• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

An evolution education thread. Or how we know evolution is a fact.

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
This is not a thread for debate but rather for education on the topic of evolution, and other sciences. I see far too many creationists that rely far too often on misinformation to attempt to argue against evolution. You cannot refute an idea by using a false version of it.

An analogy that our Christian members should be able to appreciate: I cannot refute Christianity by insisting that nailing your friend to a tree never results in him coming back from being dead. That is a rather extreme strawman of Christian beliefs but it is no worse than many of the arguments against evolution.

You can ask questions here. I will be posting some basics of science and work up from there. This is not a debate thread. Participation is welcomed.
 

Windwalker

Veteran Member
Premium Member
I see far too many creationists that rely far too often on misinformation to attempt to argue against evolution.

<>

I will be posting some basics of science and work up from there. This is not a debate thread. Participation is welcomed.

Most Creationists believe that if you accept what science says about evolution, that means you can't believe in God because God created everything. How would you answer that from a rational, scientific perspective?
 

jonathan180iq

Well-Known Member
I love this idea.

I think an important preface is necessary, however, for laypeople reading through this thread later. While you may see some discussion or "debate" about certain sticking points, that should not be misinterpreted as flaws in the Theory itself. Sticklers "bickering" over very precise or minute details is part of the natural process of Science and does not hint at a disagreement among scientist over one of the most well known and understood biological processes in the field.
 

Brickjectivity

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
The great diversity of life has been apparent to people for millennia. Today with the ability to look at them all, we can see how the species blend together at the edges. You can go from a flower, running your finger up the taxonomic tree and find how it relates to a bug. There are so many millions of species, and there are so many intermediate forms. The living fossil is this enormous tree.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Before I even start with evolution the basics of science must be covered. There is no one single "scientific method" written in stone. But the following flow chart is a very good basic model to follow. Again, variation from this is allowed, but one must be willing to support one's claims at the very least to be following this method:

2013-updated_scientific-method-steps_v6_noheader.png



As you see it all starts out with questions. Some of them are easier than others. "Why does it rain?" is a rather easy one, even though it is more complex than the simple answers given in grade school. "What is the meaning of life?" is an example of a question that may be outside of the ability of the scientific method to answer. One cannot answer all questions with the scientific method. It is pretty much limited to the physical realm. And even some of those questions may not have an ultimate answer. For this thread the basic question will be some variation of "How did the life that we see today get to its current state?" Much of that can be answered.

Background research is educating oneself about as much as possible about what is already known about the topic one is asking a question about. That can include all of the education one has had over one's life. Doing background research also often involves gathering existing data. Please note, that as one does this research the original question may be altered.

Next is perhaps the most important step in the scientific method. One needs to construct a hypothesis. This simple flow chart does not openly state, this but the implication is rather obvious, the hypothesis needs to be testable. To be a scientific hypothesis that is the number one condition. It must be falsifiable. That means one needs to have a reasonable test that could possibly refute it if it was wrong. We will be getting back to that.

Next one has to actually test one's hypothesis. One needs to try to refute it. Sometimes one's test simply does not work The hypothesis may just need to be tweaked a bit. That happens quite often in the sciences. So one goes back, reforms one's hypothesis and tests it again. Eventually one will hopefully get clear data and we can move on.

Now we are approaching the finish line. What does your data say? Does it confirm the hypothesis confirmed? Did it manage to avoid being refuted? Good. Then one communicates what happens. Did it fail? Then one will need to go back to the formation of a new hypothesis using the knowledge gained in the failure of the hypothesis. This is an important step that is far too often ignored. Failed hypotheses are often key to understanding an idea. It is the failures that lead to our successes. If a scientist never fails he is probably not contributing much in the way of science. Safe questions do not lead to new knowledge. Real scientists are not afraid of failure.

Either way the "last step" (scare quotes used because this is often only the beginning) is to communicate one's results. Today that means going through the process of peer review in a well respected scientific journal. One's peers first check the article for obvious flaws and that it is original work that has not been already done. If it passes it is published and now the real testing begins. Scientists are a skeptical lot and they will often tear apart the work of others. If the original scientist made a mistake that he or she missed and that the review panel missed it is apt to be discovered by other scientists that work in the same fields. Merely publishing and article does not mean that one is right. It only means that one is not obviously wrong.
 

jonathan180iq

Well-Known Member
Most Creationists believe that if you accept what science says about evolution, that means you can't believe in God because God created everything. How would you answer that from a rational, scientific perspective?

