Thread: Creationism vs Evolution

Hello!
I am a student in Estonia and am currently writing a research paper on how the creationism vs evolution debates and issues are affecting society. I would be grateful if you took the time to fill a small 10-question survey on this subject. I would use the responses to generate statistical information for my paper.

The address is: http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/57GMMJR

I am sorry if this is considered as spamming, but living in Estonia, it is really difficult for me to get into contact with the target group of my paper (US and UK citizens). Plus, the forum topic seems to be relevant..
I'd really appreciate if you took just a minute or two of your time for this And of course, I'd be happy to share both the survey results and the paper itself once I'm done.

Personally, I find this to be a wonderful use of the subforum and not spam at all, particularly if you're willing to share your findings (and possibly your paper!) with us.

Who knows, you might even become a regular member of the forum!

I'll be sure to take the survey for you later today. For those wondering about the validity of the site, I did open it and checked it out. It appears to be a straight forward survey and nothing more. Perfectly safe to visit as far as I can tell.

Are you at all worried about bias from polling this on a science forum which has a slightly materialist (that includes me by the way) position?

Good point, Golkarian.


Anyways, I took the survey, only took a minute. Does question 10 mean only in high school, or in university as well? I answered yes because I learned it in university, but I don't ever remember learning it in high school.

Thanks to everyone who's taken the time to answer!

I did actually consider the issue of this forum being largely made up of users who tend to support scientific thinking. This is why I posted this thread under the Scientific Study of Religion topic. I've also used other forums, e.g Christian Forums and Evolution vs Creationism Forum, so I think the results will be fairly balanced.

And about the last question - I did actually mean high school, as from what I have understood, teaching creationism in high school is the basis of all debates in the US right now. Please correct me if I'm wrong, though.

Out of the responses I've received until now, I'd like to point out an interesting phenomenon - people who strongly support the teaching of evolution in schools tend to rate their knowledge on the Bible to be quite low, while Christians who support the teaching of creationism (or both theories), rate their knowledge on evolution to be very high. Wouldn't it only be fair if supporters of the theory of evolution in turn learned more thoroughly about the Bible before taking a position? (Indeed, I am a supporter of evolution myself and don't know much at all about Christianity, but it is something I never thought about before)

Originally Posted by marjoleinbastin

Wouldn't it only be fair if supporters of the theory of evolution in turn learned more thoroughly about the Bible before taking a position?

It would probably be the diplomatic thing to do, but the whole idea of the 'theory of evolution OR the bible' is a false dichotomy that is supported only by creationists. If they interpret my support for evolution as opposition to the creation account of the bible thats not really my problem; i mean its their choice to see it that way.

Ive taken the survey. Apart from question ?4? being a little oddly worded I think it as very straight forward and am interested in the results.

Originally Posted by marjoleinbastin

Out of the responses I've received until now, I'd like to point out an interesting phenomenon - people who strongly support the teaching of evolution in schools tend to rate their knowledge on the Bible to be quite low, while Christians who support the teaching of creationism (or both theories), rate their knowledge on evolution to be very high. Wouldn't it only be fair if supporters of the theory of evolution in turn learned more thoroughly about the Bible before taking a position? (Indeed, I am a supporter of evolution myself and don't know much at all about Christianity, but it is something I never thought about before)

Well most probably think they have a high knowledge of evolution, when in fact what they mean is they have a high knowledge of the propaganda they've been fed from the pulpit. I think if you included a question like, have you studied evolution at the university level, then you'll find that very few of them have. Let alone having received a degree in a related field, like biology.

Moreover, although I rank my knowledge of the Bible as low. I have read the Bible and attended church services and I could probably stand toe to toe with many people who consider themselves knowledgeable about religion. I don't think most of them have ever studied theology at a serious level either. They have never studied the origins of Christianity nor read the Bible in early versions and languages. The average "expert Christian" is hardly an expert at all.

Originally Posted by marjoleinbastin

Out of the responses I've received until now, I'd like to point out an interesting phenomenon - people who strongly support the teaching of evolution in schools tend to rate their knowledge on the Bible to be quite low, while Christians who support the teaching of creationism (or both theories), rate their knowledge on evolution to be very high. Wouldn't it only be fair if supporters of the theory of evolution in turn learned more thoroughly about the Bible before taking a position?

As has already been pointed out, this proposes a false dichotomy. As if evolution and the bible are firstly mutually exclusive (falsified by the majority of Christians accepting evolution), secondly are in some manner comparable (one is evidence based the other is specifically to be accepted the basis of personal "knowledge") and thirdly are the only two options. If we accept them as being in some manner comparable, then by your logic we must indeed read the bible fully, all creationists must read the scientific literature on evolution and both parties must read all of the other "comparable" alternatives including, but not limited to, the torah, the qur'an, the vedas, the writings of the Buddha on the origins, the Eridu Genesis and of course the creation stories of the Norse, Greeks and Romans.

I also doubt reading the Bible would make you an expert on creationism, only a few chapters deal with it, and creationists take them as literal truth (which means they require little study, whereas a theistic evolutionist would do well to understand the symbols and alternative translations of those chapters). Also one can easily bolster one's views on evolution by reading scientific literature, but all you'll get out of the Bible is "God said so", so I'd say creationist literature would be a better resource to understanding creationism. However I must say I'd rather read the Bible, at least it doesn't attack science to make its points.

I would suggest simply searching on Google for reasons why this idea of our universe naturally existing is wrong. All explanations come down to faith, because no one has any evidence as to how the universe became existant, or even if it did.

Originally Posted by blood_pardon

I would suggest simply searching on Google for reasons why this idea of our universe naturally existing is wrong. All explanations come down to faith, because no one has any evidence as to how the universe became existant, or even if it did.

This is off-topic. This is a thread about the investigation of the beliefs of those that hold superstitious ideas of the origin of life on earth versus rational, natural explanations. It isn't a platform for defending such a superstition. Indeed, this is a subforum dedicated to the scientific study of religion rather than one which would tolerate supernatural and "spiritual" explanations of religion.

Originally Posted by SkinWalker

This is off-topic. This is a thread about the investigation of the beliefs of those that hold superstitious ideas of the origin of life on earth versus rational, natural explanations. It isn't a platform for defending such a superstition. Indeed, this is a subforum dedicated to the scientific study of religion rather than one which would tolerate supernatural and "spiritual" explanations of religion.

Allow me to rephrase that so its on-topic.

I would suggest simply searching on Google for reasons why this idea of our universe naturally existing is wrong.This would be a good way to investigate the beliefs of those who believe natural explanations.

Originally Posted by blood_pardon

I would suggest simply searching on Google for reasons why this idea of our universe naturally existing is wrong.This would be a good way to investigate the beliefs of those who believe natural explanations.

This would provide a source to list alternative beliefs, but it doesn't help the OP who is trying to do two things:

1) obtain a quantifiable data set to which he can apply statistical measures in a manner that has parameters controlling for outcomes in a way that results can be inferred from the research questions. The Internet would be a bad instrument because of its size, scope and inconsistent pockets of bias. A better instrument would be one that has a set of questions that can be presented to target audiences within the Internet itself.

2) he's attempting to utilize research methods and techniques learned in a class.

But, in a manner of speaking, the OP is doing precisely what you have suggested. Its just that his instrument of measurement isn't the Internet itself, rather the survey he's linked us to. I would imagine he found us through Google as he did the other sites he's presenting the survey to.

