If Evolution is Not True...

[Tomyris]

What if geocentrism is true?

Geocentrism is true. We can define the coordinate system however we please, and placing 0,0,0 at Earth's centroid of mass is both socially virtuous and has certain advantages in a universe of varying volume as a function of time.

 

[Polymath257]

Geocentrism is true. We can define the coordinate system however we please, and placing 0,0,0 at Earth's centroid of mass is both socially virtuous and has certain advantages in a universe of varying volume as a function of time.

On the contrary, the fact that the Earth is a very non-inertial reference frame causes a host of problems in explanation and social perception.

 

[Tomyris]

On the contrary, the fact that the Earth is a very non-inertial reference frame causes a host of problems in explanation and social perception.

I don't really think envisioning the rest of the universe as a dynamic system around the Earth is an explanation problem. And socially it supports a sense of rootedness and connect to the planet. The idea of Earth as a replaceable rock of multitudes has gotten us in trouble in terms of the environmental disrespect leading to the present crisis of rapid climate change. A geocentric cosmology might at least be useful in that regard and there's nothing wrong with one. Unless, of course, your objective is to indoctrinate the population in scientific materialism rather than to simply understand reliable theories of natural function in the observed world. The former is hurt by a geocentric coordinate system, the later is indifferent to it.

 

[Polymath257]

I don't really think envisioning the rest of the universe as a dynamic system around the Earth is an explanation problem. And socially it supports a sense of rootedness and connect to the planet. The idea of Earth as a replaceable rock of multitudes has gotten us in trouble in terms of the environmental disrespect leading to the present crisis of rapid climate change. A geocentric cosmology might at least be useful in that regard and there's nothing wrong with one. Unless, of course, your objective is to indoctrinate the population in scientific materialism rather than to simply understand reliable theories of natural function in the observed world. The former is hurt by a geocentric coordinate system, the later is indifferent to it.

I am interested in having a consistent description of the universe that is as simple as possible while being testable and predictive. A geocentric coordinate system fails in that miserably.

The Earth is a *very* small part of the universe as a whole. It is good for us to keep that in perspective.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

The Evolution debate goes on forever, of course, and I strongly doubt that either side will ever stand down. Each side for their own reasons, of course (for better or worse)!

But for this one thread, let's just assume that Evolution is not true, that Darwin was wrong, that species cannot give rise to other species, that non-life cannot give rise to life (abiogenesis, which is of course not part of Darwin's theory, but let's allow it in for this one thread).

There are, as one might expect, consequences that can be understood if this is the case. Most obviously, life had to have been either created, or always have existed -- those are the only two possibilities. This would also be entirely true of every species of life, if we accept that one species cannot give rise to another -- that (as I've heard approximately a zillion times to often!) "cat's can't turn into dogs!" (Which of course is also not part of evolution, but one can't expect understanding from everybody, can one?)

So what kinds of things must we assume, if Evolution is not true?

1. That every species known was created
2. That there was either one or more creators at work
3. If there were more than one creator, they each shared equivalent creative abilities
4. That they either created for a purpose (they had a reason for doing it) or they didn't

There are, of course, many more, but these will do for now.

Let us now look at the causes of polio and smallpox, which have both been eradicated in the most of the first world, along with a host of horrible other creatures, from amoebae to revolting parasites.

If polio and smallpox were created (as they must have been if evolution [and abiogenesis] is false), and if they were created with a purpose -- then the first world effort of the last century to eradicate them in the first world, and the present effort to eradicate them everywhere, is an attempt by humans to thwart that purpose. If the creator in question is "God," as usually defined in the Abrahamic religions, how do we justify trying to defeat the Creator's (God's) purpose? Are we capable of determining that that purpose was wrong? Is the World Health Organization (WHO) the enemy of at least some of God's purposes on earth?

There'll be more, but I'll leave it there for now...looking forward to responses.

"What if evolution wasn't true" is a great idea for some type of fantasy fiction, but not as a serious philosophical question. Kind of like "what if magic was real and there was a school called Hogwarts where children went to learn about it?"

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Well, there is one problem, if we magically discover evolution isn't true.

That would mean that some other mechanism is the truth-- in spite of mountains of evidence that only seems to show evolution.

So the question becomes: why? What sort of agency would deliberately and with malice, fabricate reality such that it only seems like life evolved?

What is the purpose of deliberately misleading the best thinkers of all humanity like that?

