Evolution and Science Acceptance

[lati0s]

We were getting off topic in the election thread so I decided to make this thread.

This thread is to discuss the theory of biological evolution and the implications of the controversy surrounding it. Some key questions to be considered here are:

Is the theory of evolution the best explain of biological diversity and the origin of the human species?

Is it reasonable to allow a candidates views on evolution to affect your vote?

Can the theory of evolution be reconciled with religious beliefs?

 

[popemobile]

Is the theory of evolution the best explain of biological diversity and the origin of the human species?

Is it reasonable to allow a candidates views on evolution to affect your vote?

Can the theory of evolution be reconciled with religious beliefs?

1. it's the only one

2. yes, not only because it can confirm the ignorance of a candidate but also it generally falls in line with a lot of other ignorant positions on issues

3. only at the expense of religious beliefs

 

[zpattack12]

1. it's the only one

2. yes, not only because it can confirm the ignorance of a candidate but also it generally falls in line with a lot of other ignorant positions on issues

3. only at the expense of religious beliefs

Pretty much this.

 

[J-man]

No it's not. Fossils exist. When we analyze the fossils we see that they are indicative of evolution

http://creationwiki.org/Fossils_are_dated_from_strata;_strata_are_dated_from_fossils

When you analyze fossils, they are analyzed under the assumption of the evolutionary theory actually occuring to prove evolution exists.

Laboratory experiments have allowed us to observe speciation in some animals. There have also been experiments that have shown some species changing over time to adapt to their environment.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolution_experiment
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciation

Oh dear... Whatever shall I do? Natural selection occurs! That's it! I'm broke... You win...

What? DNA is probably the strongest evidence for evolution.

this video shows one way that DNA gives evidence for evolution http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T7HBMWfRqSA

The origin of the information of DNA and how DNA came about is one of the largest obstacles for evolution to overcome. It is largely speculative and the "evolution of the gaps" fallacy is often invoked.

No. My worldview is based upon drawing the best possible conclusion from the evidence

I see we finally agree on something for once, even though you tried to contradict me on the issue...

--------------------------
1. What do you mean by "evolution"? There are some blatantly obvious truths about this world that are constantly associated with the definition of evolution that I believe you are referring to. In retrospect, I believe that they are just blatantly obvious truths about this world that in no way shape or form threatens any other sensible and intelligent theory, such as creationism.

2. I do not believe it is reasonable. I believe we all have certain worldviews, a framework of how we make of this world and how we interpret this world. What I think you mean by evolution is an interpretation of how this world came about based upon naturalistic theory. I see things through a framework of world created by an intelligent designer (God). We both claim absolute truth but it is often impossible to argue against each other because we see things differently and both claim absolute truth. (as I pointed out in the election thread). Elected officials are appointed by the people to perform public policy, an area where we can actually observe and see results. I am more concerned what there stances on policy are than what there beliefs on the origin of the universe is.

3. It depends. It can not be reconciled with Christianity, otherwise you topple the authority of the Bible (which, to Christians, is the highest authority in our beliefs). I'm not an expert in the other religions, but as much as I know, they seem to be obscure enough to squeeze whatever observations contradict there claims of truth.

 

[lati0s]

When you analyze fossils, they are analyzed under the assumption of the evolutionary theory actually occuring to prove evolution exists.

It is true that now fossils are often analyzed under the assumption that evolution is true. This is because evolution is already an accepted fact so scientists analyzing fossils now are not looking for more evidence for evolution they are looking to learn more about the specifics of how evolution occurred.

This does not preclude fossils from being evidence for evolution though. Fossils do not have to be analyzed from the perspective of evolution being true. They can be analyzed from a neutral perspective. Analysis from this perspective shows that fossils exhibit gradual change over time as would be expected by evolution.

What? DNA is probably the strongest evidence for evolution.

this video shows one way that DNA gives evidence for evolution http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T7HBMWfRqSA

The origin of the information of DNA and how DNA came about is one of the largest obstacles for evolution to overcome. It is largely speculative and the "evolution of the gaps" fallacy is often invoked.

The origin of DNA is not something that the theory of evolution explains nor is it something that it attempts to explain. Evolution is not a theory which attempts to explain the origins of life it attempts to explain how life changes over time. The origin of DNA would be explained by theories of abiogenesis which is a different topic.

Did you watch the video? it's pretty good.