SkinWalker, I'd like to point out that I am actually a she
Interesting, really, how the responders to the survey have been 88.4% male. I assume American women are not as much interested in the whole issue, then? One does expect a balanced distribution between genders, though..

Originally Posted by marjoleinbastin

SkinWalker, I'd like to point out that I am actually a she
Interesting, really, how the responders to the survey have been 88.4% male. I assume American women are not as much interested in the whole issue, then? One does expect a balanced distribution between genders, though..

It probably has more to do with the demographics of the forums. Internet forums in general tend to be populated mostly by males. Except maybe those that center around teen idols.

Originally Posted by marjoleinbastin

SkinWalker, I'd like to point out that I am actually a she
Interesting, really, how the responders to the survey have been 88.4% male. I assume American women are not as much interested in the whole issue, then? One does expect a balanced distribution between genders, though..

Sorry.. I just usually refer to anyone on the internet as "he" until I know otherwise. English pisses me off in that we are faced a dichotomy for pronouns and cannot use a gender neutral pronoun when both or unknown genders are being referred to. Or, more accurately, I should say I'm sometimes annoyed at the over emphasis placed on being politically correct and inefficiently using dual pronouns like "he/she," which I'm guilty of myself. There are authors that will intentionally stick to "she" when trying to be neutral, but this seems inefficient as well since he is faster to type, a shorter word, and the letters "h" and "e" are included in both "he" and "she."

Oh... sorry. I got stuck on a rant :-)

I think you'll find that if your study population is going to consist of internet forum users and bloggers, the male gender will be over-represented. You might see if any you've networked with in the U.S. is able to get your instrument to a typical U.S. university class or, if you're needing it, a church group, both of which would be networks independent of the internet.

With 51 responses alltogether, I'm now going to close the survey.
I don't own a premium account on SurveyMonkey so sharing the results is not that easy. However, I made a screenshot of the overall statistics: www.kataliisa.eu/results.jpg and a word document of the comments: www.kataliisa.eu/comments.doc

Unfortunately, I can't show you the individual responses so you could connect the comments with the answers, as it would just take too much time for me to go through all of them and put them together in one document. But you'll get an idea once you read the comments, anyway..

Thank you for your answers and enjoy!

I hope I took the survey in time to be included. The site did accept my submission. I am looking forward to some results.

In the mean time:


CMR80606 said:

It would probably be the diplomatic thing to do, but the whole idea of the 'theory of evolution OR the bible' is a false dichotomy that is supported only by creationists.

Skinwalker said:

This is a thread about the investigation of the beliefs of those that hold superstitious ideas of the origin of life on earth versus rational, natural explanations.

Yet I have not read one post on this thread by a suspected creationist which made such disrespectful statements toward evolutionists.

First of all, evolution and the Bible, do not even discuss the same issue.

The study of evolution is an attempt to explain mechanisms which produced biodiversity which has occurred on planet Earth. It makes no attempt to explain the origins Universe or the origins life or to express any purpose for their existence.

The Bible makes no attempt to explain of the mechanisms which have produced biodiversity but does attribute the origins of the Universe and the origins of life to a God who created because it pleased Him to do so.

The poster revised his post after the warning.

Skinwalker said:

The poster revised his post after the warning.

Which, of course, now makes my post seem over-reactionary since you have the privilege of not only editing your own original post, but also in my quote from that original post. I only have the privilege of recanting and/or editing my own posts -- not a quote in someone else's.

i didn't particularly intend any disrespect. i was just expressing that the interest creationist's seem to have in evolution really does not oblige me to read the bible.

CMR80606 said:

i didn't particularly intend any disrespect. i was just expressing that the interest creationist's seem to have in evolution really does not oblige me to read the bible.

It was not you, CMR80606, to whom I was referring as being disrespectful. I completely agree with you on the idea that "either evolution or the Bible" is a false dichotomy since they do not even address the same issue.

But, I do disagree that it is only believers who wrongly attempt to undermine one by using the other and included Skinwalker's rude comments about believers as a shining example. Here was a non-believer using the idea that "natural" explanation renders the belief in God synonymous with superstition (being wrong) in the toned down version.

I agree that you are not obliged to read the Bible because of the discussion which revolves around what you have accurately labeled a false dichotomy. But perhaps it would behoove you to read what knowledgeable believers actually have to say about evolution before you comment. And, certainly, it would be to your advantage to know what some people use from the Bible to see if you think it undermines evolution. It might also help you more fully understand why your false dichotomy label is accurate.

When the other guy knows more about your position than you know about his, you are at a distinct disadvantage in any discussion. The idea that believers know more about evolution than evolutionists know about belief is only half the story. My observations is that many believers who post here have a far better understanding of evolution than do the evolutionists who attempt to defend it based on their own lack of knowledge about evolution and even greater lack of knowledge about the objections.

It is only when both sides are knowledgeable on all aspects of a topic that either side can learn from the other.

I am not sure, at this point, that you actually understand why this is a false dichotomy. I am, first of all, suspicious as to whether you understand what a dichotomy is. My second suspicion is that you consider evolution v. Bible a false dichotomy because you think evolution is "right" and creationism is "wrong."

A dichotomy (as you seem to be using it) revolves around the idea that two concepts are mutually exclusive. So a false dichotomy is a situation in which one has improperly labeled two ideas as being mutually exclusive when they actually are not mutually exclusive. Creationism does not necessarily exclude the process of evolution; evolution does not necessarily exclude the possibility of creation. The Bible does not preclude evolution nor does evolution prove the Bible wrong.

Originally Posted by daytonturner

A dichotomy (as you seem to be using it) revolves around the idea that two concepts are mutually exclusive. So a false dichotomy is a situation in which one has improperly labeled two ideas as being mutually exclusive when they actually are not mutually exclusive. Creationism does not necessarily exclude the process of evolution; evolution does not necessarily exclude the possibility of creation. The Bible does not preclude evolution nor does evolution prove the Bible wrong.

Depends on the interpretation of the Bible. Special creation as believed in by protestant fundamentalist is certainly not compatible with evolution. Young Earth creationism, also believed in by some christian fundamentalist, is equally incompatible with evolutionary theory.

Evolution doesn't disprove the Bible, because of course when you want to take something as allegory you can make it say a great deal of things, but it certainly disproves literal interpretations, which some people do believe in.

In general though, the more popular conceptions of creationism amongst most Christians is not mutually exclusive with evolution.

Originally Posted by daytonturner

When the other guy knows more about your position than you know about his, you are at a distinct disadvantage in any discussion. The idea that believers know more about evolution than evolutionists know about belief is only half the story. My observations is that many believers who post here have a far better understanding of evolution than do the evolutionists who attempt to defend it based on their own lack of knowledge about evolution and even greater lack of knowledge about the objections.

Like who?

i_feel_tiredsleepy said:

Depends on the interpretation of the Bible. Special creation as believed in by protestant fundamentalist is certainly not compatible with evolution. Young Earth creationism, also believed in by some christian fundamentalist, is equally incompatible with evolutionary theory.

That is pretty easy to say, but I think rather difficult to substantiate. What are the beliefs of special creation and then how are they incompatible with evolution. I am not sure what special creation is to you. If, to you, this means the idea that humans were "specially created" by God, even this does not preclude acceptance of other aspects of evolution.

