Evidence for Evolution

[rossum]

So the fact that everything has to be just right for life to exist in the first place is not an indicator?

“Everything” is far from just right for life. The vast majority of the universe is completely wrong for earth type life - interstellar space, the centre of stars, the surface of Neptune. Remember also that life adapts to its surroundings so it can survive in a wide range of environments. We think of oxygen as essential for life, but it is not.

What about fragile ecosystems? Even if I were to remove belief in the Christian God from the equation, I could still not look around me and believe that this is all coincidental.

The fact that you are present looking at things places constraints on what you are looking at. If conditions were not right anywhere in the universe then you would not be here at all. This is the Anthropic Principle:In physics and cosmology, the anthropic principle states that humans should take into account the constraints that human existence as observers imposes on the sort of universe that could be observed. In other words, the only universe we can see is one that supports life. If it were a different type of universe, we would not exist to see it.

You brought up the randomness of clouds. Their shape is the only random thing about them. What is not random about clouds is how they form and how they interact with the land. Last time I checked, most people and crops die without fresh water.

Which has nothing to do with my point that the human brain is unreliable as a detector of design. We see faces in clouds, and faces look designed. What we are seeing is not design but the outcome of the actions of the laws of physics. Hence our brains are not a reliable design detector - they tend to register false positives.

I don’t mean to sound combative, but your point about a “design detector” is lacking.

What is lacking is a useful design detector from the ID side. So far they have tried Behe’s Irreducible Complexity and Dembski’s Complex Specified Information (as expressed in his Explanatory Filter). Both of these have failed as reliable design detectors.

rossum

 

[rossum]

“If” the properties of the universe was static,

Some are static, some are not. Scientists measure these things to determine what changes and what does not. For example the Fine Structure Constant is known to be constant for the last 10 billion years.

“If” science was infalallable,

It is not, and it makes not claim to be so. It does claim to be accurate to within the limits of measurement and to within known anomalies. We know that Newton’s gravity is not quite right, but we also know that it is good enough to calculate the orbits needed to land a man on the moon or on Mars. It is not good enough to calculate the orbit of Mercury correctly.

“If” we had a time machine to crossreference and verify,

We do, it is called astronomy. The Fine Structure Constant was checked by looking as distant quasars, 10 billion light years from earth. When you see light from the Sun you are seeing light that is eight minutes old. Look at any distant object and you are seeing the past, because light has a finite velocity. We can indeed see into the past to check the constancy (or not) of the various numbers we use.

The earth is old, about 4.5 billion years old. To quote St Thomas Aquinas:“In discussing questions of this kind two rules are to be observed, as Augustine teaches. The first is, to hold to the truth of Scripture without wavering. The second is that since Holy Scripture can be explained in a multiplicity of senses, one should adhere to a particular explanation only in such measure as to be ready to abandon it if it be proved with certainty to be false, lest Holy Scripture be exposed to the ridicule of unbelievers, and obstacles be placed to their believing.”

Source: Summa
By insisting on an incorrect figure for the age of the earth you are placing unneccessary obstacles in the way of unbelievers believing.

rossum

 

[rossum]

There are insufficient controls to confirm the veracity of any dating method indicating something to be a billion years old. Honest scientists can show you how to properly set up tests and controls.

What dating methods do you have a problem with? If they are wrong, then why do the different dating methods give the same results? Science can show things beyond reasonable doubt; it cannot show things beyond unreasonable doubt.

rossum

 

[The_Barbarian]

Here’s a good place to check how the different methods, used on the same strata, with different isotopes and methods, compare.

If you ever get a chance to hear Joe Meert speak, do it; he’s very knowledgable, and has a sharp sense of humor.

One of the most vexing problems for those who claim they don’t work, is the obvious agreement, to a high level of precision, by very different methodologies.

gondwanaresearch.com/radiomet.htm

 

[mapleoak]

Any scientifically useful design detection method must be:

• Reproducible:
• Accurate:

This applies to dating methods as well. There is no sufficient way to verify that when something indicates something is a billion years old or some ridiculous number, it is correct. Lets assume you had a method that was guaranteed accurate to 100 years +/- 1 day. Take a guess how far off you would be after a billion years.

 

[mapleoak]

What dating methods do you have a problem with?

All methods which claim to be able to age something a billion years.

