What is Evolution? Lets define it

[Dan From Smithville]

I had thought it was already well established that viral DNA has become incorporated into the genome of organisms.

There is nothing about this that would invalidate the principle of Darwinian evolution, so far as I can see. It would simply represent one of the mechanisms by which variation is introduced into a population, surely? Darwin simply observed that variation occurs. He made no stipulations as to how it takes place. There seem to be several mechanisms.

As for a "materialist paradigm" in science, there is certainly a constraint in science that it seeks explanations of natural phenomena in terms of nature, rather than in terms of supernatural influence. But that has always been and will always be true of science: it is intrinsic to it.

It's an irony that many creationists will name science or more frequently specific fields of science as religion. Then they turn around and complain because science doesn't address issues of the supernatural.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

You know perfectly well the whole science community disagrees with your views. Don't be disingenuous. Furthermore, just about anyone with a science education disagrees.

What baffles me about posts like yours is what you think goes on in science. Do you really think that a theory like that of evolution has no evidence to support it?

It seems to me that someone who thinks that must believe in a massive conspiracy theory, by which the whole world has been brainwashed, for some undisclosed reason, into believing a theory that is merely "speculative", i.e. lacks corroborating evidence. Is that what you think? If not, how do you account for the universal adoption of this theory by the science community? Is everyone just stupid?

This was well put. I like how you boiled down a view that I encounter constantly.

 

[gnostic]

That is not what I am doing. Creationists very often try to move the goal posts. That is a dishonest debating technique. I have found the best way to shut that down is to point out that it is an admission that they were wrong in their earlier claims. Otherwise what they do is tend to move the posts until one says "I don't know" and they take that as "proof" of God. It is a detestable tactic and needs to be sat on when it arises.

Or the use of circular "reasoning".

Or making claims of supernatural or miracle, and expecting anyone disagreeing with them “to prove me wrong”.

That is certainly not how science work.

Any scientist formulating his or her hypothesis, must not only explain their preliminary observations and make predictions of probable outcome, the scientist must test them, whether it be “discovering” evidences or perform x-number of experiments that verify his or her hypothesis.

A scientist who cannot demonstrate his or her hypothesis is testable, then that scientist should consider to be debunked and throw it out.

Untestable hypotheses are unfalsifiable, and therefore unscientific.

Michael Behe should have long thrown his paper on Irreducible Complexity in the trash bin, as it was unfalsifiable and untestable. Irreducible Complexity is only kept alive because of bunch of creationists from the Discovery Institute bankrolled his pseudoscience, so he supported Intelligent Design. Bebe is a disgrace to his profession.

Any scientist who makes statements must backed it with evidences.

So any religious people who make claim, should be able to provide evidences to support their belief. The burden of proof lie with them.

A person who assert without evidences can be dismissed without evidences.

 

[Bear Wild]

Thanks for the clarification. My understanding of natural selection is the whole of the abiotic and biotic environment, including the internal environment of the organisms other members of the population and all the predators, parasites, pathogens, etc.

Would agree with you.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

As many of you have noticed evolution is an "umbrella word" which means that it has many definitions. In the context of biology it usually means one of three things.

1 that organisms change and adapt

2 that we all share a common ancestor

3 that Darwinian mechanisms (mutations, natural selection, sexual selection, genetic drift etc) can account for all the diversity and complexity of life.

Note that all these 3 points are independent from each other. Disproving any of them would not disprove the other two and proving one wouldn't prove the other 2.

Number 1 is obviously true, no controversy, not even the most concervative YEC woukd deny it

Number 2 if I where to bet I would probably say that it is true, but there is room for reasonable doubt. The evidence for universal common ancestor is very strong and the model is simple and elegant. But there are a few bits of evidence against it.

Number 3 is a highly speculative and controversial hypothesis. Evudence strongly suggest that it is probably wrong.


These are my views, I am just wondering if anyone who disagrees would like to have dialogue with me.

Regarding #3, you are not making room for Theistic Evolutionary thought.