I can agree that young Earth belief would not allow enough time for evolution to have occurred to the degree necessary to have provided all the biodiversity we have evidence of in both existent and extinct life forms. However, there are those who also believe that there is not enough time in the history of Earth for evolution to have produced that degree of biodiversity under most of the evolution pardigms.

My point was not to suggest that there are no disagreements. But disagreements are not, in and of themselves, dichotomies. If someone says the world is flat, that is not dichotomous with the idea that the world is round -- it is, on its surface, just plainly incorrect. To that extent, I would suggest that young Earth is not part of a dichotomy -- it is, on its surface, incorrect.

Originally Posted by daytonturner

That is pretty easy to say, but I think rather difficult to substantiate. What are the beliefs of special creation and then how are they incompatible with evolution. I am not sure what special creation is to you. If, to you, this means the idea that humans were "specially created" by God, even this does not preclude acceptance of other aspects of evolution.

The protestant meaning, not the Catholic, which would be that all life popped into being as it is today. Sometimes they try to wiggle around the evolutionary evidence by saying that all "kinds" of animals were created, that old macro/micro thing .

Also, I wasn't saying they are dichotomous, but they are certainly not compatible.

Originally Posted by daytonturner

CMR80606 said:

i didn't particularly intend any disrespect. i was just expressing that the interest creationist's seem to have in evolution really does not oblige me to read the bible.

It was not you, CMR80606, to whom I was referring as being disrespectful. I completely agree with you on the idea that "either evolution or the Bible" is a false dichotomy since they do not even address the same issue.

But, I do disagree that it is only believers who wrongly attempt to undermine one by using the other and included Skinwalker's rude comments about believers as a shining example. Here was a non-believer using the idea that "natural" explanation renders the belief in God synonymous with superstition (being wrong) in the toned down version.

I agree that you are not obliged to read the Bible because of the discussion which revolves around what you have accurately labeled a false dichotomy. But perhaps it would behoove you to read what knowledgeable believers actually have to say about evolution before you comment. And, certainly, it would be to your advantage to know what some people use from the Bible to see if you think it undermines evolution. It might also help you more fully understand why your false dichotomy label is accurate.

When the other guy knows more about your position than you know about his, you are at a distinct disadvantage in any discussion. The idea that believers know more about evolution than evolutionists know about belief is only half the story. My observations is that many believers who post here have a far better understanding of evolution than do the evolutionists who attempt to defend it based on their own lack of knowledge about evolution and even greater lack of knowledge about the objections.

It is only when both sides are knowledgeable on all aspects of a topic that either side can learn from the other.

I am not sure, at this point, that you actually understand why this is a false dichotomy. I am, first of all, suspicious as to whether you understand what a dichotomy is. My second suspicion is that you consider evolution v. Bible a false dichotomy because you think evolution is "right" and creationism is "wrong."

A dichotomy (as you seem to be using it) revolves around the idea that two concepts are mutually exclusive. So a false dichotomy is a situation in which one has improperly labeled two ideas as being mutually exclusive when they actually are not mutually exclusive. Creationism does not necessarily exclude the process of evolution; evolution does not necessarily exclude the possibility of creation. The Bible does not preclude evolution nor does evolution prove the Bible wrong.

False dichotomy and false dilemma are phrasal synonyms, refering specifically to a logical fallacy; the either/or fallacy. The way i see it, by extracting 'dichotomy' from the lexical unit as i was, i think, fairly clearly using it, serves only to demonstrate either a misunderstanding on your part or that you are just rather pointlessly playing with semantics.

The false dichotomy/dilemma i perceived was purely one of choice. Evolution or the bible. You seem to agree with this. What you seem to be upset about is that i suggested, basically, that creationist's are upset about evolution.
My interpretation of the amount of time and effort creationist's seem to spend on the topic is that they perceive evolution as an assault upon their beliefs. I honestly can't see why else they would bother, but please, enlighten me.

For what it's worth CMR your meaning, as clarified in your last post, was what I took out of your earlier posts. I saw no confusion or incorrect use of terminology on your part and was puzzled by Dayton's take on it all.

CMR said:

The false dichotomy/dilemma i perceived was purely one of choice. Evolution or the bible. You seem to agree with this. What you seem to be upset about is that i suggested, basically, that creationist's are upset about evolution.
My interpretation of the amount of time and effort creationist's seem to spend on the topic is that they perceive evolution as an assault upon their beliefs. I honestly can't see why else they would bother, but please, enlighten me.

Hmmmm. You are seeing more here than I was meaning. What actually bothered me was the combination of your post stating "[T]he whole idea of the 'theory of evolution OR the bible' is a false dichotomy that is supported only by creationists." which was followed almost immediately by a statement by an atheist (subsequently revised) which expressed this same false dichotomy between science and superstition.

My point was that this false dichotomy is equally supported and forms the basis of comments by atheists as well as believers. What is even more interesting is the first two sentences of the quoted graph in which you say the "either evolution or the Bible" dichotomy was one of YOUR choice. It is not all that clear, but you do seem to be an atheist.

You did not really do much more than just blurt out the thought without any development as to why you felt it is a false dichotomy. It seemed almost one of those kinds of statements that a lot of posters here find and use with the thought, "Hey, that really sounds neat, I think use it," without really knowing what they are saying.

It remains unclear to me whether you were attempting to emphasize the "false dichotomy" or the idea that "only" believers support it. In view of my perception that "only" believers was so far from reality, I believed you were emphasizing the falseness of the dichotomy.

I am not exactly sure anyone should be offended by being asked, directly or indirectly, to explain what they have said a little further. I was not suggesting that you had used the idea improperly, only that it begged for some in depth development which you did not provide.

We are much like little children here -- our favorite question is, "Why do you say that?"

As to the last part of your question why do creationists seem to spend a lot of time on this topic? It is probably because evolution is used as an almost a priori indisputable given today.

If you go back 100 years prior to the Scopes trial in Dayton, Tennessee, (I was not named for that), you find just the opposite. Creationism was the accepted indisputable given and evolution was pooh-poohed by most of the people. It was up to the evolutionists to press the issue and raise objections -- and they did.

By today, there has been a complete role reversal. It is now up to those who have questions about evolution to raise them. And, the thing is, it is not just non-scientist believers who raise these questions, but also people from medicine and biology, also.

I think the believer's complaint is something of a reaction to what has become a prevailing evolution presentation that attempts to preclude God from the equation. It would be so simple for evolutionists to say, "Evolution would have been a great way for God, if he exists, to have manipulated and created living things on Earth." I have a believer friend who was a biology professor at the university level and except for the phrase "if he exists," that was his approach.

Until you get to the point of determining why there is no dichotomy, the statement that it is a false dichotomy is shallow. But attributing it to only one side of a discussion fails to examine the entire scope of the issue.

I think I was just looking for a more detailed explanation of the elements of the falsely perceived dichotomy and why you think it false.

Actually Dayton, you can't reconcile the two. Science has a specific burden of proof called EVIDENCE. From a scale of 1-10.. you need an 8 in accordance with evidence for people to even look at it. Religion is at a 1. It is based on supposition, conjecture, guess work etc. It is not based on evidence and sees no reason to have evidence because it works on faith and faith alone. Thus, you can't put the two on the same pedestal and call them equal. One works off of conjecture without evidence, the other works off of evidence.

