigger, and more twigs branch off it. After a while, it's a genus (branch) rather than a twig (species.) But you never see a branch springing out a tree; always a twig. So what we observe (new species arising) is exactly what ToE predicts we will observe.

 

[themadhair]

Scepticize all you want. The reason I posted that stuff was to have a little fun with some people's misperceptions about me, what I know and what I really believe.

I think you know little about science, scientific methodology and biological evolution. AmIrite?
Despite this total unfamiliarity with the relevant sciences and associated evidences involved you are quite content to parrot the usual creationist talking points, which you simply copy&pasted from whatever creationist website you frequent having accepted them wholesale because they compliment your religious beliefs.
AmIrite?
Either you are totally trolling here (which I’m not sure about tbh) or people really don’t have misperceptions about you. Parroting pseudoscientific creationist drivel sort of confirms peoples ‘misperceptions’.

 

[themadhair]

Religion deals with spirit and ethics, science deals with the material world and how it works.

Genuine question here – why do you consider ethics and the material world to be mutually exclusive?

 

[Alceste]

Genuine question here – why do you consider ethics and the material world to be mutually exclusive?

Because if we modeled our ethics on the apparent "ethics" of the material world, where would we begin? Should we commit infanticide and cannibalism against each other, as chimps do? Chimps - our closest relatives in the animal kingdom - regularly abduct, bludgeon to death and eat the infants of females in their own social group. This sickens me because of my human sense of ethics, which allows me to create a mental picture of an ideal world (however unrealistic it may be) where people don't behave like animals. Having this mental picture gives me something other than the material world - which is quite plainly indifferent to suffering - to inspire my behavior toward others. This capacity for idealism is at the root of all religious traditions, but the whole point of it is that it has nothing to do with the material world. Even in animist religions the idealism is simply an overlay that makes the horrific brutality and indifference of nature more palatable, IMO.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Because if we modeled our ethics on the apparent "ethics" of the material world, where would we begin? Should we commit infanticide and cannibalism against each other, as chimps do? Chimps - our closest relatives in the animal kingdom - regularly abduct, bludgeon to death and eat the infants of females in their own social group. This sickens me because of my human sense of ethics, which allows me to create a mental picture of an ideal world (however unrealistic it may be) where people don't behave like animals. Having this mental picture gives me something other than the material world - which is quite plainly indifferent to suffering - to inspire my behavior toward others. This capacity for idealism is at the root of all religious traditions, but the whole point of it is that it has nothing to do with the material world. Even in animist religions the idealism is simply an overlay that makes the horrific brutality and indifference of nature more palatable, IMO.

See here for a topic on the origins of ethics and morality---->http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/general-religious-debates/77952-morality-sin-human-concept.html

 

[themadhair]

Because if we modeled our ethics on the apparent "ethics" of the material world, where would we begin?

Good question. Not being argumentative here, but your reasoning didn’t address my question. It very definitely avoided it with a giant appeal to consequences (and I dispute those consequences but that’s a whole different argument).

 

[Alceste]

Good question. Not being argumentative here, but your reasoning didn’t address my question. It very definitely avoided it with a giant appeal to consequences (and I dispute those consequences but that’s a whole different argument).

I'm quite sure I answered your question. Why are ethics and materialism separate issues? Because the behavior of the material world is quite plainly indifferent to concepts of "good" and "evil" - unless "eat or be eaten" (for carbon-based life forms) and "orbit around the sun" (for planets) strike you as a sufficiently meaningful basis for your ethics.

I hope it's plainer with the linguistic aesthetics stripped away. The "appeal to consequences" you reference was not the argument itself, but an anecdotal lead-in to demonstrate the truth of the fact that the material world is indifferent to suffering. You could substitute bird flu, famine, tsunamis, earthquakes, forest fires, cats with birds, or any number of other anecdotal lead-ins to illustrate this particular fact and the logical basis would be untouched.

 

[tumbleweed41]

I'm quite sure I answered your question. Why are ethics and materialism separate issues? Because the behavior of the material world is quite plainly indifferent to concepts of "good" and "evil" - unless "eat or be eaten" (for carbon-based life forms) and "orbit around the sun" (for planets) strike you as a sufficiently meaningful basis for your ethics.

I hope it's plainer with the linguistic aesthetics stripped away. The "appeal to consequences" you reference was not the argument itself, but an anecdotal lead-in to demonstrate the truth of the fact that the material world is indifferent to suffering. You could substitute bird flu, famine, tsunamis, earthquakes, forest fires, cats with birds, or any number of other anecdotal lead-ins to illustrate this particular fact and the logical basis would be untouched.

