"Evolution is Just a Theory!" Um, no

[jdnation]

MaggieOH<<

The problem is the literal interpretation of what is written overrides common sense when it comes to accepting that there is a middle ground.

-Well yes, but why should there necessarily be any middle ground?

The Bible thumping, KJV only, Creation-Science literalists are out of their depth when it comes to explaining some of the deeper mysteries of the earth, especially such things as how coal evolved from being trees into fossil fuel. That took thousands upon thousands of years to create.

• You’re only assuming what you say about coal. Many long agers always feel many things took vastly long to happen, whether they’re walls of ice, or petroleum or land structures. Fact is that under catastrophic events, rapid change happens, for the thousands to millions of years you’re always assuming uniformalism, as well some ideas of gradual buildup are also quite wrong, look up something about a WWII fighter plane called the ‘Glacier Girl’, part of the Lost Squadron of aircraft that had to be abandoned on a Greenland Glacier in 1942. Only after 50 years did a mountain of ice 250ft high accumulate overtop of them entombing them below the ice leaving searchers mystified for the longest time. And Creationists have tackled the issue of coal and other things, in fact news I’d read awhile back coming from a related industries in the petroleum business, who play not part in the origins science aspect, seems to indicate that fossil fuels, may not be fossil fuels at all! It might even be replenishable… that would be good news indeed…

The problem that is being created in this discussion is the creation of a false dichotomy i.e. you are saying that Creation must be explain by the means of Evolution, or through a literal interpretation of Genesis. What I am saying is that one can use Science to accept that the world evolved over time, in 6 periods, rather than literal days, because Genesis describes the passing of time, rather than the actual time taken, whilst at the same time accepting the Genesis account of Creation as God’s Truth that has been set forth in a simple way to reinforce the 7 days of the week.

• Well it’s quite plainly understood by Hebrew scholars that Genesis is written as being nothing but actual history. So you could argue with them, but now this is simply your taking of it to fit something you have already established for yourself, evolutionary long ages. If you feel like compromising and it isn’t doing any damage to your faith in the long run, then it’s negliable, however with taking free licence to interpret things in any other way, you’d then leave the door open for others to begin to interpret something else in another. Since the whole issue about the age of the earth is quite controversial and still under question today, it would also be prudent to stick more closely to God’s revelation.

 

[jdnation]

Apolonio<<

EXACTLY my point. The sun is not needed for “day and night”. But a 24 hour day is based on the relationship between the sun and the earth.

-Ah, I see what you’re saying, so it’s not the question of 1 day, but how long the day is…

• I disagree that “evening and morning” transition implies a rotating earth.*

-How else would the transition happen then? Everything else rotate around the earth? And well yes, I am assuming it as literal, because that’s clearly what it says… why shouldn’t I?

You still have to respond to how “day” could be speaking literal day (24 hour day) if there was no sun and you have no idea what the light is or where it came from.

• Well we’re not told where the sun comes from either, so I don’t see the point of that… There is a light source, it is divided between light and darkness, God called each day and night, so I don’t see any argument here for the sun at all. Maybe you imply that the light source could have been above the planet, could have, but then the planet would still have to spin in a direction for the transition to take place, that being, the other side has to see the light and back again. However I see what you mean by your implication, beyond doubt there are transitions happening between day and night judged from the light source, but the rotation may have been slow and depending on that the transition could have still been 1 day by definition, though the length of the day is unknown.

However, assuming then that the rotation is undeterminable, but exceedingly longer than 24 hours, this then begs the question of when it would get on pace to being 24 hours long. However bigger problems with that will then exist, because even evolutionary theory compromised with the Bible would have to concede to a slow rotating earth. And there is a bigger problem than you can imagine. The rotation of the earth for a period of 24 hours is not there simply for the sake of 24 hours or for some symbolic number. 24 hours is detrimental for the preservation of life. There are many remarkable things about the position tilt etc of our planet that seem to be designed particular for life to exist. One of them is the 24 hour rotation. If our planet did not revolve for 24 hours, then one half of the planet would be permanently in darkness, without vegetation, and the other side would become an unhabitable desert. Any more or less of a revolution of it would also cause large scale changes.

So for proper aid for any evolutionary mechanism as well as evolutionary cosmology suggests, the earth would have always been rotating, whether by the providence of God or by random chance, it rotates at just the right sufficient time to be instrumental for life. So you then tell me, with vegetation being created on the third day in mind, where do you prefer for the rotation of the earth to get onto a 24 hour track? Ignore evolutionary cosmology theories thus far? Give the first two days enough time for whatever to happen though they still constitute a day by definition, hope vegetation survives long enough in that 3rd day ‘period’ on either side? Since impossible on its own we can assume God’s miraculous power doing something… Establishing a sun on the forth day to clear things up (though the rotation still doesn’t have to be 24 hours) and you’ve got to deal with the animal life etc to come afterward and explain to me how the natural system, after God lets it run, will aid the planet… you see where I’m going with this… many implications, so what will it be?