Remember, religion equates to having a conclusion, finding evidence for the conclusion, and claiming that any evidence that doesn't fit the conclusion must be faulty.

Science states that they don't know the conclusion. They gather evidence together and the evidence points toward a specific conclusion.

The two are mutually exclusive and they have opposing views on how reality should be judged. The thing you must remember is that with science, our conclusions change depending on the amount of evidence. This is FAR more reliable than vehemently holding on to your conclusion and ignoring any contradictory evidence that you come across.

Verzen, your remarks are wholly correct when applied to fundamentalist religion. They are, however, not applicable to religion in general.

Originally Posted by verzen

Actually Dayton, you can't reconcile the two. Science has a specific burden of proof called EVIDENCE. From a scale of 1-10.. you need an 8 in accordance with evidence for people to even look at it. Religion is at a 1. It is based on supposition, conjecture, guess work etc. It is not based on evidence and sees no reason to have evidence because it works on faith and faith alone. Thus, you can't put the two on the same pedestal and call them equal. One works off of conjecture without evidence, the other works off of evidence.

While this is generally true of science, in the case of evolutionary biology, it is clearly not, at least for most advocates. The advocates of Darwinian evolution (all life evolved by mutation and selection from a common ancestor) do not rely on evidence. Instead they presuppose they are correct and fit observations from science into their prior commitment. In this way it is a philosophical or metaphysical belief masquerading as science.

Remember, religion equates to having a conclusion, finding evidence for the conclusion, and claiming that any evidence that doesn't fit the conclusion must be faulty.

Exactly what advocates of Darwinian evolution do. Modern experimental biology has demonstrated that random mutation, working at the scale it does, is generally incapable (except for the very occasional events dictated by probability) of making discrete steps that have selectable advantage. To accept the neo-Darwinian theory, one must believe that inanimate material and time and random processes plus selection alone can and did self assemble into life, and cars, and space ships, and computers and everything else we se today. What evidence is there for this belief? It is a complete contradiction to the law of entropy with respect to molecular order. There must be other processes involved, but Evolutionists refuse to accept this and instead claim the conclusion is faulty because their model of materialism is, by prior commitment, true.

Science states that they don't know the conclusion. They gather evidence together and the evidence points toward a specific conclusion.

Generally true, but once again in the case of neoDarwinism, false. Here the prior commitment drives a conclusion that material only processes explains everything we see, they just don't know quite how it worked. These philosophers (as opposed to true scientists), have prejudicially rejected other potentially valid modes of explanation.

The two are mutually exclusive and they have opposing views on how reality should be judged.

NO, they are not. With respect to origin of life and diversity of life, neither side holds an advantage. Both are based on prior commitments.

The thing you must remember is that with science, our conclusions change depending on the amount of evidence. This is FAR more reliable than vehemently holding on to your conclusion and ignoring any contradictory evidence that you come across.

Except again in the case of Darwinian Evolution, it too is taken as true and only the mode is in question. These supposed fair minded people have deluded themselves into believing they are being objective by carefully molding the evidence to fit the conclusion by adjusting processes and predictions and therefore never needing to adjust the conclusion.

To see this more clearly consider the basic conclusion of evolutionary biology which is that life originated from inanimate material and progressed to what we see today by only non-goal driven material processes. The alternative to this is that life was purposefully designed by a goal driven process. The evolutionists reject the alternative out of hand, just as the religious reject materialism out of hand.

The fair and objective scientist rejects neither and tests for both.

Well, verzen,l I think you understand there are some diffences between science and religion although I am not convinced you are actually aware of what the nature of those differences are.

The differences revolve around the conflict between matrialism and spiritualism -- not around scientific knowledge. The Bible is not a science book any more than a science book is about religion.

For the most part religion, Christians at least, have no conflicts with scientific knowledge and probably the only real areas of conflict revolve around those of science who erroneously believe science has in some way proved God does not exist.

What science has done is apparently shown that God is not quantifiable as a materialistic object. This is not really news to those of us who recognize God as a spiritual being, not a materialistic being.

As to direct scienctific conflicts, the only issues I am aware of that are of much consequence are the questions of origins of the Universe and the beginning of life. Science focuses on methodology of how these things came about while religion focuses on why they came about. The problems comes when these questions are intermingled.

However, to the best of my knowledge science has not yet answered the question it is focused on and rejects the implication of the answer to the why provided by religion.

Science seems to have prooffered two answers: 1. First there was nothing and then there was something -- the Big Bang theory; 2. Everything has always been here.

Neither of these potential answers comes close to addressing the religious question of why. Meanwhile, religion's answer to it's question does in some way intrude on the scientific question. Religion says that because God desired to do so, He created the universe and physical life for His own pleasure. This does not go at all into the methodology but merely leaves off where science starts.

Were the Bible an in depth study of origins, it would not be set up devoting only three chapters to the creation of the Universe and the beginning of life and then well over another 1,000 relating to how we should respond.

If the two are irreconcilable, it is because they are not addressing the same things. It is almost like trying to discuss the conflicts between cosmology and sociology.

Most of your post shows that you do not really understand the components of the discussion and prefer to rant and rave about religion rejecting science when there is reallly nothing to rant and rave about.

If there is a conflict, it is buried in your unwillingness to admit to even the possibility of a spiritual world which is unquantifable in materialistic terms. You are privy to half of what is available and somehow think you have more than those of us who have the whole.

Ophiolite, do you think you could expand on "fundamentalist religion." Plus a little more explanation as to how verzen's thought applies to that but not whatever "religion in general" is. With all due respect, this is a little ambiguous and quite generaized.

wow really well put, thank you

I believe Ishmael is talking about the Cypress post which I also think was very good on the topic.

While this is generally true of science, in the case of evolutionary biology, it is clearly not, at least for most advocates. The advocates of Darwinian evolution (all life evolved by mutation and selection from a common ancestor) do not rely on evidence. Instead they presuppose they are correct and fit observations from science into their prior commitment. In this way it is a philosophical or metaphysical belief masquerading as science.

Silly creationists.. Lying for Jesus again.(or whatever "God" you worship)
We don't use the Darwinian model any more. We have so much evidence for evolution that it's astonishing so many people still think we have no evidence for it. Mutations add up. They accumulate. Bad mutations are rarely passed on because of 'death.'

Exactly what advocates of Darwinian evolution do. Modern experimental biology has demonstrated that random mutation, working at the scale it does, is generally incapable (except for the very occasional events dictated by probability) of making discrete steps that have selectable advantage.

Wrong again. We don't use the Darwinian model any more because we have GATHERED the evidence for evolution and our evidence has changed our understanding of it.
Evolution is a property of life like being round is a property of a circle.

To accept the neo-Darwinian theory, one must believe that inanimate material and time and random processes plus selection alone can and did self assemble into life

That sir, is abiogenesis. Why do you feel qualified to argue against evolution when you have no idea what it even is?

and cars, and space ships, and computers and everything else we se today

Wrong again. Evolution deals with the diversity of life. It doesn't deal with the technology that we have discovered.

It is a complete contradiction to the law of entropy with respect to molecular order.

And you are WRONG AGAIN! (3 strikes sir) Entropy only deals with CLOSED SYSTEMS. Now you might have a point if we didn't have a large fireball in the sky radiating heat and light particles.

There must be other processes involved, but Evolutionists refuse to accept this and instead claim the conclusion is faulty because their model of materialism is, by prior commitment, true.

