creationism and evolution

[wanerious]

Chris W:

I am curious where you see God’s participation, in light of the theories concerning abiogenesis.

For me, realizing that one essential character of God is existence itself, and that he is the architect of all natural laws, is sufficient. Did He have a more direct role in the first assembly of a self-reproducing bit of goo? I really don’t know. My unscientific feeling is that we’ll eventually have a reasonable idea of what happened, and will eventually be able to reproduce it.

I am glad for you that you see God in science. That is the way it should be, and I wish more people did.

For me, it is a primary revelation, just as is the character of Jesus.

I do not reject science, wanerious. I reject scientific theories that I believe conflict with Christian principles because Christianity is the higher truth. The theory of evolution is merely man’s conclusions based on their examination and interpretation of evidences. Aren’t man’s conclusions and interpretations subject to error?

Certainly, though in science we can measure just how “erroneous” our conclusions are. I also believe that our conclusions and interpretations of devine revelation are subject to error as well.

Must I accept the conclusions of fallible men, simply because they say something is true and provide evidence that can be interpreted to support their claims?

No, though one ought to consider carefully rejecting something out of hand too quickly when there is much independent and demonstrable evidence for its veracity, and no evidence against it.

 

[wanerious]

Chris W:

But what you are inferring is that evolution is neutral. Evolution is not neutral. That’s my point. If we cannot teach about God in school then neither should we be exclusively teaching a theory that, in the minds of many, is anti-God.

I smell sophistry. You seem to be saying that evolution is “anti-God” since we need not invoke supernatural processes to explain observations. Every science, in that sense, is not “neutral”. In addition, we have no covenant in the schools to teach any sort of balance between religious and non-religious views.

If one debatable theory is taught to the exclusion of other possibilities, that is not education.

…I think that is called brainwashing.

If the theory really is debatable, then fine, let’s debate it. Are there any other non-religious possibilities that we can possibly teach in the classroom? Brainwashing is a little hysterical, but I’m comfortable with getting brainwashed in science in school and brainwashed in religion at the institution of my choosing.

 

[Orogeny]

Chris W:

I do not find reference to the origin of life in the definition you provided, Tim. But I would point out that the definition you provided, as given at talkorigins.com, is preceded in the very first sentence on that page, with " Most non-scientists seem to be quite confused about precise definitions of biological evolution." It is clear therefore, that this definition is intended to refer only to *biological *evolution.

What other kind of evolution are you referring to? The discussion of evolving life is biological evolution.

In a more broad sense, the theory of evolution describes the changes due to unguided influences like the need of survival or changes in environment.

Changes to what? Life. Biological evolution.

And the very same principles uthat would make biological evolution reasonable (at least in the minds of evolutionists) are used in abiogenesis for the very same purpose.

That is true, but that does not make abiogenesis part of evolution.

talkorigins.com also provides the following information about the development of abiogenesis:

"Oparin’s hypothesis was this: gels arose out of colloidal solutions which reacted in a way to cause more gels to be formed of the same chemical constitution. As the material in the surrounding watery medium diminished,“the more strongly and bitterly the struggle for existence was waged”, so that gels either became “cannabilistic” or evolved to become autotrophs (organisms that metabolise non-living material, such as algae)"

It goes on to describe more recent advancements and how much more believable the new theories are.

The thing is, it sounds like the guys who got the ball rolling on the abiogenesis thoery thought it was evolution.

He did use the term evoloved. You are correct. Are you saying that any discussion that includes that term is part of the theory of evolution?

Then I see that Science textbook authors Wynn and Wiggins describe the abiogenesis process in the following manner:

"Aristotle believed that decaying material could be transformed by the “spontaneous action of Nature” into living animals. His hypothesis was ultimately rejected, but… Aristotle’s hypothesis has been replaced by another spontaneous generation hypothesis, one that requires billions of years to go from the molecules of the universe to cells, and then, via random mutation/natural selection, from cells to the variety of organisms living today. This version, which postulates chance happenings eventually leading to the phenomenon of life, is biology’s Theory of Evolution (1997, p. 105)."