 

[dcdurel]

40% of scientists don’t believe in evolution by chance, but they believe in a God directed evolution.
Evolution by intelligent design, in other words.
Even the best scientists in the world, like Einstein believe the universe was created by intelligent design and did not come to exist by chance.

Of course this God directed evolution is not the evolution that is taught in schools

 

[clarkal]

40% of scientists don’t believe in evolution by chance, but they believe in a God directed evolution.
Evolution by intelligent design, in other words.
Even the best scientists in the world, like Einstein believe the universe was created by intelligent design and did not come to exist by chance.

Of course this God directed evolution is not the evolution that is taught in schools

Back it up.

 

[wanerious]

40% of scientists don’t believe in evolution by chance, but they believe in a God directed evolution.

Hello, again.

40% is too low. Nobody but you seems to believe in even the possibility of a theory of evolution guided by mere “chance”. I would say the number should be closer to 100%, since that is a mischaracterization of evolutionary theory.

This has been pointed out to you many times in many other threads, and yet here we are again.

Evolution by intelligent design, in other words.

Only in your words. There are many other possibilities, such as the modern theory of common descent through the means of genetic variation coupled with natural selection. This is in no way equivalent to “random chance”.

Even the best scientists in the world, like Einstein believe the universe was created by intelligent design and did not come to exist by chance.

He said nothing of the kind. I’m asking you again to please stop writing remarks that are blatantly untrue. There was a quote along the lines of “… God does not play dice” with the universe, with the correct context being that of a right interpretation of quantum behavior. You have tried this before.

Of course this God directed evolution is not the evolution that is taught in schools

Of course not. In schools, we rightly teach the generally accepted scientific views on natural phenomena. If “intelligent design” is somehow recast in a scientific light, and gains significant favor in scientific circles via the peer review process, then in time we may see this new understanding taught. Trying to circumvent the process by shoehorning it in to present curricula is misguided and ultimately dangerous, as it sets a precedent for future popular and possibly unscientific dogmas to be prematurely introduced.

 

[Brad]

wanerious:

.

Of course not. In schools, we rightly teach the generally accepted scientific views on natural phenomena. If “intelligent design” is somehow recast in a scientific light, and gains significant favor in scientific circles via the peer review process, then in time we may see this new understanding taught. Trying to circumvent the process by shoehorning it in to present curricula is misguided and ultimately dangerous, as it sets a precedent for future popular and possibly unscientific dogmas to be prematurely introduced.

If Intellignet Design is so un-scientific then why did Hawking feel it necessary to use the entire subtitle of one of his books to show that the universe was not created, shaped, or regulated by an intelligent designer. If this is such an un-scientific concept then why does he insist on discrediting the possiblity? If such a prominent scientist, along with Gould and Crick and others, are so vehemently against intelligent design, how is a scientist that promotes the theory going to survive the peer review process, that is filled with disciples of these men?

It is more dangerous to present at best a scientific theory(we have evolved from a common ancestor of apes) as fact to schoo children than it is to teach the principles of God’ revelation. If you don’t want to teach the principles of God’s revelation as fact in school, then don’t teach the theory of evolution as fact in school either. Don’t classify either one as science. It is because of the insistence of scientists and secularlists that evolution must be taught as fact that is resulting in the backlash that you are seeing now. Scientists have to be honest and up front in explaining they just are not sure this is true - they have no observations of a species evolving into another species - all they have is variation within species - period.

 

[Brad]

wanerious:

.

Of course not. In schools, we rightly teach the generally accepted scientific views on natural phenomena. If “intelligent design” is somehow recast in a scientific light, and gains significant favor in scientific circles via the peer review process, then in time we may see this new understanding taught. Trying to circumvent the process by shoehorning it in to present curricula is misguided and ultimately dangerous, as it sets a precedent for future popular and possibly unscientific dogmas to be prematurely introduced.

If Intellignet Design is so un-scientific then why did Hawking feel it necessary to use the entire subtitle of one of his books to show that the universe was not created, shaped, or regulated by an intelligent designer. If this is such an un-scientific concept then why does he insist on discrediting the possiblity? If such a prominent scientist, along with Gould and Crick and others, are so vehemently against intelligent design, how is a scientist that promotes the theory going to survive the peer review process, that is filled with disciples of these men?