So far as anyone has ever seen, and the long history of human kind has ever observed, God has always created things through natural processes...
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Most Creationists believe that if you accept what science says about evolution, that means you can't believe in God because God created everything. How would you answer that from a rational, scientific perspective?
God may be the ultimate creator. The fact of evolution does not refute God. It only refutes incorrect versions of "God". For example most Christians do accept evolution. It does not refute the Christian God. The problem is usually lies in one's own interpretation of one's holy books.

For example even creationists will admit that Flat Earthers are wrong. Many Flat Earthers come to that belief by a very literal interpretation of the Bible. Does the fact that the Earth is an oblate spheroid refute God? I hope that no one said "Yes". It only refutes an incorrect interpretation of God. Just as if God made the world and the evidence from studying the Earth shows that it is not flat, the evidence from studying the Earth tell us that life is the product of evolution. Genesis works as fable. It does not work as history. It still is a valid book as allegory, fable, and other religious narratives that teach a lesson.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Could you please explain what a scientific theory is and how that is different from the common usage of theory?
A scientific theory starts out as a hypothesis. But it has grown from there. It starts out as a testable idea that is confirmed. If an idea is refuted it is no longer a theory or a hypothesis. A theory often arises out of an amalgamation of various hypotheses that all describe an aspect of a specific subject.

A scientific theory is an idea that covers a fairly broad idea. It has to be testable. It has to have passed many tests and not have had any major failures (minor failures will result in adjusting the theory and is not that big of a problem). It still needs to be testable even after it passes those tests.

In other words a scientific theory has to be about as close being a fact as possible. But it is still treated as being only provisionally true.

In the colloquial sense when one says "I have a theory" they often mean just a guess that is supported somewhat by circumstantial evidence. Anyone that uses the phase "evolution is only a theory" has conflated the two usages and in effect loses the debate by demonstrating that they have no understanding of even the basics of science.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
And one more basic concept that must be understood before specific questions about evolution are answered.

The concept of evidence. Another way that those opposing evolution immediately lose the argument is to claim "There is no evidence for evolution." This is a clear falsehood. They are usually not lying because they do not understand the concept of evidence. Scientists recognized a long time ago that they are humans too and have the same flaws that all of us do. Far too often those opposing a scientific idea will claim "There is no evidence." To combat this scientists have a very clear definition of scientific evidence. I like to use Wikipedia for tis, but the definition can be found on all sorts of scientific websites:

Scientific evidence is evidence that serves to either support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis. Such evidence is expected to be empirical evidence and interpretable in accordance with scientific method.

The first sentence is enough, but I wanted to tie into the scientific method so I kept goind.

When an observation is presented and is claimed to be scientific evidence one only needs to ask and answer to questions:

First is the idea even testable? Is there some sort of observation that would refute it? If the answer is yes then the next question is "Does this observation support the idea?" In other words is it what the idea predicts? Is it harmonious with the hypothesis? If the answer is yes then it is scientific evidence for the idea.

I am sure that I will be referring back to this many times as questions are asked.
 

Justanatheist

Well-Known Member
Here is how Scientific American explain it, I think this is one of the simplest and best explanations I have seen.

Part of the problem is that the word "theory" means something very different in lay language than it does in science: A scientific theory is an explanation of some aspect of the natural world that has been substantiated through repeated experiments or testing. But to the average Jane or Joe, a theory is just an idea that lives in someone's head, rather than an explanation rooted in experiment and testing.
"Just a Theory": 7 Misused Science Words
 

It Aint Necessarily So

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Most Creationists believe that if you accept what science says about evolution, that means you can't believe in God because God created everything. How would you answer that from a rational, scientific perspective?

Answer what? That is a statement of belief. What do you say to somebody with such beliefs except that that's not what you believe, and often, not even that? "OK" is enough.

If he asks why he should believe what I believe, my answer would be that you already would if you hadn't chosen to believe in creationism without sufficient evidentiary reason.

But if he asked me why I believed it, then I could give him an answer, but it would be one that would have no effect on his beliefs, and thus be of no value to him.

I frequently post this (or something like this - over a dozen times now on this site alone, such as here If Theory of Darwin is fact, not theory, then Darwin Theory is wrong in its title already?), which explains why I believe what I do rather than what the creationist believes, but it simply never makes any positive impact. I've never once gotten any kind of answer (if you're a creationist, perhaps you can try), so I consider the task of discussing this matter with a creationist a pointless effort unless there are other kinds of people reading along. :

The theory of biological evolution unifies mountains of data from a multitude of sources, accurately makes predictions about what can and cannot be found in nature, provides a rational mechanism for evolution consistent with the known actions of nature, accounts for both the commonality of all life as well as biodiversity, and has had practical applications that have improved the human condition in areas like medicine and agriculture.