Robert Heinlein's Short Story, "They" expounds on this quite well, better than I could.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

The Evolution debate goes on forever, of course, and I strongly doubt that either side will ever stand down. Each side for their own reasons, of course (for better or worse)!

But for this one thread, let's just assume that Evolution is not true, that Darwin was wrong, that species cannot give rise to other species, that non-life cannot give rise to life (abiogenesis, which is of course not part of Darwin's theory, but let's allow it in for this one thread).

There are, as one might expect, consequences that can be understood if this is the case. Most obviously, life had to have been either created, or always have existed -- those are the only two possibilities. This would also be entirely true of every species of life, if we accept that one species cannot give rise to another -- that (as I've heard approximately a zillion times to often!) "cat's can't turn into dogs!" (Which of course is also not part of evolution, but one can't expect understanding from everybody, can one?)

So what kinds of things must we assume, if Evolution is not true?

1. That every species known was created
2. That there was either one or more creators at work
3. If there were more than one creator, they each shared equivalent creative abilities
4. That they either created for a purpose (they had a reason for doing it) or they didn't

There are, of course, many more, but these will do for now.

Let us now look at the causes of polio and smallpox, which have both been eradicated in the most of the first world, along with a host of horrible other creatures, from amoebae to revolting parasites.

If polio and smallpox were created (as they must have been if evolution [and abiogenesis] is false), and if they were created with a purpose -- then the first world effort of the last century to eradicate them in the first world, and the present effort to eradicate them everywhere, is an attempt by humans to thwart that purpose. If the creator in question is "God," as usually defined in the Abrahamic religions, how do we justify trying to defeat the Creator's (God's) purpose? Are we capable of determining that that purpose was wrong? Is the World Health Organization (WHO) the enemy of at least some of God's purposes on earth?

There'll be more, but I'll leave it there for now...looking forward to responses.

I'm not so pessimistic, the side that supported the academic consensus of static universes and classical physics disappeared eventually, even if many never stood down.. as Planck said, science does not progress by changing scientists minds, but when they eventually die and new ones grow up open to new ideas


Likewise, as we progress beyond Darwinism, everything that's actually scientific about natural history remains,

It means that everything in the fossil record can finally be accepted at face value, with no need for infinite artistic impressions of hypothetical transitionals, and excuses for why they were never found

We can also assume that the development of life merely continues by the same mechanism as the physical reality which so specifically supports it- i.e. according to predetermined plans, not random luck.

We no longer have to pretend that 'junk DNA' is devoid of useful information, and can begin to investigate deeper into those preexisting blueprints for life, just as we did physics

As for all those dreaded theistic implications.. don't worry

Again we have seen this all before, that's why the Big Bang and Quantum mechanics was so uncomfortable for many, because of what they feared as the implications of a creation event and mysterious underlying guiding forces, and fine tuning

The odds of physical reality accidentally designing itself are already so absurdly long, that infinite probability machines are now proposed as the only way left to try to explain it without creative intelligence!

If people can believe in such an explanation for the fine tuning and predetermination of physics, why not biology?

i.e.. nobody will be forced to accept a creator, that is always as it should be, a matter of personal faith, and the sooner people accept this the sooner we can progress beyond a Victorian age model of life. It's too interesting a question to be so held back by dogma

 

[Guy Threepwood]

.

So the question becomes: why? What sort of agency would deliberately and with malice, fabricate reality such that it only seems like life evolved?
.

Speak for yourself, most people never believed evolution did they?

 

[Ralphg]

Let us now look at the causes of polio and smallpox, which have both been eradicated in the most of the first world, along with a host of horrible other creatures, from amoebae to revolting parasites.

If polio and smallpox were created (as they must have been if evolution [and abiogenesis] is false), and if they were created with a purpose -- then the first world effort of the last century to eradicate them in the first world, and the present effort to eradicate them everywhere, is an attempt by humans to thwart that purpose. If the creator in question is "God," as usually defined in the Abrahamic religions, how do we justify trying to defeat the Creator's (God's) purpose? Are we capable of determining that that purpose was wrong? Is the World Health Organization (WHO) the enemy of at least some of God's purposes on earth?.

Diseases are 'men-made' (you'll need a bunch of collaborating witches for it though). I've caused a couple of them ('caught' most of 'm back to myself,... thank me). I wouldn't mind if you (mankind) would find a way to cure them. You think some messed-up piece of royalty that died maybe thousands of years ago would mind you're curing one of his screwed-up experiments?