Is the theory of evolution the best explain of biological diversity and the origin of the human species?

Yes. For over 100 years the evidence for evolution is piling up. The opposition is not because of an inadequacies of evolution but is due to the reluctance of some of the religious to adapt their mindsets.

Is it reasonable to allow a candidates views on evolution to affect your vote?

Yes. Evolution may not be directly related to the issues of governance however given the strong scientific evidence for evolution one can be almost certain that a candidate that does not believe in evolution is either very ignorant or cares more about ideology and dogma than truth. That is definitely something to base a vote off of.

Can the theory of evolution be reconciled with religious beliefs?

Yes. Creationists often see the acceptance of evolution as entailing atheism but they fail to realize that worldwide the majority of Christians do accepts evolution and for most of them it doesn't affect their faith in the slightest.

 

[vonFiedler]

Ninja'd, was hoping to post this before religious folk got any atheists to speak for us (as they enjoy doing).

Before perpetuating the false dichotomy between religion and science further, please acquaint yourselves with The Clergy Letter Project, a project to support scientific literacy and elevate the quality of the debate regarding the issue. It is currently supported by almost 13,000 Christian clergymen, 500 Rabbis, and even about 25 Buddhists which is new since I last visited the project. This number is still rising. They also have annual Evolution conventions with the ongoing goal of increasing the quality of this discussion.

The letter itself, as far as the Christian one goes, is as follows;

Within the community of Christian believers there are areas of dispute and disagreement, including the proper way to interpret Holy Scripture. While virtually all Christians take the Bible seriously and hold it to be authoritative in matters of faith and practice, the overwhelming majority do not read the Bible literally, as they would a science textbook. Many of the beloved stories found in the Bible – the Creation, Adam and Eve, Noah and the ark – convey timeless truths about God, human beings, and the proper relationship between Creator and creation expressed in the only form capable of transmitting these truths from generation to generation. Religious truth is of a different order from scientific truth. Its purpose is not to convey scientific information but to transform hearts.

We the undersigned, Christian clergy from many different traditions, believe that the timeless truths of the Bible and the discoveries of modern science may comfortably coexist. We believe that the theory of evolution is a foundational scientific truth, one that has stood up to rigorous scrutiny and upon which much of human knowledge and achievement rests. To reject this truth or to treat it as “one theory among others” is to deliberately embrace scientific ignorance and transmit such ignorance to our children. We believe that among God’s good gifts are human minds capable of critical thought and that the failure to fully employ this gift is a rejection of the will of our Creator. To argue that God’s loving plan of salvation for humanity precludes the full employment of the God-given faculty of reason is to attempt to limit God, an act of hubris. We urge school board members to preserve the integrity of the science curriculum by affirming the teaching of the theory of evolution as a core component of human knowledge. We ask that science remain science and that religion remain religion, two very different, but complementary, forms of truth.

EDIT: J-man should probably acquaint himself with this too, in all fairness.

 

[popemobile]

if you want to get into the discussion of abiogenesis, a topic which I'm sure you have very little background on, please read this first before debating it.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/

 

[popemobile]

In retrospect, I believe that they are just blatantly obvious truths about this world that in no way shape or form threatens any other sensible and intelligent theory, such as creationism.

let's make this distinction early in this potentially long thread. In order for a theory to have any sense or credibility, it has to have evidence to support it. If you can provide one scientific, peer-reviewed study based upon observable evidence that supports creationism, it can be accepted as a sensible and intelligent theory with credibility.

go on, I'll wait.

 

[Princess Bubblegum]

A little off topid I use to be a fan of intelligent design for non-evolutionary answers (its pretty obvious that evolution is right). I use to think about think that the odds of Earth being in its current form were to small to reconcile with.

Then one day, I was curious and watched an anti-intelligent design video, I'm terrible with paraphrasing, but what changed my mind was this:

"Intelligent design starts like any good scientific theory, in the heart. A man look around and wonders, how is all this possible, isn't everything to perfect for it to just have happened by chance? This is a fine place to start, its the same place Newton started when an apple fell on his head, making him wonder why the moon doesn't fall to. The problem with intelligent design is, its stops their at the heart. Other scientific theories move onto the brain where they are examined, looked over, scrutinized. They go through the scientific method. This is the case for evolution. Intelligent design hasn't and can not be tested, its stops right at hypothesis, failing to go through any of the other scientific steps to become a real theory or a law."