Now you may argue that Winn and Wiggins are ill-informed or ignorant, but the fact of the matter is, they are not the only ones who consider abiogenesis to be part of the theory of evolution.

I dont think that they are ill-informed or ignorant. I disagree with that statement.

Furthermore, I can find no reason *not *to include abiogenesis into the theory of evolution, other than on the insistance of theistic evolutionists who would like to hold on to their belief that the theory of evolution is not anti-God.

Then continue to believe that.

The only rebuttal you have provided thus far (as is the case with Philvaz as well, in other threads), is to say “because it isn’t evolution”, and to quote a precise definition of *biological *evolution. To say “because it isn’t” is not an answer, Tim.

Well, quite honestly, I have given you scientific definitions of evolution, so it isn’t only me saying "because it isn’t. You don’t have to accept that if you don’t want.

I’m still not clear about this concept you keep bringing up of biological evolution as if it is something other than what we are discussing.

Peace

Tim

 

[Orogeny]

buffalo:

Very limited evidence. One piece of a 1000 piece puzzle and we can determine what the puzzle looks like?

No, but we can determine that it is a puzzle.

Peace

Tim

 

[Orogeny]

Chris W:

If I may chime in, in response to this challenge:

People of faith are not limited to scientific evidence. Unlike scientists, we have the liberty to consider other evidences, like the Word of God, the authority of the Church, evidence of miracles, phylosiphical arguments like those posed by Aquinas, etc.

Agreed. I just want to note that I consider myself a person of faith and a scientist.

Therefore, we do not need to disprove evolution via scientific evidence. Non-scientific evidences are sufficient reason to reject the theory.

So what do we do with the scientific evidence? Ignore it? Replace it with the non-scientific evidence?

Therefore, we can merely point out that evolution is not fact.

Just because you say so. That’s how you want science taught?

It cannot be proven (because that is not possible with scientific experiments).

It cannot be proven because science doesn’t prove things. Mathematics does, but science doesn’t.

And anyone who claims it is a fact is being disengenuous and unscientific. Neither can science disprove creation.

Do you want disclaimers on chemistry, physics and geology books that contain theories? Or is it just biology?

Therefore, creationists are not being “hostile to reason” (as I have been accused of in other threads) but are in fact reasonable in rejecting evolution based on the limitations of science, and evidences outside the scope of science.

I don’t have a problem with you objecting and I don’t consider you hostile to reason, but what are the limits that you would put on science education? Do we need to pass everything through the Church before we can add it to the curriculum?

Considering these facts, and the fact that our great country was founded by people of faith, and since the majority of the world’s population attribute the existance of the universe to God (in one form or another), evolution should not be taught in schools as if it were fact.

I believe in God. I believe God created the universe. I believe God created life. I believe God created man special. Evolution should be taught in schools as a fact until scientific evidence shows otherwise.

The limitations of science should be discussed as it pertains to evolution so as not to alienate people of faith. Gravity is different because the religions of the world do not generally argue against gravity, it is not widely contested, and it does not seek to answer a question that the world religions answer through their theology.

So instead of the Church, we should poll the religions of the world as to what we should teach in science class?

Peace

Tim

 

[Orogeny]

HI, Jim.

Newman60:

But any debate on origins has to acknowledge a starting point. And since the origin occurred before the existence of any of our historically known ancestors(and before any of them recorded any history), then any theory has to be based on assumptions and not pure science. Darwin theorized only on the origin of species not an ultimate origin.

I disagree that it is assumptions that the theory has to be based on. It is based on evidence.

Whatever the mechanism or assumptions, ascribing ultimate origin to an eternal God and Creator is not unreasonable.

I agree and that is what I believe.

Nor is the scientist able to posit anything else without making assumptions which are similar acts of faith.

I disagree.

Could evolution be the method used and then God put souls in His chosen Adam and Eve? Certainly. It’s a reasonable if cumbersome theory. But we still have to account for the origin of everything else before that moment. To the ultimate Intelligent Designer or Creator? It works for me to have our eternal, All-Powerful, All-Knowing God be that origin. To have Him be the designer of all the codes, of all the mechanisms and of all matter is a simpler assumption or act of faith.