This is how I think about 'evolution back-to-the-bone'. I do support scientific research into it in all forms (but don't hurt anyone!) but in the end I already know that THAT 'Backdoor' is closed for sure.

 

[james bond]

The big point I'm trying to make is why don't you replace evolutionary thinking with naturalistic thinking? It seems that's better than these evolution evidence that were made to fit the theory instead of the the evidence to fit the theories.

 

[1robin]

The Evolution debate goes on forever, of course, and I strongly doubt that either side will ever stand down. Each side for their own reasons, of course (for better or worse)!

But for this one thread, let's just assume that Evolution is not true, that Darwin was wrong, that species cannot give rise to other species, that non-life cannot give rise to life (abiogenesis, which is of course not part of Darwin's theory, but let's allow it in for this one thread).

There are, as one might expect, consequences that can be understood if this is the case. Most obviously, life had to have been either created, or always have existed -- those are the only two possibilities. This would also be entirely true of every species of life, if we accept that one species cannot give rise to another -- that (as I've heard approximately a zillion times to often!) "cat's can't turn into dogs!" (Which of course is also not part of evolution, but one can't expect understanding from everybody, can one?)

So what kinds of things must we assume, if Evolution is not true?

1. That every species known was created
2. That there was either one or more creators at work
3. If there were more than one creator, they each shared equivalent creative abilities
4. That they either created for a purpose (they had a reason for doing it) or they didn't

There are, of course, many more, but these will do for now.

Let us now look at the causes of polio and smallpox, which have both been eradicated in the most of the first world, along with a host of horrible other creatures, from amoebae to revolting parasites.

If polio and smallpox were created (as they must have been if evolution [and abiogenesis] is false), and if they were created with a purpose -- then the first world effort of the last century to eradicate them in the first world, and the present effort to eradicate them everywhere, is an attempt by humans to thwart that purpose. If the creator in question is "God," as usually defined in the Abrahamic religions, how do we justify trying to defeat the Creator's (God's) purpose? Are we capable of determining that that purpose was wrong? Is the World Health Organization (WHO) the enemy of at least some of God's purposes on earth?

There'll be more, but I'll leave it there for now...looking forward to responses.

You seem to be arguing Christianity abolishes evolution, and if evolution never occurred then we have a bunch of things for which no good explanation exists. Well you got started on the wrong track and so I imagine everything that followed eventually lost sight of the track all together.

The bible says that things change after their kind. There is some debate over what a kind is but a good definition to start with would be things that can breed. IOW God created an archetype dog (I have no idea how many) which changed over time but remained dogs regardless of what arbitrary taxonomy we impose on the animal kingdom.

So the bible has been interpreted as "promoting" microevolution. BTW it was interpreted that way hundreds of years before Darwin ever appeared on the scene. Read Augustine or the Cabalists. The microevolution the bible "proposed" 3000 years ago is the only evolution that has ever been observed. Macro evolution has never been observed, it is faith based. The bible also accounted for germ theory thousands of years before doctors killed hundreds of thousands during the civil war by spreading disease, germs, and infections. Just a casual read of the Pentateuch could have saved millions from the most "learned" men of each generation.

 

[james bond]

>>
So what kinds of things must we assume, if Evolution is not true?

1. That every species known was created
2. That there was either one or more creators at work
3. If there were more than one creator, they each shared equivalent creative abilities
4. That they either created for a purpose (they had a reason for doing it) or they didn't

<<

>>life had to have been either created, or always have existed -- those are the only two possibilities.<<

This is what I thought, too, but let's review. The two big keystones of old evolutionary thinking is the process of natural selection and common descent. The big part of natural selection is the mutation event which creates a new species.

What do we find for these species when we look at it from the view of common descent? We find missing links. There lies the rub if you believe in common descent. Instead, what does the evidence of missing links tell us? It could be telling us there were mutation events that occurred to change one species into another. What could be a naturalist cause for this? If you can't think of any that can occur naturally, then some kind of creation event occurred.

 

[Tomyris]

I am interested in having a consistent description of the universe that is as simple as possible while being testable and predictive. A geocentric coordinate system fails in that miserably.

The Earth is a *very* small part of the universe as a whole. It is good for us to keep that in perspective.