 

[capefeather]

I don't care about the "science versus religion" bullshit. In fact, I doubt that even scientists who talk about religion a lot, like Richard Dawkins, truly care about it, either. What I do care about is when people spread blatant lies to force their opinions on other people. What I do care about is when people claim to be exercising skepticism but are really basing their "skepticism" on their existing absolute, immutable worldviews, rather than being properly skeptical of everything.

Is the theory of evolution the best explain of biological diversity and the origin of the human species?

The theory of evolution (actually, there isn't even "one" theory of evolution, as current evolutionary biology is very different from anything Charles Darwin imagined) is the best theory we have concerning such matters as biological diversity and the origin of humans. In specific terms, current evolutionary biology may not be "the best" explanation (actually it probably isn't and could be improved by more research and such but that's SCIENCE for you). Yet, it is so foundational in biology at this point that the "best" theory, if one can even talk about such a thing, is probably pretty damn close to current theory. Physical theories like general relativity are the same way.

Is it reasonable to allow a candidates views on evolution to affect your vote?

It's popular and reasonable for people to look at issues like this and think, "I don't care about all that stuff, just talk about issues that are relevant to me, like the economy and health care." Yet, I still believe that these issues are very important. Politicians can make eloquent speeches all they want about how great their plans for the economy, health care, education etc. are. The fact is that every conclusion eventually follows from a set of fundamental beliefs, which may be incompatible with my beliefs. The fact is, I'm simply not going to trust education, health care, or even the economy to a party that puts people who are deeply hostile to science in the Congress science committee. I just cannot see that kind of thing as being in the best interests of the people. Somebody should really get up and say, "Enough is enough. Let's abandon the extremists and the polarization and get back to a government that actually works for the people."

Can the theory of evolution be reconciled with religious beliefs?

Like I said, I don't really care about this. They probably can be reconciled. Just don't force them to.

 

[vonFiedler]

"Intelligent design starts like any good scientific theory, in the heart. A man look around and wonders, how is all this possible, isn't everything to perfect for it to just have happened by chance? This is a fine place to start, its the same place Newton started when an apple fell on his head, making him wonder why the moon doesn't fall to. The problem with intelligent design is, its stops their at the heart. Other scientific theories move onto the brain where they are examined, looked over, scrutinized. They go through the scientific method. This is the case for evolution. Intelligent design hasn't and can not be tested, its stops right at hypothesis, failing to go through any of the other scientific steps to become a real theory or a law."

Many of the same people who don't believe in intelligent design on this forum also have very ingrained beliefs when it comes to things time travel or free will. It's not that no one aspires to test these things; they are just a bit beyond our scope right now. If I could test for the existence of a creator, I would do so willingly and accept the results no matter what they are. In the mean time, Deism is a belief and not a scientific fact. I am comfortable with the distinction, and like everyone should I reexamine and scrutinize my beliefs on a regular basis.

 

[Chou Toshio]

Think people need to take a more liberal/flexible view of religion; I don't think religious texts were written intending to give you an exact literal understanding of the facts of the universe.

Even from a philosophical standpoint; the bible says God created the world in 7 days--but "7 days" for God could be 4 billion years. Then what?

In general though, a good critical-thinking Christian should question the Bible-- because the bible wasn't written by God; it was written by a bunch of guys who had spent time with God. Moreover, it was made as a religious text for a and by a society that existed in a dessert society around 2000 years ago. There's only so much people should apply it literally to life in our era/society in general, let alone apply it to something like science...

 

[capefeather]

Well, time travel is technically possible under general relativity. It's just that black holes happen when you try it ;) Stuff like free will and the existence of a "creator" are really ambiguous, poorly defined. What do you mean by free will? Give a definition and I'm sure people would be happy to examine whether the current scientific theories actually allow for that. "Creators" are the same way in the end. So it's not that beliefs about these matters can't be tested right now; it's that they can't be tested, period! Though, we could define them precisely and see what we can do with that.

 

[v]

Election thread: LET'S DISCUSS EVOLUTION
v: stop
OKAY LET'S MAKE AN EVOLUTION THREAD!!!
Evolution thread: LET'S DISCUSS TIME TRAVEL

 

[Stratos]

lol

to be fair von the "clergy evolution project" or whatever it's called is basically the "screw the bible" project. i wouldn't take it without a grain or twenty of salt; the bible's language is pretty clear that creation happened in six literal days (not to mention the Gap Theory and the "non-literal day theory" throw wrenches in plenty of other places in the bible than just Genesis 1). Asking j-man, myself, or any other christian who takes his bible seriously to support that thing is literally asking us to blaspheme our God.