The evidence against #3 is NOT strong, I would disagree with you there. But intuitively there just seems too be something about the answer that is off, lf. It's like when you multiply 34x7 and get 7 million something. It's just an unreasonable answer -- you know you did something wrong in your calculations.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Regarding #3, you are not making room for Theistic Evolutionary thought.

The evidence against #3 is NOT strong, I would disagree with you there. But intuitively there just seems too be something about the answer that is off, lf. It's like when you multiply 34x7 and get 7 million something. It's just an unreasonable answer -- you know you did something wrong in your calculations.

what makes you think that the theory of evolution has serious problems?

 

[exchemist]

Regarding #3, you are not making room for Theistic Evolutionary thought.

The evidence against #3 is NOT strong, I would disagree with you there. But intuitively there just seems too be something about the answer that is off, lf. It's like when you multiply 34x7 and get 7 million something. It's just an unreasonable answer -- you know you did something wrong in your calculations.

There seems to be something intuitively "off" about quantum theory too. But all the considerable evidence is that it is indeed how nature behaves at the atomic scale. Ditto for relativity, which seems quite mad when you first encounter it. So intuition can be a fairly unreliable guide in modern science. In the end you have to follow what the observations tell you.

For some reason, due to certain people's religious belief, they affect to pretend that evolution is somehow in a different category from quantum theory or relativity. But it isn't. The phenomenon of rejection of evolution is a religious issue, not a scientific one at all.

And yet, in discussion after discussion, all we talk about is the science. What we should be probing is what it is about certain people's religious convictions that makes them want evolution to be wrong. There is far more to this than simple-minded biblical literalism.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

what makes you think that the theory of evolution has serious problems?

Where did I say the TOE had serious problems? I said the opposite.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Where did I say the TOE had serious problems? I said the opposite.

Sorry, I must have misunderstood you.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

There seems to be something intuitively "off" about quantum theory too. But all the considerable evidence is that it is indeed how nature behaves at the atomic scale. Ditto for relativity, which seems quite mad when you first encounter it. So intuition can be a fairly unreliable guide in modern science. In the end you have to follow what the observations tell you.

For some reason, due to certain people's religious belief, they affect to pretend that evolution is somehow in a different category from quantum theory or relativity. But it isn't. The phenomenon of rejection of evolution is a religious issue, not a scientific one at all.

And yet, in discussion after discussion, all we talk about is the science. What we should be probing is what it is about certain people's religious convictions that makes them want evolution to be wrong. There is far more to this than simple-minded biblical literalism.

I, however, don't mind evolution being right. Even if its totally naturalistic evolution and not theistic evolution, God is the author of the laws of nature. There simply is no threat, no contradiction. One should always go with science, as God gave us our minds to use, and all truth belongs to Him.

 

[exchemist]

I, however, don't mind evolution being right. Even if its totally naturalistic evolution and not theistic evolution, God is the author of the laws of nature. There simply is no threat, no contradiction. One should always go with science, as God gave us our minds to use, and all truth belongs to Him.

Well exactly.

It has always seemed to me unsatisfactory that God should have to tinker under the bonnet of His creation all time, as if it were a bad 1970s car.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I, however, don't mind evolution being right. Even if its totally naturalistic evolution and not theistic evolution, God is the author of the laws of nature. There simply is no threat, no contradiction. One should always go with science, as God gave us our minds to use, and all truth belongs to Him.

I don't like one of the alternatives. That God placed all this evidence to trick us. It doesn't make sense for one thing. It opposes what we know for another.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Well exactly.

It has always seemed to me unsatisfactory that God should have to tinker under the bonnet of His creation all time, as if it were a bad 1970s car.

I have in my extended family people who are non-commital, converts to Christianity who are young Earth Creationists, and monotheists who accept a completely naturalistic form of evolution. When I was a kid, I pretty much believed a literal telling of Genesis, but going to the university and taking anthropology cured that. I've always felt the freedom to go with the evidence. Switching to evolution was very drastic--it meant a major realignment of thought, but when the dust settled, God was still around.

I wish Christians would stop depicting evolution as an atheist philosophy.