WRONG AGAIN. There may be other processes but that does not mean there MUST BE other processes involved. As scientists, we study the natural.. The observable. We do NOT put any weight into the SUPERnatural.

Generally true, but once again in the case of neoDarwinism, false. Here the prior commitment drives a conclusion that material only processes explains everything we see, they just don't know quite how it worked. These philosophers (as opposed to true scientists), have prejudicially rejected other potentially valid modes of explanation.

Congratulations. You just said that 99.8% of biologists aren't true scientists.
We only look at material processes to explain the universe because there is no evidence for anything supernatural existing. You say God could of made us but I say we could of very well been made by supernatural pixie dust. Both aren't provable or disprovable so according to you, we should allow pixie dust to be a viable option when looking at scientific matters.

NO, they are not. With respect to origin of life and diversity of life, neither side holds an advantage. Both are based on prior commitments.

Except.. you know.. ALL THE EVIDENCE for evolution and NONE for a divine authority.

Except again in the case of Darwinian Evolution, it too is taken as true and only the mode is in question. These supposed fair minded people have deluded themselves into believing they are being objective by carefully molding the evidence to fit the conclusion by adjusting processes and predictions and therefore never needing to adjust the conclusion.

Wrong again. If we adjust the processes involved, that means that the conclusion is ultimately being adjusted. The fact that evolution happens isn't being adjusted because it is a FACT that it HAPPENS. The theory however, explains how it happens.

To see this more clearly consider the basic conclusion of evolutionary biology which is that life originated from inanimate

]
Wrong again

The alternative to this is that life was purposefully designed by a goal driven process. The evolutionists reject the alternative out of hand, just as the religious reject materialism out of hand.

There IS NO alternative. Your "alternative" is guess work. Pure and simple conjecture. I can make up shit to.. Did you know the universe came from a giant elephant farting out matter? Did you know sin causes things to fall down and not gravity? TEACH THE CONTROVERSY!!!

Originally Posted by verzen

While this is generally true of science, in the case of evolutionary biology, it is clearly not, at least for most advocates. The advocates of Darwinian evolution (all life evolved by mutation and selection from a common ancestor) do not rely on evidence. Instead they presuppose they are correct and fit observations from science into their prior commitment. In this way it is a philosophical or metaphysical belief masquerading as science.

Silly creationists.. Lying for Jesus again.(or whatever "God" you worship)

You discredit yourself and improve my argument when you presuppose who I am and what I believe. You make judgments based on what you think I might be. Clearly you are comfortable being guided by prior commitments.

We don't use the Darwinian model any more. We have so much evidence for evolution that it's astonishing so many people still think we have no evidence for it. Mutations add up. They accumulate. Bad mutations are rarely passed on because of 'death.'

I am very aware of the evidence favoring evolutionary processes. However there is no evidence that mutations accumulate or "add up" to form new form or function. It is a narrative without substance. Please provide even one example of a know contiguous sequence of more than three selectable mutations. Just one example, show me this evidence. Let me save you some time.... There is none.

Exactly what advocates of Darwinian evolution do. Modern experimental biology has demonstrated that random mutation, working at the scale it does, is generally incapable (except for the very occasional events dictated by probability) of making discrete steps that have selectable advantage.

Wrong again. We don't use the Darwinian model any more because we have GATHERED the evidence for evolution and our evidence has changed our understanding of it.

Precisely my point. The narrative changes, it is now neoDarwinism, but the evidence still eludes us. Nearly all the evidence that evolutionary process generated the observed diversity is simply observations that similar organisms are similar. Hardly a compelling story. It is quite predictable that you would deny this lack of evidence. The fact that you don't see what you do is the point of my post. What you need to demonstrate that evolutionary process produce new and different organisms is evidence that processes working today are capable of accomplishing what is claimed. To do this you need a mechanism that is known to generate the molecular systems required for new form and function including new protein binding sites, new tertiary structures, new gene expression controls and developmental controls. What's more you need to show how a coherent stored blueprint can and does become modified so that all these changes work together in a coordinated fashion. Experimental biology is demonstrating that these things simply do not happen.

In summary the change you allude to is simply a change in the narrative, just as I have claimed.

Evolution is a property of life like being round is a property of a circle.

I know for a fact that you cannot provide evidence to demonstrate that evolution, meaning that new form and function occurs and thus a new and different organism is derived from another in the same way a mathematician demonstrates that round is a property of a circle. Just another example of how one plays games to convince themselves they are being objective.

To accept the neo-Darwinian theory, one must believe that inanimate material and time and random processes plus selection alone can and did self assemble into life

That sir, is abiogenesis. Why do you feel qualified to argue against evolution when you have no idea what it even is?

Because they go hand in hand. Why do you assume I don't know the difference between chemic and biological processes? I am quite aware they are different aspects of the overarching materialistic metaphysical belief. However when you accept that evolutionary process produced observed diversity by processes that were purposeless and unplanned, then by extension one must accept life from non-life was also unplanned and purposeless. If I am wrong about this, please enlighten me.

and cars, and space ships, and computers and everything else we se today

Wrong again. Evolution deals with the diversity of life. It doesn't deal with the technology that we have discovered.

Except that if abiogenesis accounts for life from non-life and evolution accounts for humans from life and humans account for computers, then indeed I am quite correct.

It is a complete contradiction to the law of entropy with respect to molecular order.

And you are WRONG AGAIN! (3 strikes sir) Entropy only deals with CLOSED SYSTEMS. Now you might have a point if we didn't have a large fireball in the sky radiating heat and light particles.

Nonsense entropy is generalized for open systems as well by noting that no process can in itself increase order in one system without bringing in more order. Furthermore while the sun is a good source of high thermal order (low thermal entropy) it does not seem to be a source of high molecular order. Its ability to generate molecular order by experimental test appears to no greater than a random process.

I suppose that you also have a prior commitment to you assumptions about entropy, closed systems and the sun too, because your argument on this topic is also void of evidence.

There must be other processes involved, but Evolutionists refuse to accept this and instead claim the conclusion is faulty because their model of materialism is, by prior commitment, true.

WRONG AGAIN. There may be other processes but that does not mean there MUST BE other processes involved. As scientists, we study the natural.. The observable. We do NOT put any weight into the SUPERnatural.

I don't recall making such an appeal in my argument. This claim that belief in (abiogenesis and) evolution is based on evidence is your claim by the way. Are you suggesting materialism is true because you know for a fact that one alternative to materialism in your mind lacks evidence?

Generally true, but once again in the case of neoDarwinism, false. Here the prior commitment drives a conclusion that material only processes explains everything we see, they just don't know quite how it worked. These philosophers (as opposed to true scientists), have prejudicially rejected other potentially valid modes of explanation.

Congratulations. You just said that 99.8% of biologists aren't true scientists.

No, you falsely interpreted this too and I can't say I am surprised. I am quite aware that many biologists do not hold the prior commitments I spoke of. I also know that far more that 0.2% of biologists reject the idea that materialistic evolutionary processes account for observed diversity. On the other hand where is the evidence that those who hold to a materialistic only philosophy are being objective as you would like us to believe?

We only look at material processes to explain the universe because there is no evidence for anything supernatural existing.

