Some thoughts about evolution vs creation debates

[Nimos]

Even if evolution theory is being used in public education to try to discredit some religious beliefs, I disagree with those ways of responding to that.

I think this is the issue, evolution theory is not about discredit religion, I wont claim that at some cases it is not being used for it. But if you purely look at it as being a scientific field, then there is not really much to do. The theory is correct and have to be taught, if that collide with creationism then that is to bad. Not meant from a point of view that only one of them are allowed, but that one of them provide evidence and the other doesn't, and as long as it can't do that, then it should not be treated as a scientific theory and taught to people.

I think Richard Dawkins put it fairly well, when he explained why he didn't thought that it was a good idea to debate creationist. As it would be like a Geologist debating a flat earth believer. One of them have evidence and facts to back up their claim, the other have nothing, but wishful thinking. But the moment you have a debate you sort of acknowledge the other side as if its a matter of choosing between which of them are true. Which is not the case.

The arguments that I’ve seen here for thinking that all life on earth has a common ancestor look very weak to me, and it looks to me like many researchers, possibly most of them, have abandoned that idea in practice.

I have a little assignment for you, that I hope you will try now that you say that the common ancestor evidence are weak. So what I would like you to do is watch the follow ~11 minute long video. Which almost look only at the evidence found in whales, so keep in mind that it hardly touches any of the thousands of other studies.

Now when you have watched it. I would like you to find evidence for creationism and post them here, you don't have to agree with them, just what you consider to be good evidence for it, in your eyes.

One thing I would like you to keep in mind:

- The evidence have to point towards creationism, so nothing that aim or tries to point out flaws in evolution, but solely evidence for creationism. Just as evolution can provide evidence without ever mentioning that creationism is wrong, like in the video above.

 

[Altfish]

That isn’t what I said. I said that they’ve abandoned the idea that all life on earth has a common ancestor.

No they aren't.
Can you show me some evidence for making that statement?

 

[Jim]

Well, there is something to the notion that certain humans have attempted to use biological evolution to discredit or attack Christianity. The dogmatic tone that some layman "science" types adopt is not just counter to the very nature of the science they claim to support but unnecessarily aggressive and uncompromising. That's not to say there aren't similar problems from the other perspectives on this issue, but I suppose it especially bothers me coming from the biological evolution side.

It would go a long way if folks could start recognizing the difference between mythos and logos. The sciences deal with logos while religions and philosophies deal with mythos. They represent different ways of knowing and types of knowledge that have different (though complementary) purposes. The so-called conflict between the logos of biological evolution and the mythos of creation stories evaporates the moment we start framing it in that context.

I see part of the problem on both sides as people thinking of the models, analogies and stories of their sources as actual physical descriptions, and vilifying people on the other side for not believing that. On a deeper level I see it as just another example of factional feuding which has reasons of its own.

 

[sealchan]

Salvador has stated that researchers have abandoned the idea that all life on earth has a common ancestor? I looked again at his posts and I’m not seeing that.

To clarify, I said in practice. They’re still being careful not to say that openly and explicitly in their reports of their research.

I guess you are speaking about all life on earth...

My understanding is that scientists would not support the notion that at any point was there a single organism that alone gave rise to all life nor is there a single pair of organisms that did the same for life or any species.

Is this what you are saying?

 

[Jim]

I have a little assignment for you, that I hope you will try now that you say that the common ancestor evidence are weak. So what I would like you to do is watch the follow ~11 minute long video. Which almost look only at the evidence found in whales, so keep in mind that it hardly touches any of the thousands of other studies.

Now when you have watched it. I would like you to find evidence for creationism and post them here, you don't have to agree with them, just what you consider to be good evidence for it, in your eyes.

I watched it. I’m not sure that I know what you mean by “creationism.” If you mean, believing that one of the creation stories in the Bible is an actual physical description of some things that happened less than 10,000 years ago, I don’t remember ever seeing any reasons for believing that, that look convincing to me.

 

[Jim]

I guess you are speaking about all life on earth...

My understanding is that scientists would not support the notion that at any point was there a single organism that alone gave rise to all life nor is there a single pair of organisms that did the same for life or any species.

Is this what you are saying?

Yes.

 

[ChristineM]

It looks to me like from the time of Darwin, sometimes people have tried to use evolution theories to discredit Christianity or some Christian beliefs. More recently some people who felt targeted by that started thinking that it was happening in public schools, and they have responded by trying to have evolution theory removed from the curriculum and/or have creation theory added, and by trying to discredit evolution theory. The debates here may or may not have some roots in that.