 

[drpmjhess]

If I were to follow your logic, I would be an athiest, for the athiest thinks all things can be explained through science, if this is the case, why are you even bothering to read the bible, or believe in God, if you reject his word, you are rejecting him…

Brian, I don’t follow you here. It may be true that an atheist believes that all things can be explained through science, but it doesn’t logically follow that a scientist must be an atheist.

And my other point stands: we live in a pluralistic society, with Jews, Hindus, Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, atheists, and many others. You are free to believe origins stories from Genesis, so long as (1) you don’t force these stories on students of other faith traditions in public schools, and (2) you don’t expect science to tailor its findings to match your interpretation of Genesis (Young Earth, talking snake, worldwide Noachian flood, sun standing still at Joshua’s command, Lot’s wife turned into a pillar of salt, etc.

In fact, living in a pluralistic society you are doubly fortunate: (1) you can believe in the stories you wish without fear of harassment, and (2) you can benefit from mainstream science doing its work to bring you new medicines, new technologies, better weather prediction, and so forth. It’s a win-win situation. What’s not to like about it?

Petrus

 

[drpmjhess]

You can’t be still wanting to debate whether evolution is a theory or a hypothesis, are you?
Oh…By the way, evolution is a hypothesis.
And what would you say it is that God created? The universe? That has a design to it. Did He create molecues or atoms? They have a design to them. Neutrons and photons? ? ? ?ul.

Mapleoak,

(1) There is no debate about whether evolution occurs, except among those who don’t understand how it accounts for biological diversity. In fact, Ben Stein’s film that opens next Friday, called Expelled, has hyped a non-existent controversy; some have referred to is as a “manufactroversy” – a controversy manufactured in the minds of creationists and ID proponents, since there is no controversy among biologists.

(2) Theories are more overarching than hypotheses. Evolution is a theory or explanatory framework, under which hypotheses are developed to explain how evolution accounts for the appearance of particular structures or relationships.

(3) Yes, God created the universe. At first there was nothing by a hot sea of quarks, our of which (as it cooled) subatomic particles precipitated, and then hydrogen atoms, then stars that cooked hydrogen into heavier elements, and billions of years later second and third generation stars with rocky planets, some bearing oceans. So yes, God created everything, but not all at once in six days. You are free to believe in a hexameral creation if you like – this is a pluralistic society – but science does not accept that.

Petrus

 

[edwest2]

Brian, I don’t follow you here. It may be true that an atheist believes that all things can be explained through science, but it doesn’t logically follow that a scientist must be an atheist.

And my other point stands: we live in a pluralistic society, with Jews, Hindus, Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, atheists, and many others. You are free to believe origins stories from Genesis, so long as (1) you don’t force these stories on students of other faith traditions in public schools, and (2) you don’t expect science to tailor its findings to match your interpretation of Genesis (Young Earth, talking snake, worldwide Noachian flood, sun standing still at Joshua’s command, Lot’s wife turned into a pillar of salt, etc.

In fact, living in a pluralistic society you are doubly fortunate: (1) you can believe in the stories you wish without fear of harassment, and (2) you can benefit from mainstream science doing its work to bring you new medicines, new technologies, better weather prediction, and so forth. It’s a win-win situation. What’s not to like about it?

Petrus

It’s not about liking anything. And predicting the weather? You’ve got to be kidding. The local weatherman is lucky to get it right 50% of the time.

Mainstream science is about a lot more than evolution. The word evolution does not equal “all of science.”

When I was studying chemistry in a secular college, you know how much I had to know about evolution? Nothing.

When I was attending an electronics school, you know how much I had to learn about evolution? Nothing.

The biology textbook is missing critical information.

God bless,
Ed

 

[rossum]

This applies to dating methods as well.

Agreed.

There is no sufficient way to verify that when something indicates something is a billion years old or some ridiculous number, it is correct.

Suppose you wanted to check the accuracy of a new clock. You would test it against other clocks, working by different methods. If your new clock agrees with all the other clocks, which used different ways of telling the time, then you can be reasonably sure that your new clock is accurate.

We have more than one way to measure dates in the past. We can test the different methods against each other to check that they match. All the methods we use have been tested and found to work. Methods that did not work have been rejected.