Jim, I think the only thing you and I disagree on in this post is that I disagree that evolution is based on assumptions and not evidence. Other than that, I’m with ya pal!

Peace

Tim

 

[Chris_W]

Orogeny:

So what do we do with the scientific evidence? Ignore it? Replace it with the non-scientific evidence?

There you go again, insinuating that people who reject evolution somehow have their heads in the sand…

No. The evidence can be presented. Then the theories about that evidence can be presented as possible interpretations of the evidence…because that is all they are! It is not fact. Any scientist of integrity will admit that it is not fact. It is considered by many to be the best possible godless answer. That is all.

If evolution was presented as the best possible godless interpretation of the evidence, it totally changes…from brainwashing into education.

Orogeny:

Do you want disclaimers on chemistry, physics and geology books that contain theories? Or is it just biology?

I don’t have a problem with you objecting and I don’t consider you hostile to reason, but what are the limits that you would put on science education? Do we need to pass everything through the Church before we can add it to the curriculum?

That would be great! But impractical I’m afraid (and quite contrary to our constitution). It would not however, be impractical for educators to present the information, in a way that allows for other possibilities.

So I guess, I would like evolution to be presented as what it is… crazy as that may sound. It is a theory that many scientist believe is the best explanation that does not rely on God for creation.

That statement would do nothing to diminish the scientific approach to the subject matter, nor would it fool kids into thinking evolution is a fact.

Orogeny:

Evolution should be taught in schools as a fact until scientific evidence shows otherwise

So non-facts should be taught as though they are facts? …that is rather illogical don’t you think? Unfortunately most educators agree with you, but hey, who needs logic right?

 

[Chris_W]

wanerious:

For me, realizing that one essential character of God is existence itself, and that he is the architect of all natural laws, is sufficient. Did He have a more direct role in the first assembly of a self-reproducing bit of goo? I really don’t know.

See, that’s the problem. You say you do not know if God had a direct role in the assembly of the first living organism (for lack of a better term). Yet later, you tell me you believe God created life. Perhaps you can elaborate? If God did not have a direct and active role in the creation of life, then He is no more the Creator of Life then the Lego Company is the creator of the bridge my four year old built out of legos last week.

wanerious:

No, though one ought to consider carefully rejecting something out of hand too quickly when there is much independent and demonstrable evidence for its veracity, and no evidence against it.

C’mon wanerious. Are you telling me there is a demonstrable (non-theoretical) way to verify that the radiometric half-lives assigned the elements is in fact accurate? Do you know of someone who has a known 600 million year old sample with which we can verify the accuracy of radiometric dating? Gimme a break.

 

[Chris_W]

Orogeny:

What other kind of evolution are you referring to? The discussion of evolving life is biological evolution.

I’m still not clear about this concept you keep bringing up of biological evolution as if it is something other than what we are discussing.

Peace

Tim

Okay, whether you tried to or not, you’ve baffled me.

First you say “the discussion of evolving life is biological evolution”, but then you argue that abiogensis, which decribes how life evolved, is not evolution… …what did I miss here?

Peace,
Chris

 

[wanerious]

Chris W:

See, that’s the problem. You say you do not know if God had a direct role in the assembly of the first living organism (for lack of a better term). Yet later, you tell me you believe God created life.

I did? That doesn’t sound like me.

Perhaps you can elaborate? If God did not have a direct and active role in the creation of life, then He is no more the Creator of Life then the Lego Company is the creator of the bridge my four year old built out of legos last week.

…which may make His role more subtle and beautiful in ways we could not previously imagine. That’s a nice analogy, by the way.

C’mon wanerious. Are you telling me there is a demonstrable (non-theoretical) way to verify that the radiometric half-lives assigned the elements is in fact accurate?

I don’t understand the question. We have radioactive decay data for around 1000 isotopes that were determined empirically. I don’t think we actually can determine decay rates theoretically.

Do you know of someone who has a known 600 million year old sample with which we can verify the accuracy of radiometric dating? Gimme a break.