As I understand it, the creationism that’s being debated here includes thinking that one of the creation stories in the Bible is an actual physical description of how the universe, including the earth and all living creatures, were first created less than 10,000 years ago. I don’t claim to know if that’s true or not, but however that may be, I disagree with trying to have evolution theory removed from the curriculum or having creation theory added to it, and I disagree with trying to discredit evolution theory. Even if evolution theory is being used in public education to try to discredit some religious beliefs, I disagree with those ways of responding to that.

The arguments that I’ve seen here for thinking that all life on earth has a common ancestor look very weak to me, and it looks to me like many researchers, possibly most of them, have abandoned that idea in practice.

Evolution is shown to be valid in all scientific disciplines that investigate the various aspects of life from paleontology to genetics, from anthropology to modern medicine!

Creationism has no credibility in any scientific discipline.

Evolution is taught in science class, not church

Creationism has no credibility in science class

If creationists think science discredits their faith then there are two options, find a way to rationalise evidence into their faith or go set up a bronze age commune someplace and pretend the real world does not exist. This also means not having their annual flu jab... Why annual? Because the flu virus evolves

Among several other disciplines, DNA points to a common ancestor, and DNA cannot lie

 

[LuisDantas]

I see part of the problem on both sides as people thinking of the models, analogies and stories of their sources as actual physical descriptions, and vilifying people on the other side for not believing that. On a deeper level I see it as just another example of factional feuding which has reasons of its own.

Frankly, it ill serves anyone to promote such false equivalences.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

It looks to me like from the time of Darwin, sometimes people have tried to use evolution theories to discredit Christianity or some Christian beliefs.

Evolutionary theory is indifferent to Christianity, but much of Christianity feels threatened or offended by the science.

More recently some people who felt targeted by that started thinking that it was happening in public schools, and they have responded by trying to have evolution theory removed from the curriculum and/or have creation theory added

They see the theory as an attack on their religion where there is no such attack, merely contradiction, and not just with the Christian creation myth, but all creation myths. They're all in contradiction to evolutionary theory.

There is no scientific creationism theory or creation science, just mythology.

The arguments that I’ve seen here for thinking that all life on earth has a common ancestor look very weak to me, and it looks to me like many researchers, possibly most of them, have abandoned that idea in practice.

Nope. As others have told you, common ancestry of all living creatures is a mainstay of the theory. One must be open-minded to the possibility that a completely different biochemistry will be found some day, suggesting a second tree of life coexisting with the one we know, but until then, the idea of a single population as the last universal common ancestor is the simplest explanation for the commonality of all known life, and is the working assumption of the theory pending the uncovering of evidence to the contrary.

I’m not arguing against evolution theory in general, or any part of it. I don’t doubt that it’s very useful for some purposes. I don’t think that the validity or value of any of it depends on believing that all life on earth has a common ancestor. In fact, I think that trying to defend that idea against creationism might have impeded its progress and limited its usefulness.

The theory needs no defending against creationism. Creationism is irrelevant in science.

The scientific theory is stronger than ever. It has already ruled out the god described in the Christian scriptures. Even if the theory were falsified tomorrow, the mountains of evidence formerly supporting the theory don't go away. It needs re-explaining in the light of the falsifying finding.

I can only come up with one - deceit on the part of a force powerful enough to arrange those fossil strata and nesting hierarchies to look like naturalistic evolution. Even if that force were a god, it's not the Christian god, which we are told wants to be known, loved, obeyed, and worshiped - facts inconsistent with a god trying to hide itself with a deception.

And I think we all understand that that is exceedingly unlikely to be the case. The theory is correct.

I don’t think of either one of the creation stories in the Bible as an actual physical description of what happened. I think it’s better for my purposes not to think of any Bible stories that way.

If you ask yourself why you don't believe the Old Testament creation stories, you'll understand why creationists object to it so strenuously, and why they see it as an assault on their beliefs.

I interpret stories and scriptures as containing an element of metaphor. I'm willing to believe the Adam and Eve story is 50-99% metaphor

So what do you think the story is a metaphor for? When we use metaphor or allegory, we are substituting one or more ideas for something else. If I say, "You are my sunshine" or "This pie is heaven," we have a clear idea of what sunshine and heaven are representing - my source of joy, and deliciousness.

So what does the story of Adam and Eve stand for? What really happened? Certainly nothing known to its authors.

I don't think that we can call the myth a metaphor if we cant say what the metaphor represents. To me, it's simply wrong - a guess now discredited. I call it an error just like all other creation stories and religious myths.