By contrast, its only alternative, creationism, can do none of that. It is a useless and sterile idea. Even if it were true, it remains a useless idea.

Why would anybody trade an idea that does so much for one that does so little?
 
Last edited:

Yerda

Veteran Member
One thing that crops up over and over is how evolution by natural selection could ever lead to large physiological differences over time. Most creationists seem happy enough to accept that each species can differ over time as they become better suited to the environments they find themselves in. They tend to be less credulous when it is suggested that these little changes can add up to "macro-evolution" over large time periods.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
One thing that crops up over and over is how evolution by natural selection could ever lead to large physiological differences over time. Most creationists seem happy enough to accept that each species can differ over time as they become better suited to the environments they find themselves in. They tend to be less credulous when it is suggested that these little changes can add up to "macro-evolution" over large time periods.
This is usually because they want to believe their myths. It is very easy to convince people that want to know. It can be impossible to convince those that want to believe.
 

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
Here is how Scientific American explain it, I think this is one of the simplest and best explanations I have seen.

Part of the problem is that the word "theory" means something very different in lay language than it does in science: A scientific theory is an explanation of some aspect of the natural world that has been substantiated through repeated experiments or testing. But to the average Jane or Joe, a theory is just an idea that lives in someone's head, rather than an explanation rooted in experiment and testing.
"Just a Theory": 7 Misused Science Words

One word that wasn't on the list of misused science words was the word "fact," which I've noticed causes some consternation in discussions about the Theory of Evolution. One thing I learned about science in these discussions is that science has a different understanding and interpretation of the word "fact" that may not be in line with how most laypeople would see it.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
One word that wasn't on the list of misused science words was the word "fact," which I've noticed causes some consternation in discussions about the Theory of Evolution. One thing I learned about science in these discussions is that science has a different understanding and interpretation of the word "fact" that may not be in line with how most laypeople would see it.
Good point. This is a useful article:

Definitions of Fact, Theory, and Law in Scientific Work | National Center for Science Education

  • Fact: In science, an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as “true.” Truth in science, however, is never final and what is accepted as a fact today may be modified or even discarded tomorrow.
On a related note this is why creationist sources tend to be useless in a scientific debate. They disqualify themselves from the discussion as sources since they require their employees to swear to avoid using the scientific method.
 

Evangelicalhumanist

"Truth" isn't a thing...
Premium Member
This is not a thread for debate but rather for education on the topic of evolution, and other sciences. I see far too many creationists that rely far too often on misinformation to attempt to argue against evolution. You cannot refute an idea by using a false version of it.

An analogy that our Christian members should be able to appreciate: I cannot refute Christianity by insisting that nailing your friend to a tree never results in him coming back from being dead. That is a rather extreme strawman of Christian beliefs but it is no worse than many of the arguments against evolution.

You can ask questions here. I will be posting some basics of science and work up from there. This is not a debate thread. Participation is welcomed.
I may well like to contribute, as I find time (need time, because science requires a little more care than the usual off-the-cuff commentary).

But for now, let me just say "thank you" for starting the thread, and for being willing to educate.
 

Jeremiah Ames

Well-Known Member
This is not a thread for debate but rather for education on the topic of evolution, and other sciences. I see far too many creationists that rely far too often on misinformation to attempt to argue against evolution. You cannot refute an idea by using a false version of it.

An analogy that our Christian members should be able to appreciate: I cannot refute Christianity by insisting that nailing your friend to a tree never results in him coming back from being dead. That is a rather extreme strawman of Christian beliefs but it is no worse than many of the arguments against evolution.

You can ask questions here. I will be posting some basics of science and work up from there. This is not a debate thread. Participation is welcomed.

great thread

going to go meditate on it
 

Evangelicalhumanist

"Truth" isn't a thing...
Premium Member
One thing that crops up over and over is how evolution by natural selection could ever lead to large physiological differences over time. Most creationists seem happy enough to accept that each species can differ over time as they become better suited to the environments they find themselves in. They tend to be less credulous when it is suggested that these little changes can add up to "macro-evolution" over large time periods.

This is usually because they want to believe their myths. It is very easy to convince people that want to know. It can be impossible to convince those that want to believe.
Actually, I think a large part of this issue is just a failure of imagination -- an inability to see a great deal of data "in one's mind" at a time.

Look at a 2 hour movie, in which 172,800 frames are shown, one at a time, very quickly (24 per second). Look carefully at the celluloid film itself, and you'll find that one picture is just about indistinguishable from the next. But clearly the end of the film doesn't look anything at all like the beginning!
 
Top