Where did I suggest that one should look for processes that lack evidence? I have assailed you for your doing this very thing. Those who accept evolution as fact (as you clearly do, evolution is comparable to the roundedness of a circle) do accept processes that fail miserably to be in accordance with available evidence.

You say God could of made us

No I did not. Once again your prejudice is showing.

but I say we could of very well been made by supernatural pixie dust.

I submit this is pretty close to what you are claiming.

Both aren't provable or disprovable so according to you, we should allow pixie dust to be a viable option when looking at scientific matters.

And again you over reach. However returning to the idea that evolution accounts for observed diversity, it too lacks evidence and is not provable. In fact there is no good evidence that the processes we currently observe today can or do generate unique, wholly different form or function. Yet your prior commitments likely force you to cling to it.

NO, they are not. With respect to origin of life and diversity of life, neither side holds an advantage. Both are based on prior commitments.

Except.. you know.. ALL THE EVIDENCE for evolution and NONE for a divine authority.

And yet once again I am not making an argument for divine authority. I am pointing out that those who cite evolution are, like the creationist, basing it on a prior commitment.

Wrong again. If we adjust the processes involved, that means that the conclusion is ultimately being adjusted. The fact that evolution happens isn't being adjusted because it is a FACT that it HAPPENS. The theory however, explains how it happens.

Mutation happens. Adaptation happens. Genetic drift happens. Inheritance happens. Trait expression happens. Evolution, the idea that one organism, over time is changed into a wholly different organism by mutation and selection is not a fact. The observed processes fail in the laboratory to produce the required sub components for new form and function.

There IS NO alternative. Your "alternative" is guess work. Pure and simple conjecture. I can make up shit to..Did you know the universe came from a giant elephant farting out matter? Did you know sin causes things to fall down and not gravity? TEACH THE CONTROVERSY!!!

You have admitted my point. Thank you. You hold a prior commitment that only non-purposed material processes account for everything. You hold this belief but the evidence is against it. The evidence suggests that the known material processes in operation today do not produce observed diversity. The evidence today suggests that life does not originate from non-life.

Yet you ignore the evidence seemingly because your prior commitment is more important.

I am very aware of the evidence favoring evolutionary processes. However there is no evidence that mutations accumulate or "add up" to form new form or function.

Another lie. Ever hear of the flagella? Plus, mutations ADD UP. They never reverse themselves. You're basically saying that 1 + 1 can equal 2, but if we keep adding 1's, it will never equal 1 million.

Evolution, the idea that one organism, over time is changed into a wholly different organism by mutation and selection is not a fact.

There is no evidence that a process exists that prevent the sex chromosomes from mutating. In fact, Chromosome #2 is evidence that we use to be able to mate and have viable off spring with an ape-like ancestor who split into other ape-like creatures.

The evidence today suggests that life does not originate from non-life.

http://news.softpedia.com/news/Artif...b-104577.shtml

Oh wait.. what's that? What's that? Oh, it can be created in a lab? Suck to be you and your worthless claims.

I'm not sure why you continue in this. You have already admitted my primary point which is that you and people like you are driven by a prior commitment to materialism because in your words, "There IS NO alternative." In your mind materialism seems to be true by default.

Originally Posted by verzen

I am very aware of the evidence favoring evolutionary processes. However there is no evidence that mutations accumulate or "add up" to form new form or function.

Another lie. Ever hear of the flagella? Plus, mutations ADD UP. They never reverse themselves. You're basically saying that 1 + 1 can equal 2, but if we keep adding 1's, it will never equal 1 million.

I am aware of flagella, the fabulous outboard thrust motors on many bacteria containing an ion pump powered turbine spinning up to 100,000 rpm, with a protein actuated clutch capable of reversing direction in less than one revolution, held in place by protein thrust bearings and bushings. It contains a protein injector to construct and repair the universal joint and whiplike drive mechanism. Over 70 unique proteins including a host of 20 used to construct and maintain it and a complex signal induction circuit to manage it, plus a vast array of developmental and gene expression controls, an inventory system, a protein transport mechanism and a number of other systems. One of the most studied molecular machines.

Unfortunately for your argument, it has likely existed from the early times of bacteria and there is no good evidence that this system evolved in a stepwise fashion. The only citations made for accumulating mutations are made by first presuming that mutations do accumulate to generate these molecular machines then looking for patterns of similarities in other gene sequences. However, noting similarities does not provide evidence for the process. It only confirms that some (less than half of flagella proteins have similarities to other proteins) similarities exist between these proteins and others. It is the lens you use to look at them that cause you to infer relatedness. The reality is that their is no known mutational pathway that begins with a bacteria lacking flagella and ending with one that contains flagella.

As a point in fact, the idea that mutations add up to form a unique, new functional molecular machine or system such as the flagella is a narrative born out of a prior commitment. There is no evidence that this is true. there is no evidence of any stepwise mutational pathway greater than two or three selective steps. I predictably noticed that you failed to offer one, because of course there are none.

Evolution, the idea that one organism, over time is changed into a wholly different organism by mutation and selection is not a fact.

There is no evidence that a process exists that prevent the sex chromosomes from mutating.

I don't believe I made this claim.

In fact, Chromosome #2 is evidence that we use to be able to mate and have viable off spring with an ape-like ancestor who split into other ape-like creatures.

No, actually it is evidence that human ancestor cells used to contain one more chromosome than we do now but at some time in the past, two of them became fused. Once again we have an idea based on a prior commitment and then the observations are fitted into the idea after which it then becomes evidence to support the assertion. It is entirely possible that all humans today are descendent of a line of humans that had a fused chromosome.

There is no indication that our ancestors with 24 chromosomes were capable of mating with ape-like creatures. While humans and primates share similar gene sequences (88-96% based on some claims) our overall DNA sequence contains vast differences. This is not surprising since we share many similar looking and functioning components but also have many striking differences. Evolution must explain the differences not the similarities.

The evidence today suggests that life does not originate from non-life.

http://news.softpedia.com/news/Artif...b-104577.shtml

Oh wait.. what's that? What's that? Oh, it can be created in a lab? Suck to be you and your worthless claims.

You should read your source more carefully. The article is completely conjecture. What's more if they do succeed, then they would only prove that life from non-life can be designed by genetic engineers. They would show that purposeful goal-driven processes are capable of generating life from non-life. They would be contradicting your unplanned, non goal-driven material only conjecture.

I'm not sure why you continue in this. You have already admitted my primary point which is that you and people like you are driven by a prior commitment to materialism because in your words, "There IS NO alternative." In your mind materialism seems to be true by default.

Because your "ALTERNATIVE" is MAGIC! Materialism, as in, what we can know and prove apart from what we don't know and what we can't even prove that it exists... Yeah, there is only one viable option in science because anything apart from materialism is very subjective to interpretation because others can't freely test what you assert.

Unfortunately for your argument, it has likely existed from the early times of bacteria and there is no good evidence that this system evolved in a stepwise fashion.

I take it that you aren't aware that it has another function.. are you? The original function was that it was used as a weapon to inject deadly bacteria in other organisms.

I am using the flagella as my example of a mutation that mutated into something different.

"I don't believe I made this claim. "
Did you or did you not claim that there is no evidence for speciation or organisms changing into another organism over time?

You should read your source more carefully. The article is completely conjecture. What's more if they do succeed, then they would only prove that life from non-life can be designed by genetic engineers. They would show that purposeful goal-driven processes are capable of generating life from non-life. They would be contradicting your unplanned, non goal-driven material only conjecture.