What do you think?​

 

[Jose Fly]

As I understand it, the creationism that’s being debated here includes thinking that one of the creation stories in the Bible is an actual physical description of how the universe, including the earth and all living creatures, were first created less than 10,000 years ago. I don’t claim to know if that’s true or not

It's as false as the belief that the earth is flat.

but however that may be, I disagree with trying to have evolution theory removed from the curriculum or having creation theory added to it, and I disagree with trying to discredit evolution theory.

That's odd, given what you say below.

Even if evolution theory is being used in public education to try to discredit some religious beliefs, I disagree with those ways of responding to that.

That sort of thing is not a part of any public school science curriculum in the US.

The arguments that I’ve seen here for thinking that all life on earth has a common ancestor look very weak to me, and it looks to me like many researchers, possibly most of them, have abandoned that idea in practice.

First, that's what makes your statement above odd. If you truly believe universal common ancestry is "weak" and has been abandoned by the scientific community, why do you support it still being taught in schools? But the bigger question is, do you have any actual support for your assertion that possibly most scientists have abandoned UCA?

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

What do you think

Are you familiar with apocalyptic style writings? You probably are. They use metaphor to refer to significant real events.

I see the Adam and Eve story as apocalyptic-style writings but about creation.

Or to put it simply... maybe I see it as between myth and metaphor.

 

[Jim]

Evolution is shown to be valid in all scientific disciplines that investigate the various aspects of life from paleontology to genetics, from anthropology to modern medicine!

I’m not arguing against evolution theory. I’m not even disagreeing with any of it, apart from the idea of a universal common ancestor. Actually, I’m not even disagreeing with that. I’m not actually sure that it isn’t true. I’ll revise what I said. For many years now, researchers in evolution have allowed for other possibilities in their research. That might have always been true, but I haven’t looked all the way back to the beginnings of the research.

 

[sun rise]

a hypothesis has to have some supporting objectively-derived evidence that it could be true,

As a minor digression from the OP, that comes into play as a challenge when topics such as string theory are brought up. But in those cases, a hypothesis is created to explain an unsolved issue in physics.

Evolutionary theory is indifferent to Christianity, but much of Christianity feels threatened or offended by the science.

I'm not sure about "much". The Catholic Church accepts evolution. Mainstream protestants do likewise for the most part. But it is true that many feel threatened.

 

[sealchan]

I’m not arguing against evolution theory. I’m not even disagreeing with any of it, apart from the idea of a universal common ancestor. Actually, I’m not even disagreeing with that. I’m not actually sure that it isn’t true. I’ll revise what I said. For many years now, researchers in evolution have allowed for other possibilities in their research. That might have always been true, but I haven’t looked all the way back to the beginnings of the research.

My understanding is that in no way, shape or form would evolutionary biology claim that life evolved out of a single, individual organism. I think that is impossible based on principles that @Salvador spelled out in the case of our species.

Multiple threads of auto-catalytic molecular reaction cycles developed into different pre-cellular organic structures, multiple pre-cellular organic structures evolved into different cooperative configurations within a lipid membrane, these different per-cellular cooperative structures evolved into multiple cellular species and so on and so on...if there is one basic type of cell this may mask the reality that cells may or may not be traceable in their heredity or causal chain back to a single specific cell that formed at some point in the pre-historic history of the planet Earth.

 

[Etritonakin]

It looks to me like from the time of Darwin, sometimes people have tried to use evolution theories to discredit Christianity or some Christian beliefs. More recently some people who felt targeted by that started thinking that it was happening in public schools, and they have responded by trying to have evolution theory removed from the curriculum and/or have creation theory added, and by trying to discredit evolution theory. The debates here may or may not have some roots in that.

As I understand it, the creationism that’s being debated here includes thinking that one of the creation stories in the Bible is an actual physical description of how the universe, including the earth and all living creatures, were first created less than 10,000 years ago. I don’t claim to know if that’s true or not, but however that may be, I disagree with trying to have evolution theory removed from the curriculum or having creation theory added to it, and I disagree with trying to discredit evolution theory. Even if evolution theory is being used in public education to try to discredit some religious beliefs, I disagree with those ways of responding to that.

The arguments that I’ve seen here for thinking that all life on earth has a common ancestor look very weak to me, and it looks to me like many researchers, possibly most of them, have abandoned that idea in practice.

All should realize they have a presently-incomplete perspective.
It can be known by all that both evolution and creation are happening around us -and are parts of the same reality.
It is logical to think that evolution would be involved in some way with any creative activity which may have taken place -as that is what we see in that which would have been created.
It is also true that mainstream science cannot rule out the idea that creative activity has taken place long ago -or perhaps more recently -on any level (but most are not actually looking for it -or consider what evidence there might be. If, by our creative activity, we alter some genes and throw them back in the pool -how easy would it be for someone in the future to determine it has taken place?)