 

[vonFiedler]

to be fair von the "clergy evolution project" or whatever it's called is basically the "screw the bible" project. i wouldn't take it without a grain or twenty of salt;

No, that's not fair. That is in fact, quite the opposite of what the Clergy Letter is about. It's about not reinforcing a false dichotomy. By not using what the good lord gave you, your brain, you are committing blasphemy by limiting God.

In general though, a good critical-thinking Christian should question the Bible-- because the bible wasn't written by God; it was written by a bunch of guys who had spent time with God.

And even a few who didn't, but I digress. Good points.

 

[Stratos]

No, that's not fair. That is in fact, quite the opposite of what the Clergy Letter is about. It's about not reinforcing a false dichotomy. By not using what the good lord gave you, your brain, you are committing blasphemy by limiting God.

please tell me you're trolling, telling me im committing blasphemy when you don't even believe in God.

"And the evening and the morning were the first day." clearly states an exact single evening and morning - six times, no more, no less. six days

14And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years: 15And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so. 16And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also. 17And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth, 18And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good. 19And the evening and the morning were the fourth day." - remember that in the bible, the sun came along AFTER the earth, a clear contradiction of the Big Bang theory

these are just two because i HOPE you get the picture but saying that Big Bang and bible don't contradict is simply a joke. PS, i won't be calling it evolution because natural selection (which is what people often confuse with the big bang theory) does exist and it's not an origin theory. People often seem to forget that catastrophic and slow processes can occur simultaneously when arguing against a creationist viewpoint.

 

[billymills]

Is the theory of evolution the best explain of biological diversity and the origin of the human species?

Is it reasonable to allow a candidates views on evolution to affect your vote?

Can the theory of evolution be reconciled with religious beliefs?

Yes and no respectively. Evolution fully explains the diversity of biological populations and has been demonstrated to be accurate repeatedly under multiple experiments.
It is not a theory to explain the origin of the human species any more than it is a theory to explain the origin of mushrooms or elephants or bacteria. The development of the human species is a small small part of the theory of evolution and should not be treated as a key point.

Yes. If you have problems with the scientific method then I would argue you should not be in a position to decide funding for scientific endeavours. In general I think views on any topic should be up for discussion so long as the political position the candidates are running for is in some way related to the topic.

Religious beliefs are incredibly personal. It is up to the individual to try or try not to reconcile their beliefs with empirical results. In general religious beliefs do not try to confirm to reality, so I don't see why they would have to conform to evolution.

 

[J-man]

It is true that now fossils are often analyzed under the assumption that evolution is true. This is because evolution is already an accepted fact

Now you are begging the question.

This does not preclude fossils from being evidence for evolution though.

Of course not. But then again, it is often the case when I debate this that the evolutionist often cites fossils as evidence and never explains how.

Fossils do not have to be analyzed from the perspective of evolution being true. They can be analyzed from a neutral perspective.

Yet you just stated they aren't

Analysis from this perspective shows that fossils exhibit gradual change over time as would be expected by evolution.

Again, how? As far as I can tell, we've found fossils of dinosaurs, birds, insects, and fish. How is that "evidence".

The origin of DNA is not something that the theory of evolution explains nor is it something that it attempts to explain.

That's a cop out and you know it.

Evolution is not a theory which attempts to explain the origins of life

REALLY?! You should have told that to this guy then... BOY DID HE GET IT ALL WRONG

it attempts to explain how life changes over time. The origin of DNA would be explained by theories of abiogenesis which is a different topic.

So if evolution does not cover the origins of DNA, how can it be evidence of evolution? How is origin irrelevant to evolution? Evolution is naturalistic in nature, therefore you must hold a naturalistic cause to the universe. If that is the case, then what happens if there is no naturalistic explanation to the origins of the universe?

 

[Princess Bubblegum]

J-man did you like take a basic biology class yet? You can clearly see with fossils the process of evolution. How you may ask? Well lets take a gander at sedimentary rock layers:

Yes this isn't a real picture because rarely do you find fossils in such a compact place (although there are a few fascinating places where they are).