Maybe you aren’t too familiar with the process. We have articles of known age to compare with C-14 results (as well as correlating them with tree rings). There is a beautiful, interlocking ladder of decay rates according to which we may calibrate ages derived from more than one isotopic family. Typically, your 600 million year old sample is potentially datable by at least a couple of different elements. We’d have to be wrong about a great many things if radioactive dating techniques were grossly faulty.

 

[wanerious]

Chris W:

Okay, whether you tried to or not, you’ve baffled me.

First you say “the discussion of evolving life is biological evolution”, but then you argue that abiogensis, which decribes how life evolved, is not evolution… …what did I miss here?

Peace,
Chris

The distinction is that abiogenesis attempts to describe the process through which organic compounds form a substance that is “alive”. Evolution describes how organisms change over time due to genetic differences between generations. It is currently very difficult for evolutionary biology to address questions about organisms further back than 600 million years ago or so since we have so few preserved examples of soft-bodied animals and plants.

 

[Chris_W]

wanerious:

I did? That doesn’t sound like me.

My error. I got you and Orogeny mixed up…or blended together… It is confusing to me when I am talking to more than one evolutionist and the position of each person is different. Sorry.

 

[Chris_W]

wanerious:

I don’t understand the question. We have radioactive decay data for around 1000 isotopes that were determined empirically. I don’t think we actually can determine decay rates theoretically…

Perhaps you can elaborate. It seems to me, whether the method is empiracle, deductive reasoning, or other, the fact of the matter is, it is theoretical because it cannot actually be verified.At best, a person could verify the empiracle formulas work on sample of a known age, which limits the test to the range of C-14 capbility which to my understanding is about 6000 years. 6000 years is a very very small number compared to the billions of years dealt with in radiometric dataing.

wanerious:

Maybe you aren’t too familiar with the process. We have articles of known age to compare with C-14 results (as well as correlating them with tree rings). There is a beautiful, interlocking ladder of decay rates according to which we may calibrate ages derived from more than one isotopic family. Typically, your 600 million year old sample is potentially datable by at least a couple of different elements. We’d have to be wrong about a great many things if radioactive dating techniques were grossly faulty.

That’s my point. there is no way to actually demonstrate that radiometric dating works accurately. As mentioned before, C-14 dating cannot come anywhere near the dates given by radiometric dating, which means it cannot verify the method works beyond its capabilities, which I think Libby said was about 6000 years.

What other methods are you talking about? The geological column? That is at least as unverifiable as radiometric dating.

 

[silverbullet]

A history professor I once had said that a belief in evolution required as much ‘faith’ as a belief in creation. He then proceeded to point to holes in the theory of evolution. It is not that I totally disbelieve some of it, but science comes up with wonderful theories, then a number of years later says ‘no, those methods were flawed, we now have discovered a better method’. And so it goes. In spite of scientific advancements, it is far from an exact ‘science’, and more things are unknown than known.

Even medical science, although there are many more cures for disease, many die every year due to the inadequacies of science to find out what was really wrong with them. IMO, medicine is in many ways, still in the ‘dark ages’.

I do trust the Bible, do not know of anything in there that has been disproven, and even when scientists thought that it was, they later reversed their position. But science, OTOH, is always ‘changing its mind’. And sometimes a little knowlege can be dangerous, and though dna research sounds good, they may end up messing up big time on that. Imagine another ‘andromeda strain’.

In the popular Science Fiction series, ‘the outer limits’, one thing was clear. Some things are meant to remain in the domain of God, and if man crosses that line, disaster can follow.

The one thing I think is that prior to the creation of the sun and moon, instituting days as we know them, the previous days could have been longer. Other than that, I do not give it much thought.

Laura

 

[Kevin_Walker]

Chris W:

If I may chime in, in response to this challenge:

People of faith are not limited to scientific evidence. Unlike scientists, we have the liberty to consider other evidences, like the Word of God, the authority of the Church, evidence of miracles, phylosiphical arguments like those posed by Aquinas, etc.

Therefore, we do not need to disprove evolution via scientific evidence. Non-scientific evidences are sufficient reason to reject the theory.

Therefore, we can merely point out that evolution is not fact. It cannot be proven (because that is not possible with scientific experiments). And anyone who claims it is a fact is being disengenuous and unscientific. Neither can science disprove creation.