If humans can design a cell in a lab then it is possible that it can happen in nature.

Originally Posted by verzen

I'm not sure why you continue in this. You have already admitted my primary point which is that you and people like you are driven by a prior commitment to materialism because in your words, "There IS NO alternative." In your mind materialism seems to be true by default.

Because your "ALTERNATIVE" is MAGIC! Materialism, as in, what we can know and prove apart from what we don't know and what we can't even prove that it exists... Yeah, there is only one viable option in science because anything apart from materialism is very subjective to interpretation because others can't freely test what you assert.

Nonsense. Evidence for alternatives to purposeless random mutation and selection abound. Our observations and uniform experiences inform us that goal driven processes are able to produce coherent ordered molecular systems, modify existing systems into new form and function, and create the necessary encoded blueprints required to replicate such systems. This is something that we cannot say about known evolutionary or chemic processes. Therefore we have direct knowledge from evidence that suggests processes other than evolutionary processes can explain observed diversity.

These are known and understood processes. Genetic engineers employ them and molecular biologists reverse engineer them regularly now. This is not magic, it is repeatable and testable, however you seem to have rejected that evidence out of hand.

Unfortunately for your argument, it has likely existed from the early times of bacteria and there is no good evidence that this system evolved in a stepwise fashion.

I take it that you aren't aware that it has another function.. are you? The original function was that it was used as a weapon to inject deadly bacteria in other organisms.

I am using the flagella as my example of a mutation that mutated into something different.

I am aware of type III secretion systems. They are used to inject toxins into multi-celled organisms to damage the cells. However research strongly indicates these systems appeared long after flagella and likely came about through loss of mobility function (evolutionary processes are well known and capable of generating loss of function). This makes sense too because mobility in a liquid environment was needed long before a mechanism to attack multi-celled organisms. However the TIII SS contains only 12 proteins while flagella about 70. Citing this is like claiming you can travel by car to Mars because you have located the Moon.

"I don't believe I made this claim. "
Did you or did you not claim that there is no evidence for speciation or organisms changing into another organism over time?

I did not. I have said there is no evidence that known evolutionary processes are capable of generating the requisite modifications to generate an unique and different organism thus explaining observed diversity. It is clear to me that organisms have diversified over time. But we don't know what processes caused this diversification. You have a preconceived notion that purposeless, random and deterministic material processes must have caused this diversification despite the failure to demonstrate these processes are capable of doing so. You claim to be driven by evidence but you have no evidence. Meanwhile there is abundant evidence that goal driven processes in operation today is capable of generating these kinds of ordered systems. You are not being the objective person you want us to believe you are.

If humans can design a cell in a lab then it is possible that it can happen in nature.

This is a logical fallacy. Humans have purposefully designed spaceships and digital computers. Should we conclude that purposeless natural processes can as well?

The fact that the moderators have chosen to relocate this topic into pseudoscience rather than a more appropriate category (I agree this topic is not about the scientific study of religion) despite the accuracy and relevance of the argument and discussion adds further to the claim that many materialists are not the objective persons they wish us all to believe they are.

I am not surprised they have hidden this discussion in an obscure corner of the forum. I am more surprised they did not not just delete it or put it in the trash can.

The question I would have is whether this was sent to pseudoscience because of Cypress' the clear, concise explanation of some of the scientific problems with some unscientific evolutionary thinking or if it was because of the totally ill informed rantings of verzen.

Apparently, they do not want a scientific study of science included in the scientific justification for ridiculing religion thread. It does, however, show just how much these people reject and fear truth.

This is a logical fallacy.

Name the fallacy! Go on.. Go ahead.

Do you know what you used? Oh right, an appeal to false analogy. When dealing with biological matters, you can't say that humans have dealt with spaceships in a lab. When they put chemicals together in a container, zap it with electricity or whatever it is they do to make them come together and become DNA or a cell or what not, this can happen in nature.


I love it when anti-scientific creationists say that I am ranting when they don't know the first thing about the evolutionary processes.

verzen said:

I love it when anti-scientific creationists say that I am ranting when they don't know the first thing about the evolutionary processes.

ROFLMAO!!! When are you bringing your comedy act down here and where will you be appearing. We do have a couple oif great comedy clubs here. I have to get a ticket to that one.

You do realize that Cypress has never said one word about creationism. All his objections have been to the scientific flaws in evolution which, having been exposed has relegated the discussion of evolution to pseudoscience where it belongs. Maybe the administrators have finally figured out that any discussion of evolution, pro or con, is pseudoscience.

You do realize that Cypress has never said one word about creationism. All his objections have been to the scientific flaws in evolution which, having been exposed has relegated the discussion of evolution to pseudoscience where it belongs. Maybe the administrators have finally figured out that any discussion of evolution, pro or con, is pseudoscience.

Dayton, I am afraid you are unaware of the discussions that have been going on in Biology. cypress has done no such thing and for you to also suggest that evolution is pseudoscience is frankly ignorant. cypress has never talked about creationism directly, but he has inevitably employed typical creationist garbage logic to substantiate his very apparent agenda. He is nothing more than a somewhat skilled creationist debater. He effectively wants the field of evolutionary research to be completed with every path explicitly described before he will give any credence to it. He has failed constantly to impress qualified members that actually work in the field with his assertions, all the while firing away with the usual barrage of character attacks. He is the very opitimy of hypocracy by claiming prior commitment and deliberate dishonesty in evolutionary research. He seems to be allergic to the very term 'evolution', because he refuses to admit that any new theories that would help explain speciation would still fall within the same discipline. It is very obvious that to him it is a battle between religion and evolution and is doing his damndest to plant god flags in every hole in the unfinished theory he can find.

Not knowing the first thing about evolutionary processes or even the process of science is exactly right.

You are hilarious KALSTER and as much driven by prior commitment as is verzen. The moderators on this site predictably assail the comments of those who put forth challenge to their favored beliefs even when the challenge follows the scientific process and the site rules. Most often they throw the threads into the pseudoscience category most likely because they figure that label should sufficiently discredit the challenges so they can continue in their prejudice.

It is a pathetic maneuver really and is not likely to convince the unbiased observer they are being objective. It is easy to demonstrate that garbage logic is false or flawed and the fact that they don't and can't should speak to the effectiveness of the arguments. But rather than point out the supposed errors and explain why they are errors you instead go after that character of the debater. Personal attacks like yours KALASTER in place of sound rebuttal is a great example of garbage logic. Evolutionary theory may have made good sense 30 years ago when I first studied it because the gaps were difficult to investigate, but times have changed and we know know how the cell functions and we know what changes are required to make new function, however evolutionary theory remains a narrative with little in the way of demonstrable process yet I continue to hear the same canards.

Attempting to speak for someone else as you are doing is another example of garbage logic. I am not asking for every pathway to be explicitly described but good science does require repeatable demonstration that a cited process in operation today is actually capable of generating the affect attributed to it. If one cannot accomplish this, then one is not following the a sound scientific method.

Contrary to KALSTER's protest I repeatedly call for new processes to explain speciation and would quite happily place them in the category of evolutionary processes if they fit.

KALASTER is quite right that there is a contest for the explanation of life and diversity of life going on between those who believe this universe was created and those who don't. I myself don't see that one side or the other has this debate in the bag.

Originally Posted by verzen

This is a logical fallacy.