People capable of appreciating the universe can appreciate a dynamic one around the Earth. Most of the universe is dynamic around Galactic or Supergalactic coordinate systems anyway. Human Life and in fact our ecological systems are special, and it's worthwhile to preserve a universal conception which values that.

 

[Polymath257]

People capable of appreciating the universe can appreciate a dynamic one around the Earth. Most of the universe is dynamic around Galactic or Supergalactic coordinate systems anyway. Human Life and in fact our ecological systems are special, and it's worthwhile to preserve a universal conception which values that.

I disagree. One of the things we realize when we look at the universe is just how small and insignificant the Earth (and we, ourselves) are. If anything, this points to the essential aspect that, to survive, we must take care of this dust speck we call the Earth.

 

[Tomyris]

I disagree. One of the things we realize when we look at the universe is just how small and insignificant the Earth (and we, ourselves) are. If anything, this points to the essential aspect that, to survive, we must take care of this dust speck we call the Earth.

Well, I think that's true for highly educated scientists, but not the average person, who can only experience truth through art. The issue becomes more apparent with evolution. It's not the observations of hereditary and change I disagree with (tho' the field is certainly incomplete), but rather the notion that the way it is packaged into the Theory of Evolution is the sole, correct and only legitimate way to view those observations. The issue is not the fact that hundreds of thousands of years ago our nearest relatives were nonhuman beings, but rather the cultural implicit of a theory of Darwinian sexual selection that packages those observations.

 

[Ralphg]

I think technically there's only 1 missing 'event' that really matters: The event where a universe with only material/non-living objects in it turned into a universe with 'a pulse'. How did the first living creature came to be? I'm pretty sure materials are 'older' than life .

It's even pretty easy to understand that 'material' has been around forever (and I mean that literally, forever and ever. ...and it's still all here....of late it's probably kinda not 'blossoming' to it's max potential though,... but it's still all here........... Why it doesn't max it's potential, you ask?.........hmm........humans....))

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

It means that everything in the fossil record can finally be accepted at face value, with no need for infinite artistic impressions of hypothetical transitionals, and excuses for why they were never found

Actually? All fossils are transitional-- without a single exception, they each and every one are transitional.

This is because no species is ever static-- all species are transitioning from one form to the next-- sometimes the differences are too subtle for gross anatomy to visualize, but transitioning they are.

If you could magic up a Time Machine and take modern humans backwards in time? They could not mate with their distant ancestors--- genetic incompatibility would give you sterile results, or if it got that far, dead babies.

There are no "missing transitionals"-- and no need for excuses as you claim, here.

I should have quit reading your blather the first time you used the very idiotic term "darwinism".....!

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Speak for yourself, most people never believed evolution did they?

What? Nobody believes in evolution you silly person!

You either understand it-- or you do not.

I'm going to presume you are as clueless with your "understanding" of evolution as you are with everything else...

 

[Polymath257]

Well, I think that's true for highly educated scientists, but not the average person, who can only experience truth through art. The issue becomes more apparent with evolution. It's not the observations of hereditary and change I disagree with (tho' the field is certainly incomplete), but rather the notion that the way it is packaged into the Theory of Evolution is the sole, correct and only legitimate way to view those observations. The issue is not the fact that hundreds of thousands of years ago our nearest relatives were nonhuman beings, but rather the cultural implicit of a theory of Darwinian sexual selection that packages those observations.

Well, sexual selection is *one* type of selection. It certainly isn't the only way that things can evolve, nor was it claimed to be so by Darwin.

That said, differential reproduction *is* the mechanism of speciation. I'm not sure what the cultural aspects are or why they might be relevant to the science.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

My understanding is that Satan does have the ability to sway or affect.....in that Satan brings 'woe' to Earth according to Revelation 12:9,12 deceiving or misleading the world world of mankind.
Just as in Eden, Satan could have used that serpent as a ventriloquist uses a dummy.
So, Satan is a behind the scenes Puppeteer influencing people.
The 'spirit of the world' even pervades the air waves (TV/Radio, etc.) which often reflects the mind of Satan.

Well, I find this rather difficult to credit. Consider God's servant Job: Satan could do nothing to Job until granted permission by God (Job 1:12). If, without God's permission, Satan could not undo God's blessings to Job, then likewise he should not be able to sway or affect anything else made by God -- without God's permission.

And all the TV and Radio that I've ever heard or seen has been the creative work of producers, directors, actors, technicians and the like -- who all get credit and sometimes awards. Satan gets neither.