As far as education goes, I don't see any problem with teaching an honest and unbiased overview of the present state of any ideas presently held by humans.

The "controversy", however, is based primarily on an assumption about what the bible seems to say to some (which it actually does not), their belief that said particular idea must be absolutely true -and defended. In itself, it is pointless. However, though many on either side have dug in and closed their minds even more, others have considered both sides and are better for it.

 

[Jim]

If you truly believe universal common ancestry is "weak" and has been abandoned by the scientific community, why do you support it still being taught in schools?

I don’t think of evolution theory as being only about a universal common ancestor. In fact, I don’t see that idea as being necessary at all, for evolution theory to be however valid, useful and beneficial it might be for any purpose. Besides, I’ve revised what I said. I see researchers allowing for other possibilities in their research, going back many years, and possibly all the way back to its beginnings.

 

[viole]

It looks to me like from the time of Darwin, sometimes people have tried to use evolution theories to discredit Christianity or some Christian beliefs. More recently some people who felt targeted by that started thinking that it was happening in public schools, and they have responded by trying to have evolution theory removed from the curriculum and/or have creation theory added, and by trying to discredit evolution theory. The debates here may or may not have some roots in that.

As I understand it, the creationism that’s being debated here includes thinking that one of the creation stories in the Bible is an actual physical description of how the universe, including the earth and all living creatures, were first created less than 10,000 years ago. I don’t claim to know if that’s true or not, but however that may be, I disagree with trying to have evolution theory removed from the curriculum or having creation theory added to it, and I disagree with trying to discredit evolution theory. Even if evolution theory is being used in public education to try to discredit some religious beliefs, I disagree with those ways of responding to that.

The arguments that I’ve seen here for thinking that all life on earth has a common ancestor look very weak to me, and it looks to me like many researchers, possibly most of them, have abandoned that idea in practice.

i think science still pretty much for common ancestry. Unless you have some studies showing evidence of life having started independently more than once on this planet.

do you have some links?

do you agree, at least, that we and gorilla share a common ancestor?

ciao

- viole

 

[Nimos]

I watched it. I’m not sure that I know what you mean by “creationism.” If you mean, believing that one of the creation stories in the Bible is an actual physical description of some things that happened less than 10,000 years ago, I don’t remember ever seeing any reasons for believing that, that look convincing to me.

What I mean with creationism, is that some creator (God most likely) was behind it.

At least as far as I am aware that is what the creationist/Intelligent design people claim, and why they argue that evolution is wrong.

Since you wrote that you did not find the evidence for a common ancestor very good, I assumed that you might think that those of a creator were better then. Which if I understood you correct, is not the case either

But basically those in support of a common ancestor present evidence for this being true by studying all these different fields of science which all seems to suggest the same conclusion. Obviously these evidence doesn't seem to convincing those in support of a creator, as God created everything according to their type and complete, and therefore only believe in micro evolution, but not macro evolution, which doesn't really make sense, as they are the same and is just a matter of time span Then you have those that accept evolution, but claim that God set it all in motion and chose to do it that way, so they are fine with all of it.

 

[Quintessence]

The "controversy", however, is based primarily on an assumption about what the bible seems to say to some (which it actually does not), their belief that said particular idea must be absolutely true -and defended. In itself, it is pointless. However, though man on either side have dug in and closed their minds even more, others have considered both sides and are better for it.

There's even more than two sides.

Too often, the discussions get framed as if there are only two sides. Even ignoring the creation mythos of other world religions, there are more perspectives on the relationship between biological evolution and Biblical origin mythos than "100% evolution" and "100% Biblical creation." There are other perspectives that integrate the two together. When surveys are done about acceptance of evolution and Biblical creation mythos, the number of respondents accepting evolution goes up when the answers also allow them to affirm their reverence of God or the role their god has in evolution.

See - How Highly Religious Americans View Evolution Depends on How They’re Asked About It

 

[Jim]

My understanding is that in no way, shape or form would evolutionary biology claim that life evolved out of a single, individual organism. I think that is impossible based on principles that @Salvador spelled out in the case of our species.

Multiple threads of auto-catalytic molecular reaction cycles developed into different pre-cellular organic structures, multiple pre-cellular organic structures evolved into different cooperative configurations within a lipid membrane, these different per-cellular cooperative structures evolved into multiple cellular species and so on and so on...if there is one basic type of cell this may mask the reality that cells may or may not be traceable in their heredity or causal chain back to a single specific cell that formed at some point in the pre-historic history of the planet Earth.

Thank you.