Therefore, creationists are not being “hostile to reason” (as I have been accused of in other threads) but are in fact reasonable in rejecting evolution based on the limitations of science, and evidences outside the scope of science.

Considering these facts, and the fact that our great country was founded by people of faith, and since the majority of the world’s population attribute the existance of the universe to God (in one form or another), evolution should not be taught in schools as if it were fact. The limitations of science should be discussed as it pertains to evolution so as not to alienate people of faith. Gravity is different because the religions of the world do not generally argue against gravity, it is not widely contested, and it does not seek to answer a question that the world religions answer through their theology.

Hi,

This appears to be so much academic fence sitting. In Philosophy 101, I was taught that “General existence statements cannot be disproven” and as a non-controversial exercise the Philosophy professor had us try to prove or disprove the existence of Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny, using all accepted forms of logic and evidence. Guess what? With all the evidence (and some visual sightings) you cannot prove or disprove the existence of the Easter Bunny or Santa Claus - they are general existence statements, just like the theory of evolution.

Just bear in mind while analyzing the subject to death that the Vatican is not threatened by the theory of Evolution; the Vatican takes a dim view towards ‘Darwinism’ and that is where all this analytic energy on a Catholic forum, in my humble opinion, should be concentrated.

 

[Orogeny]

Chris W:

There you go again, insinuating that people who reject evolution somehow have their heads in the sand…

I did no such thing. I asked a question based on your previous post.

No. The evidence can be presented. Then the theories about that evidence can be presented as possible interpretations of the evidence…because that is all they are! It is not fact. Any scientist of integrity will admit that it is not fact. It is considered by many to be the best possible godless answer. That is all.

Evolution currently is the only scientific expanation of the evidence. If you have any other scientific interpretations, please bring them forth.

If evolution was presented as the best possible godless interpretation of the evidence, it totally changes…from brainwashing into education.

It is not brainwashing now.

That would be great! But impractical I’m afraid (and quite contrary to our constitution).

Really? Why?

It would not however, be impractical for educators to present the information, in a way that allows for other possibilities.

Thanks for making the argument against warning stickers on biology books!

So I guess, I would like evolution to be presented as what it is… crazy as that may sound. It is a theory that many scientist believe is the best explanation that does not rely on God for creation.

That statement would do nothing to diminish the scientific approach to the subject matter, nor would it fool kids into thinking evolution is a fact.

But it wouldn’t be an accurate scientific statement. Science doesn’t deal with God, so it would be illogical to state that it is the best explaination that does not rely on God.

So non-facts should be taught as though they are facts? …that is rather illogical don’t you think? Unfortunately most educators agree with you, but hey, who needs logic right?

There you go again, insinuating that people who accept evolution somehow have their heads in the sand…

Peace

Tim

 

[Orogeny]

Chris W:

Okay, whether you tried to or not, you’ve baffled me.

First you say “the discussion of evolving life is biological evolution”, but then you argue that abiogensis, which decribes how life evolved, is not evolution… …what did I miss here?

Peace,
Chris

Abiogenesis is a study of how life began, not how it evolved. Once life began, evolution started. Evolution doesn’t say or care how life began.

Is that any clearer?

Peace

Tim

 

[Orogeny]

Chris W:

My error. I got you and Orogeny mixed up…or blended together… It is confusing to me when I am talking to more than one evolutionist and the position of each person is different. Sorry.

I think you are still confused. I have always made my position on the creation of life clear. God created all life.

Peace

Tim

 

[Orogeny]

Chris W:

What other methods are you talking about? The geological column? That is at least as unverifiable as radiometric dating.

So, what is it about the geologic column that you have a problem with?

Peace

Tim

 

[PhilVaz]

Orogeny << So, what is it about the geologic column that you have a problem with? >>

That it was an invention of Gould in the 1970s. Just kidding.

Here is a good article for geologic column deniers

The Entire Geologic Column in North Dakota

ChrisW << That’s my point. there is no way to actually demonstrate that radiometric dating works accurately. >>

Radiometric Dating Does Work! by Dalrymple

That one pretty much does the trick.

Phil P