I believe ethics and morality can be explained by societal survivability. As we are societal creatures, unlike the chimps you mentioned, mass infanticide would be contrary to our survival as a society. For a better comparison to primates, look at the gorilla, a societal creature who is very loyal to it's tribe and compassionate among its own. The chimp, however is selfish, he kills anothers child so that he can implant his own seed in the mother.
Humans, as a whole, have passed on traits that contribute to our morality, and help us to better live as a society. And no, we are not a perfect society, we have many members who violate our code of ethics and harm our societies.
But then, the human body has not evolved perfectly either.

 

[Willamena]

This was to be about teaching me evolution not about Biblical perspectives. I don’t know why you’re trying to confuse the two (I have an evil surmising though).

If your evil surmising is named for straw, it may have some merit.

 

[Autodidact]

I understand your ability to be condescending and belittling. I tend to do that myself at times. That doesn’t make it pretty though. It doesn’t make the tenor of your dialogue any more courteous either. Your “courtesy” does seem to stop at simply answering every question asked. Sooooo…who’s going to win “March Madness?”

I think we've already seen that we have different standards of courtesy. Where I come from, refusing to answer a direct, polite, questions such as "Are you male or female?" is considered extremely rude. On the other hand, I don't think that good manners requires dishonesty, and where I find charlatans and liars, etiquette does not prevent me from stating that fact. AIG is full of them.

Don't know enough about basketball to address your question.

Go for it.

It will be lengthy and time-consuming and may have to wait a bit.

You are mistaken.

Hush your mouth.

I believe that’s in line with my original question.

When I have time.

I wasn’t going to say that. The only evidence I have is the Bible and the reasons I believe the Bible are another topic for discussion

Again highlighted the significant part. The only reason you have for doubting one of the greatest advances in scientific knowledge is that you think it violates your holy book, a book which is notorious for being completely innacurate about the natural world.

I suppose I could use the same bad logic that someone else used for evolution, “They’re here aren’t they?”

I suppose you could, if you were addressing that person. However, since you're addressing me, it's inapposite.

 

[Autodidact]

Biblical study uses similar methods. Put simply, it’s “line upon line, precept upon precept, here a little there a little…”

No, it doesn't. Many Biblical passages directly contradict each other, and people who believe the Bible have to reconcile that. Biblical scholars, that is, people who actually study the Bible, use the scientific method to try to figure out who wrote which passages, what their cultural background was, what the correct translation is, and so forth. There is not a Christian in the world who uses a method remotely similar to scientific consilience to study their Bible.

I’m really not arguing against evolution. I was asking to be educated about it.

You could have fooled me.

I’ll take your word for it.

Don't take my word, check it.

Just pointing out evidence of scientific bias.

What your irrelevant anecdotes actually point out is how good the scientific method is at rooting out and eliminating the resuls of bias.

You do understand that science is a method, not a subject, right? And the purpose of the method is to minimize the impact of bias of every kind? Do you agree that it does that better than any other method we have ever devised?

As I say, creationists are anti-science. That is why groups like AIG are liars; they dress their anti-science up in lab coats.

 

[themadhair]

Because the behavior of the material world is quite plainly indifferent to concepts of "good" and "evil" - unless "eat or be eaten" (for carbon-based life forms) and "orbit around the sun" (for planets) strike you as a sufficiently meaningful basis for your ethics.

Things we consider ‘good’ can be argued to be the result of hormones, increasing survivability etc. (I don’t strictly buy this as being the whole story but bear with me) and similar for things we consider ‘bad’.
Within the natural world we see many examples of where mutual cooperation and altruistic actions facilitate survivability. I suppose it comes down to that I don’t see the ‘indifference’ of the material world as a basis for claiming that parts within that material world can’t be the basis for ethics. The two strongest ethical instincts we have, altruism and empathy, are based on our biological makeup are they not?

 

[Alceste]

Things we consider ‘good’ can be argued to be the result of hormones, increasing survivability etc. (I don’t strictly buy this as being the whole story but bear with me) and similar for things we consider ‘bad’.
Within the natural world we see many examples of where mutual cooperation and altruistic actions facilitate survivability. I suppose it comes down to that I don’t see the ‘indifference’ of the material world as a basis for claiming that parts within that material world can’t be the basis for ethics. The two strongest ethical instincts we have, altruism and empathy, are based on our biological makeup are they not?