Lets assume you had a method that was guaranteed accurate to 100 years +/- 1 day. Take a guess how far off you would be after a billion years.

1 day in 100 years is 1 in 36,525. Over a billion years that would result in an error of 1,000,000 / 36,525 = +/- 28,000 years. Reasonably good accuracy for that long ago.

rossum

 

[Jon_S]

The fact that you are present looking at things places constraints on what you are looking at.

Isn’t this what scientists do? What’s the point in observing things if it’s always going to be unreliable based on this logic?

When I look in the clouds and see what looks like a face up there, I do not assume it was designed to look like a face. I assume it was designed to accumulate and either dissipate at some point, or turn into a rain cloud.

I think the theory of Intelligent Design is at least as plausible as the idea that matter has always existed or that the “Big Bang” happened out of nothing.

 

[rossum]

All methods which claim to be able to age something a billion years.

So you have no problem with Carbon dating (up to 60,000 years old), but you reject Uranium-Lead dating. Why? What is the difference?

For a lot more detail on dating methods read: Radiometric Dating - A Christian Perspective and How Old is the Earth.

rossum

 

[Brian_Millar]

a scientist must be an atheist.

these are what they are, plain and simple, they are just that,… It’s reality and I don’t like it, the greats managed to do thin gs and still keep their faith, why is it now, we cannot?

 

[drpmjhess]

It’s not about liking anything. And predicting the weather? You’ve got to be kidding. The local weatherman is lucky to get it right 50% of the time. The biology textbook is missing critical information.God bless,Ed

Ed, our weatherpeople are correct about 90% of the time.

But what’s your point? We don’t live in a Catholic theocracy – we inhabit a pluralistic culture. No one is telling you that you may not believe the stories you wish to. No one tells me I can’t hear about Noah’s ark in the Easter Vigil. What exactly is your beef with scientists acting like scientists? I work with a lot of scientists – some of them atheists – and not one has ever interfered with my Catholic liturgical practice or my teaching and writing, or with my prayer life. They even decided to make Good Friday an office holiday this year. What’s the real problem? What drives you so vigorously to combat science?

Petrus

 

[drpmjhess]

a scientist must be an atheist.

Brian, your claim is absolutely, patently, obviously (and I hope not maliciously) false.

For twenty years I have worked with hundreds of scientists, including at least a dozen priests who are biologists, chemists, physicists, cosmologists, and astronomers; they have held offices in national scientific organizations. They are Jesuits, Dominicans, SVDs, and Carmelites. They are wonderful men, prayerful priests, and keen-eyed scientists. They tell me that their science enriches their prayer life, their sense of wonder at God’s universe, and their ministry as priests. You need to get to know some scientists!

Petrus

 

[Orogeny]

The biology textbook is missing critical information.

God bless,
Ed

Would that something be found in your college chemistry book? How about your textbooks in electronics school?

Peace

Tim

 

[Orogeny]

a scientist must be an atheist.

these are what they are, plain and simple, they are just that,… It’s reality and I don’t like it, the greats managed to do thin gs and still keep their faith, why is it now, we cannot?

What an incredibly insightful comment. I’m glad to finally know, after 46 years, that I have been deluding myself into believing that I am a Christian. Silly me. Where have you been all my life, Brian?

I will give you this much, though. What you have written many others on this forum believe but deny. At least you are willing to admit it publically.

Peace

Tim

 

[Brian_Millar]

Brian, your claim is absolutely, patently, obviously (and I hope not maliciously) false.

For twenty years I have worked with hundreds of scientists, including at least a dozen priests who are biologists, chemists, physicists, cosmologists, and astronomers; they have held offices in national scientific organizations. They are Jesuits, Dominicans, SVDs, and Carmelites. They are wonderful men, prayerful priests, and keen-eyed scientists. They tell me that their science enriches their prayer life, their sense of wonder at God’s universe, and their ministry as priests. You need to get to know some scientists!

Petrus

’

did ADd tqake over here, please elaborate, I know, asking to be flamed again, I’m used to it here…

 

[drpmjhess]

'did ADd tqake over here, please elaborate

What?

 

[drpmjhess]

I will give you this much, though. What you have written many others on this forum believe but deny. At least you are willing to admit it publically.Peace
Tim

Tim should I let my dozen priest-scientist friends know that Brian Millar has informed me they are actually atheists?