Note how older layers are beneath newer ones, and thus older creatures are found there. The sedimentary rock players can scale time for us, and thus we can have a good idea of what happened back in time and how it happened. As you move up in the time scale or rock layers the more complex the animals and plants get, thus showing evidence of evolution.

At the very least this shows that the fucking earth is not 7000 years old.

Sorry if I am babying you, but if you don't know this... idk your school is terrible.

 

[vonFiedler]

please tell me you're trolling, telling me im committing blasphemy when you don't even believe in God.

Bold claim. Also incorrect. I am a hardcore fundamentalist Christian, but we disagree on what is fundamental to being a Christian. I believe you are a pharisee, placing undue importance on the traditions and predispositions you grew up with and using them to lord over others. It's really the only conclusion one can come up with when you hear about how "so and so aren't true Christians".

 

[Stratos]

Bold claim. Also incorrect. I am a hardcore fundamentalist Christian, but we disagree on what is fundamental to being a Christian. I believe you are a pharisee, placing undue importance on the traditions and predispositions you grew up with and using them to lord over others. It's really the only conclusion one can come up with when you hear about how "so and so aren't true Christians".

i never said you weren't a true christian; your claims in this thread simply led me to believe that you were atheist. i apologize for my assumption. now please read my bible verses?

 

[Woodchuck]

REALLY?! You should have told that to this guy then... BOY DID HE GET IT ALL WRONG

J-man... the origin of species was never meant to be equivalent to the origin of life. Darwin was trying to explain how different species of organisms resulted on the earth, aka the process of speciation, not the actual beginning of life itself.

Also, why the hell are you trying to take evolution as an origin theory for the universe? Furthermore, why does evolution need to cover the origins of DNA? At most, DNA is a way through which genetic changes propagate--and allow the process of evolution to actually work.

But then again, it is often the case when I debate this that the evolutionist often cites fossils as evidence and never explains how.

Fossils are evidence that God did not create many species of animals that have not changed to this day. They are blatant evidence that the Earth and its ecosystem is changing over time, not static as the book of Genesis would lead you to believe.

Oh dear... Whatever shall I do? Natural selection occurs! That's it! I'm broke... You win...

Are you not aware that natural selection is the basic tenet of evolution? How can you say "oh no natural selection" and go on to argue against evolution?

I suggest a new strategy for arguing against evolution:
"I am not any more intelligent than a caveman, so evolution must not occur!"

 

[lati0s]

Of course not. But then again, it is often the case when I debate this that the evolutionist often cites fossils as evidence and never explains how.
Yet you just stated they aren't
Again, how? As far as I can tell, we've found fossils of dinosaurs, birds, insects, and fish. How is that "evidence".

There are several ways in which fossils serve as evidence for evolution and against creationism. I will start you off with one very simple way. This way doesn't even require fossils, just rocks. Radiometric dating of rocks shows that the earth is billions of years old.

I know this kind of sounds like a cop out since it's not really about fossils but we need to establish the approximate age of the earth before we can talk about fossils.

That's a cop out and you know it. REALLY?! You should have told that to this guy then... BOY DID HE GET IT ALL WRONG

It's called "the origin of species" not "the origin of life". Evolution describes how we got from very simple unicellular life forms to the diverse set of species present today. It does not describe the origin of life.

So if evolution does not cover the origins of DNA, how can it be evidence of evolution? How is origin irrelevant to evolution?
Evolution is naturalistic in nature, therefore you must hold a naturalistic cause to the universe. If that is the case, then what happens if there is no naturalistic explanation to the origins of the universe?

Evolution does not require an explanation of origins. If god created the earth 4 billion years ago and seeded it with simple life forms and those simple life forms evolved over time to the life forms we see today then evolution would be true.

 

[Stratos]

let's clear up some terminology in this thread:

NATURAL SELECTION: the theory that the fittest survive, and reproduce their genes, leading to increased speciation. Nobody is disputing this.

EVOLUTION: the theory that natural selection has been responsible for variation among all species on earth, who share a common ancestor.

BIG BANG THEORY: The origin theory often paired with evolution which attempts to explain why our universe came to exist and looks like it does - for our purposes, the line between this theory and evolution will be drawn at the appearance of first life being part of the big bang theory.

does anyone dispute this terminology? if not, i think it will help clear up a lot of confusion in this thread.