 

[exchemist]

I have in my extended family people who are non-commital, converts to Christianity who are young Earth Creationists, and monotheists who accept a completely naturalistic form of evolution. When I was a kid, I pretty much believed a literal telling of Genesis, but going to the university and taking anthropology cured that. I've always felt the freedom to go with the evidence. Switching to evolution was very drastic--it meant a major realignment of thought, but when the dust settled, God was still around.

I wish Christians would stop depicting evolution as an atheist philosophy.

Amen to that. But bear in mind most Christians don't. It is only these ghastly US Bible Belt Baptists and 7th Day Adventists.

I was lucky enough to have a mother who was both a committed Anglican and an English teacher. She knew what allegory was, and thus so did I. And so did my Catholic father (a convert from Methodism). I went through 4 years of a chemistry degree without being troubled at all by any conflict between Christianity and science. In fact, our first year quantum chemistry lecturer was Prof. Charles Coulson, who had been Chairman of the Methodists' Conference and reputedly is responsible for coining the term "The God of the Gaps": Charles Coulson - Wikipedia

It is this background that makes me so frustrated with creationism and, above all, its hideous and deceitful offshoot, "Intelligent Design".

 

[Audie]

creationism and, above all, its hideous and deceitful offshoot, "Intelligent Design".

Huh. And here I thought it was grim and unnatural.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

I don't like one of the alternatives. That God placed all this evidence to trick us. It doesn't make sense for one thing. It opposes what we know for another.

Who says there is a trick? The evidence doesn't lie. You simply have to believe it. The problem is that you don't accept the Creation myth for the genre that it is. You want to put it into the genre of history and science, which it isn't.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Amen to that. But bear in mind most Christians don't. It is only these ghastly US Bible Belt Baptists and 7th Day Adventists.

I was lucky enough to have a mother who was both a committed Anglican and an English teacher. She knew what allegory was, and thus so did I. And so did my Catholic father (a convert from Methodism). I went through 4 years of a chemistry degree without being troubled at all by any conflict between Christianity and science. In fact, our first year quantum chemistry lecturer was Prof. Charles Coulson, who had been Chairman of the Methodists' Conference and reputedly is responsible for coining the term "The God of the Gaps": Charles Coulson - Wikipedia

It is this background that makes me so frustrated with creationism and, above all, its hideous and deceitful offshoot, "Intelligent Design".

Wonderful!

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Who says there is a trick? The evidence doesn't lie. You simply have to believe it. The problem is that you don't accept the Creation myth for the genre that it is. You want to put it into the genre of history and science, which it isn't.

I'm not sure what you are trying to tell me. I don't consider the creation myth to be a literal event. I view it as an allegory.

The trick that most creationists would have to explain is the "trick of all the evidence" that does not support the creation story of the Bible or any creation story I am familiar with. Evidence that supports a completely different version of events. A version derived from observation and explanation through science.

Why, if the Bible is literal and that is how life and the universe originated, did God leave all this evidence that says otherwise for us to find? We would have to consider that God must be tricking us. This goes against the relationship between man and God that is established in the Bible. It is a paradox or a Catch-22 that cannot be simply ignored away.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

I'm not sure what you are trying to tell me. I don't consider the creation myth to be a literal event. I view it as an allegory.

The trick that most creationists would have to explain is the "trick of all the evidence" that does not support the creation story of the Bible or any creation story I am familiar with. Evidence that supports a completely different version of events. A version derived from observation and explanation through science.

Why, if the Bible is literal and that is how life and the universe originated, did God leave all this evidence that says otherwise for us to find? We would have to consider that God must be tricking us. This goes against the relationship between man and God that is established in the Bible. It is a paradox or a Catch-22 that cannot be simply ignored away.

Are you thinking I'm a creationist for some reason?

 

[exchemist]

Are you thinking I'm a creationist for some reason?

I think it was your reply in post 516 that is causing confusion. It confused me too. Dan's point, I think, was that a creationist has to believe God put the fossils in the rocks to fool the scientists, i.e. is playing a trick on humanity, and that is a good reason for dismissing creationism.

So I think you two are agreeing with each other.