It is more dangerous to present at best a scientific theory(we have evolved from a common ancestor of apes) as fact to schoo children than it is to teach the principles of God’ revelation. If you don’t want to teach the principles of God’s revelation as fact in school, then don’t teach the theory of evolution as fact in school either. Don’t classify either one as science. It is because of the insistence of scientists and secularlists that evolution must be taught as fact that is resulting in the backlash that you are seeing now. Scientists have to be honest and up front in explaining they just are not sure this is true - they have no observations of a species evolving into another species - all they have is variation within species.

 

[workinprogress]

Why do those against macroevolution get accused of being against any evolution and those against illegal immigration get accused of being against immigration? The left knows the truth about this.
I don’t care what the scientific community says or agrees upon. If a giant number of scientists believe in something and noone seens to be against it, I wnder if anyone is allowed to be against it without being called “intolerable”–usually by the “tolerant”. They can’t even agree on what foods are healthy. First red meat is healthy, and then it isn’t, and then it is. I have to wonder if funding is involved and it should be called GRANTience.
I read “Eugenics and Other Evils” by G.K. Chesterton and he has some choice things to say about modern science devoid of religion and God as well as the socialism and modern capitalism that applies it to society. You should read the things (in the edition I got) that Galton, who Darwin came to agree with (maybe there’s something complimentary to say about phrenology, I believe to be the pseudo-science that judges people’s intellect by the shape of their nose, which almost got the future fascist/socialist kept off the Beagle in the first place–ironic, ain’t it?), and the gang pushing evolution said about blacks and the poor. Just ask yourself what party and political persuasion is so behind Planned Parenthood and the UN? Can you smell the doubletalk? Of course, that’s not to say Republicans and all conservatives are clean. After all, the 20s was a more conservative time in America and we were doing things almost like the Weinmar Republic. They may be attacking the liberals as the only ones for these atrocities, but the socialists get these underprivileged groups thinking they care for them while keeping them down and killing themselves with abortion and/or drugs. It seems the far left takes care of the “unwanted” “problem” of all kinds at both ends of life and the far-right takes care of them inbetween.

Both extremes lack charity when more and more power comes in their court and they can make things comfortable for themselves. It’s two sides of a Satanic coin. America seems to swing from one side to the other and back. Maybe there are no 2 extremes politically or socially, and Satan plays them both while making each think they are right and the end justifies the means. Where’s the center? What transcends social extremism? It’s Jesus working through the Catholic Church always through its sound dogmas, but also through docility to authorized shepherds and lawgivers (when they aren’t having us do or believe something contrary to God’s laws and truths)–or at least not to undermine the authority of their office if you are a dissenter, of another rite or have another liturgical tradition–accordingly. That’s a simplistic version of the answer, I know, but I just mean to say the Church will guide us because the Holy Spirit talks to us through the Church’s doctrines and any other way He speaks to us definitively. Every other institution (not being guided by the Holy Spirit) will fail its followers in fundamental ways.
Maybe evolution was an innocent idea at first, but it has been corrupted for centuries. Evolution really isn't that important anyway. What good is it to mankind? Study things as they are and go from there, I say.. We know what good evolution is to fascist/socialist elites who want a utopia of supermen. God made science and religion but made religion first for a reason--science won't get us to heaven.

 

[Apolonio]

Brad,

“The whole archaic form of the narrative manifests its primitive mythical character.” John Paul II Audience of Sept 29, 1979

I suggest getting “Theology of the Body”.

Jdnation,

You’re right about the implications. That’s why I don’t take it to be literal.

 

[rjmporter]

In the 20 years that I have been alive the universe has aged several billion years. Not beause of some space/time slip, but because evolutionary (orgin of the universe) scientists cannot get it right. I lost my faith in scientists many years ago and this was the last straw. Being taught that the universe is “without question” x billions of years old only to have that revised and revised again, gives me pause as to the reliablity of these scientific “theroies”.

 

[twf]

There is a series of articles at Answers in Genesis specifically addressing the PBS series. answersingenesis.org/pbs_nova/

It has a point-by-point refutal for each episode.

Phil, what’s your take on last years find, which has baffled astonomers, of the string of fully formed galaxies within only 2 billion years of the universe’s inception? I realize this has nothing to do with biological evolution…but certainly with the question of the age of the universe. (Though, of course, AiG’s cosmology does allow for the universe to be billions of years old…from certain perspectives, but not from earth’s perspective…see answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/astronomy.asp, scroll down to the ‘how can we see distant starlight in a young universe?’ section, for several articles on current creation cosmology).