* shrug *. I'm fairly certain of my theory, because it does such a great job of explaining the diversity of religions, philosophies and mystical perspectives homo erectus has generated. Taking all these discrepancies into consideration, I'm quite sure nothing else in nature spends as much time dwelling on imaginary ideal worlds as we do. But this is not the type of theory that can be empirically investigated at this time, so it's neither here nor there. I'm only expressing an opinion. Nevertheless, I my opinion allows equal territory to mysticism and empiricism without placing them in conflict with one another. It also gives both these essential aspects of the human psyche equal significance, and so dissolves the illusion of conflict between science and religion. The only thing I can say with absolute certainty is that homo erectus is better off without clinging to the illusion of conflict between observation and emotion.

That said, I agree with you that the prolific imagination of homo erectus is the result of evolution in the material world, and so might have served some particular adaptive purpose. I wouldn't object to somebody discovering what that purpose might have been, whether they are coming from the perspective of science or philosophy. It simply hasn't happened yet.

 

[Nepenthe]

BTW, the 72 % of Canadians who are theists are NOT equivalent to the US theists, since the demographics are completely different. Over half are Catholic to begin with, and of the remainder, the majority are United Church of Canada, who aren't even particularly convinced that Jesus rose from the dead.

Agreed. United Church of Canada is about as Christian as Unitarians.

That's hardly a fair comparison. America is just one country. "The world" is a whole bunch of countries. I live in England myself, and my English friends know quite a lot about the world. Especially compared to Americans, and yes, even Canadians. But it's not like it's a contest or anything, right?

I said "when I lived in London I would get the most inane questions about American culture, particularly politics and religion, and the Brits knowledge of America was far more abyssmal than my American friends knowledge of the world." By world I did mean the U.S., but was also referring to science and world politics in general. I should've specified "knowledge of the states and world politics" instead. My English and Scottish friends (no Welsh, I mean who would actually have a Welsh friend?), were also pretty well informed, but my point was that I did not find the differences in knowledge especially distinct compared to the U.S. Am I proven wrong by the statistics? Sure, and I acknowledge that it's a matter of my growing up on the West coast, having two college educated parents and a circle of academic friends that make the distinction here. But I think the distinction is important.

And yes, it is a contest. Canada is way ahead if only for the women.

Seriously, though, it does concern me - even having met three of them concerns me, especially since they've all been within the last 6 years. And particularly since we have a dishonest fundie prime minister with a Machiavellian lust for power and a bunch of equally dishonest mewling minions to do his bidding. The only thing that comforts me is my confidence that if the Conservatives shed their veil of secrecy, they'd lose power in Canada.

That's all I was looking for!
It's not some gleeful attempt of mine to drag our Northern neighbors kicking and screaming into some evangelical abyss, it's simply my fear that other countries, specifically Canada and the U.K., have the anti-science worm wriggling away within while insisting they are nothing like the U.S.

 

[Sunstone]

I agree evolution can't be true, because if evolution were true, and it's the survival of the strongest, then how come chipmunks aren't as strong as oxen? Huh?

Checkmate.

 

[Alceste]

That's all I was looking for!
It's not some gleeful attempt of mine to drag our Northern neighbors kicking and screaming into some evangelical abyss, it's simply my fear that other countries, specifically Canada and the U.K., have the anti-science worm wriggling away within while insisting they are nothing like the U.S.

OK, well I freely admit we have our anti-scientific worms. (How can that be denied with Stephen bleedin' Harper in charge, appointing fundie chiropractors to be science ministers?) But you have to admit that even though it's infected most English-speaking first world countries, it's a sociological phenomenon that originated in the US, is fed by US propaganda and influence, and has a greater impact on social policy in the US than anywhere else. That's why the rest of us blame you guys. Not because it only happens there, but because we've been infected by an ideological plague that originated there.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

You could have fooled me.

Apparently I have. This started here:

Evolution does not address abiogenesis. How many times do you need this repeated?

I guess I need it some more. Would you explain it again please?

You seemed to have jumped in, not to address this but to try and point out how what I believe is wrong. I've been having fun running you around the block with that and am quite willing to continue if you need the excercise.

Now, I am still interested in learning more about evolution so I am still looking forward to your offerings for the math behind evolution and the direct evidence of a genus change I've been asking for. Fantome may get there first and to be quite honest he seems to have gotten the gist of what I'm asking for a lot better than you have. You seem to have a chip on your shoulder and and your own agenda.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

If your evil surmising is named for straw, it may have some merit.

I'm slow, I'm missing the point here.