 

[J.W.B]

Why all the arguments on evolution? Honestly, is it because you young earthers can not believe that God used evolution? It doesn’t matter. The fact is that life is absolutley amazing and complex from microscopic to enormous! I used to be a young earther, but now I believe in a God created evolution and I tell you what, it boggles my mind on the creation like that! It’s so amazing and awesome! As well as it shows the symbolicness of a Christian in his/her state of journeying just like creation is in a state of journeying!

God give you peace

 

[PhilVaz]

twf << Phil, what’s your take on last years find, which has baffled astonomers, of the string of fully formed galaxies within only 2 billion years of the universe’s inception? I realize this has nothing to do with biological evolution…but certainly with the question of the age of the universe. >>

I think you are talking about this… Has nothing to do with the “age of the universe”

“We are coming to the realization that stars and galaxies formed very quickly after the Big Bang,” said Marc Postman, an astronomer at the Space Telescope Science Institute in Baltimore. “This means that galaxy and star formation was a rapid process. It was not something that took billions and billions of years to get under way.”

From Oldest, most distant galaxy clusters found

This article says that life may have formed earlier than expected, which means a little fine tuning on the age of the universe, or the age of first life, etc. Not a big deal. A few billion here and there, still mind boggling.

Also see Glimpse at early universe reveals surprisingly mature galaxies

And A galaxy far, far away

Of course the young-earth, young-universe creationist non sequitur take on this same phenomema makes no sense:

“While naturalistic astronomers will undoubtedly find a way to accommodate this new evidence into the atheistic big bang model, in reality it stands as further evidence for a rapid and supernatural creation of stars and galaxies on day 4 of the creation week, not a slowly forming and evolving universe.”

From Young galaxies too mature for Big Bang Universe

I would suggest avoiding the young-earth or young-universe creationist sites like the plague, and please find mainstream scientific articles or mainstream scientific books on the subject.
Two I am reading are:

Measuring the Universe: Our Historic Quest to Chart the Horizons of Space and Time by Kitty Ferguson (1999)

And recently from ARN I just received:

Debating Design: From Darwin to DNA co-edited by Dembski and Ruse (2004), with many contributors on various sides: Darwinism, “intelligent design”, and theistic evolution, etc

My opinion you’re not gonna learn a darn thing reading ICR or AIG, total waste of time. They cannot be trusted to represent the science accurately (just like Jack Chick or Dave Hunt can’t be trusted to represent Catholicism accurately). Avoid them.

And my response to Sungenis on evolution is getting done…

It’s now in Google, type in “Catholic Theistic Evolution”

Phil P

 

[rossum]

Brad:

If Intellignet Design is so un-scientific then why did Hawking feel it necessary to use the entire subtitle of one of his books to show that the universe was not created, shaped, or regulated by an intelligent designer.

Whatever Professor Hawking thinks about the origin of the universe, you should not use what he says as an argument for Intelligent Design being scientific. Hawking is one of the Steves who signed the statement in Project Steve:

Evolution is a vital, well-supported, unifying principle of the biological sciences, and the scientific evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of the idea that all living things share a common ancestry. Although there are legitimate debates about the patterns and processes of evolution, there is no serious scientific doubt that evolution occurred or that natural selection is a major mechanism in its occurrence. It is scientifically inappropriate and pedagogically irresponsible for creationist pseudoscience, including but not limited to “intelligent design,” to be introduced into the science curricula of our nation’s public schools.

From here.

Are you really sure that you want to use an Argument from Authority from someone who thinks that Intelligent Design is “pseudoscience”?

rossum

 

[wanerious]

Brad:

If Intellignet Design is so un-scientific then why did Hawking feel it necessary to use the entire subtitle of one of his books to show that the universe was not created, shaped, or regulated by an intelligent designer. If this is such an un-scientific concept then why does he insist on discrediting the possiblity? If such a prominent scientist, along with Gould and Crick and others, are so vehemently against intelligent design, how is a scientist that promotes the theory going to survive the peer review process, that is filled with disciples of these men?

It is precisely because ID is unscientific that it takes some care and effort for innoculation. Were it a set of scientific predictions or serious refutations of scientific data then it could be dealt with more succinctly.

It is more dangerous to present at best a scientific theory(we have evolved from a common ancestor of apes) as fact to schoo children than it is to teach the principles of God’ revelation.

If you’re arguing for a theocracy, we’re too far apart to have a meaninful discussion. Evolutionary biology is indeed a scientific theory, and is the best current explanation of the development of different types of organisms through history. Genetic variation between generations is evolutionary fact. Both are taught.

I can only imagine what would happen if there were a Hindu majority in this country who wanted to push their own version of God’s revelation to be taught in schools.

If you don’t want to teach the principles of God’s revelation as fact in school, then don’t teach the theory of evolution as fact in school either. Don’t classify either one as science.

This is a fundamental misunderstanding. Certainly one should not teach evolutionary theory as “fact”, whatever that means, but denying that it is science is wrong in the extreme. What is your feeling on gravitational theory? Astrophysics? Geology? All are sciences built upon a framework of theories.

It is because of the insistence of scientists and secularlists that evolution must be taught as fact that is resulting in the backlash that you are seeing now. Scientists have to be honest and up front in explaining they just are not sure this is true - they have no observations of a species evolving into another species - all they have is variation within species - period.

Yes, we ought to be careful in defining “fact” and “theory” and make sure we present a convincing case in the schools. To say that we have no speciation observations, however, is just wrong. Please read the current information at

Talk.origins

 

[4_marks]

kwitz:

Quite simple. According to the theory, we didn’t evolve from apes. We have an ancestor (that is no longer around) in common. We are “cousins” to apes.

Kris

We cannot be dogmatic about evolution. Evolution of some sort may appear to be a plausable explanation, but we are not really certain how we got here. It may be just as reasonable to believe that we “evolved” due to extraterrestrial intervention, or even that one man, Adam, was directly formed out of the clay of the earth.

Now the materialist “scientists” among us may balk at this. How dare anyone question our “expertise” some might say.

As long as there was no human around to directly record what had happened, no explanation of our origins is to be considered final.

The problem is that smug judges, liberals, the ACLU and other modern Saducees are wont to impose their world views on the rest of us (the very same charge which they assert against people of faith).

I suppose such self-righteous intolerance is to be anticipated in this so-called post-modernist, pluralistic society.

 

[Brad]

Apolonio:

Brad,

“The whole archaic form of the narrative manifests its primitive mythical character.” John Paul II Audience of Sept 29, 1979

I suggest getting “Theology of the Body”.

Jdnation,

You’re right about the implications. That’s why I don’t take it to be literal.

The Pope believes that all current humans came from 2 humans created by God. I’ve read much and listened to much and read part of Theology of the Body - it does not show the Pope believe in evolution nor that he believes Genesis is fiction.

 

[wanerious]

rjmporter:

In the 20 years that I have been alive the universe has aged several billion years. Not beause of some space/time slip, but because evolutionary (orgin of the universe) scientists cannot get it right. I lost my faith in scientists many years ago and this was the last straw. Being taught that the universe is “without question” x billions of years old only to have that revised and revised again, gives me pause as to the reliablity of these scientific “theroies”.

It is important to have an understanding of uncertainty in scientific predictions. By “get it right”, what do you mean? What is the right answer? I’m an astronomer, and in the last 20 years we’ve gone from saying that the Universe is between 10-20 billion yrs. old to (about 10 years ago) between 12-18, and most recently (2 years ago) to 13.7, with an uncertainty of (depends upon the measurement) about 1 billion years. It’s not that we capriciously change our minds and vote on the answer, but as technology enables us to measure more precise quantities we close in on a more precise value. Perhaps you have been an unwitting victim of popular science writers not careful enough to include uncertainty values. The current value is highly reliable, but will probably become less uncertain as time goes by.

 

[Brad]

rossum:

Whatever Professor Hawking thinks about the origin of the universe, you should not use what he says as an argument for Intelligent Design being scientific. Hawking is one of the Steves who signed the statement in Project Steve:

Are you really sure that you want to use an Argument from Authority from someone who thinks that Intelligent Design is “pseudoscience”?

rossum

I think you missed the point that I was trying to make. It is not so much that ID is science or factual as much as evolution, especially as it pertains to human origins, is un-factual and more philosophy than science.

 

[wanerious]

twf:

There is a series of articles at Answers in Genesis specifically addressing the PBS series. answersingenesis.org/pbs_nova/

It has a point-by-point refutal for each episode.

You can take this or not, but AiG is one of the worst and most disreputable sites around, about on par with ICR. I’d be happy to go through their astronomy pages at length, as I’ve had to do before, but it is offtopic here.

Phil, what’s your take on last years find, which has baffled astonomers, of the string of fully formed galaxies within only 2 billion years of the universe’s inception?

I don’t mean to step in here for Phil, but do you have a source for that? I don’t remember many of my colleagues being “baffled”. Indeed, 2 billion years is not too eyebrow-raising. We have globular clusters (giant star clusters) associated with our own galaxy older than that, and we’ve seen many blue dwarf galaxies from an even earlier epoch. I’m not baffled, but I haven’t read the original report, either.