Name the fallacy! Go on.. Go ahead.

Do you know what you used? Oh right, an appeal to false analogy. When dealing with biological matters, you can't say that humans have dealt with spaceships in a lab. When they put chemicals together in a container, zap it with electricity or whatever it is they do to make them come together and become DNA or a cell or what not, this can happen in nature.

YOu have no idea if this can happen in nature.

I love it when anti-scientific creationists say that I am ranting when they don't know the first thing about the evolutionary processes.

I am not a creationist. I do not accept that premise and I do not promote it.

It appears that it is you who is ignorant of evolutionary processes. You have been unable to cite a stepwise progression of selectable mutations (I only asked for three). You seem unaware of the fundamental requirements for new new cellular function. You seem unaware of the latest research regarding flagellum.

Originally Posted by cypress

Originally Posted by verzen

This is a logical fallacy.

Name the fallacy! Go on.. Go ahead.

Do you know what you used? Oh right, an appeal to false analogy. When dealing with biological matters, you can't say that humans have dealt with spaceships in a lab. When they put chemicals together in a container, zap it with electricity or whatever it is they do to make them come together and become DNA or a cell or what not, this can happen in nature.

YOu have no idea if this can happen in nature.

Cypress - I notice you were unable to name the fallacy, despite tossing out the assertion that verzen was using one. Perhaps you just forgot to address that part of his post?

Originally Posted by daytonturner

If the two are irreconcilable, it is because they are not addressing the same things. It is almost like trying to discuss the conflicts between cosmology and sociology.

If sociology and cosmology contradict one another, one of them is wrong. That's because they both describe the measurable, the verifiable and above all the falsifiable. Religions describe a mixture of the immeasurable and, depending on the religion, the measurable. The specific material claims made by religions have often been contradicted by science.

Originally Posted by cypress

What's more if they do succeed, then they would only prove that life from non-life can be designed by genetic engineers. They would show that purposeful goal-driven processes are capable of generating life from non-life. They would be contradicting your unplanned, non goal-driven material only conjecture.

Eh? By this logic, demonstrating the germination of cress seeds in the lab is only evidence that cress plants can germinate via directed processes... nonsense of course. The design of the experiment is what determines whether it is a fair test or plausible model, not the fact that it is an experiment, was conducted in a lab or was performed by people.

No Inow. It is not relevant to the primary point that I identify verzen's use of a questionable cause. Likewise you also seem uninterested in the primary point which is that many who hide behind the cloak of science and claim to be objective seekers of truth are in reality as disposed to their prior commitments as some religious people.

Originally Posted by TheBiologista

Originally Posted by daytonturner

If the two are irreconcilable, it is because they are not addressing the same things. It is almost like trying to discuss the conflicts between cosmology and sociology.

If sociology and cosmology contradict one another, one of them is wrong. That's because they both describe the measurable, the verifiable and above all the falsifiable. Religions describe a mixture of the immeasurable and, depending on the religion, the measurable. The specific material claims made by religions have often been contradicted by science.

I agree.

Originally Posted by cypress

What's more if they do succeed, then they would only prove that life from non-life can be designed by genetic engineers. They would show that purposeful goal-driven processes are capable of generating life from non-life. They would be contradicting your unplanned, non goal-driven material only conjecture.

Eh? By this logic, demonstrating the germination of cress seeds in the lab is only evidence that cress plants can germinate via directed processes... nonsense of course. The design of the experiment is what determines whether it is a fair test or plausible model, not the fact that it is an experiment, was conducted in a lab or was performed by people.

Of course. Must every post include endless obvious details or is it ok to give the reader some credit that they can think things through?

To begin with Kalster, there are a couple of things Cypress has posted that disagree with some of my limited understanding of the topic as well as some other aspects of the discussion.

But I think what we are learning here is that the evolution community is very sensitive to legitimate and well articulated objections. I do not get the impression that Cypress is demanding that every line be traced, but would be perfectly happy if just one line could be traced.

I think his charge that evolution is an idea looking for proof is typical of scientific investigative process and not unique to evolution. I don't think all scientific ideas come from someone sitting down and sorting through a bunch of data and suddenly saying, "Eureka, I have discovered the concept of xyz." Usually what happens is that someone has the concept of xyz and sets out to gather information to validate or invalidate the concept.

However, if they are agenda biased toward proving or disproving the concept, their findings are going to give far more weight to that which supports their desired conclusion. Oddly enough, I have never had the impresstion that Darwin was heavily predisposed to proving or disproving evolution but was actually somewhat surprized by what he found when he began to look at his data.

I do not suspect any forum dominated by evolution enthusiasts would enjoy the things Cypress has pointed out. It definitely has the effect of undermining some of the underpinnings of evolution. However, I am not sure that shunting the discussion off into a corner someplace effectively deals with it.

Some evolution enthusiast should counter his arguments by showing existing examples of the things he suggests are missing or inadequate rather than just saying, "Well, that doesn't make any difference, anyway," when actually it does.

What I find disturbing is the feeling that anything that is said which is supportive of evolution is given the status of legitimate science and receives the status that religious people give to their scriptures. Meanwhile, any information offered that undermines evolution is dismissed as "pseudo-science" as though such commentary is an isolated non-sequiter when in reality, they are legitimate objections raised in many corners which usually go unanswered. The objections he raises are not foreign to me and I only wish I were able to articulate them from a similar knowledge base.

I am certain that cypress is a thorn in your sides on a forum like this where most people who object to evolution do so on some religious grounds which have no scientific basis.

Regrettably, I will be out of the country for several weeks and do not know if I will have internet access.

Originally Posted by cypress

*I know you are, but what am I?*

Originally Posted by daytonturner

But I think what we are learning here is that the evolution community is very sensitive to legitimate and well articulated objections. I do not get the impression that Cypress is demanding that every line be traced, but would be perfectly happy if just one line could be traced.

The thing is that his concerns are not legitimate. At least, the lack of the level of evidence he requires does not have the implications he has been desperately trying to implicate from day one. It is not that he wants enough transitional fossils so that you could make a very smooth movie from start to finish (which would be a ridiculous request to the utmost), but that he wants "makro" evolution to already be demonstrated with every single step described. Effectively, he wants the research to already be finished before he would be convinced.

I think his charge that evolution is an idea looking for proof is typical of scientific investigative process and not unique to evolution. I don't think all scientific ideas come from someone sitting down and sorting through a bunch of data and suddenly saying, "Eureka, I have discovered the concept of xyz." Usually what happens is that someone has the concept of xyz and sets out to gather information to validate or invalidate the concept.

Yes, that is how science works. The distinction is between what evolution is and how it works. That it happens is a fact, how it works is the subject of investigation. Evolution is a fact in the same way gravity is.

However, if they are agenda biased toward proving or disproving the concept, their findings are going to give far more weight to that which supports their desired conclusion. Oddly enough, I have never had the impresstion that Darwin was heavily predisposed to proving or disproving evolution but was actually somewhat surprized by what he found when he began to look at his data.

Like I said, that evolution happens is a fact. It is a direct observation. The problems with this exists solely in the minds of those that favour a creator. Life changes itself over time. This is the fact. How it happens is being investigated. cypress does not see the change as evolution, but the processes currently under investigation as evolution and attempts to show this definition of evolution as bunk. Despite his contention to the contrary, he does not like the idea that if a new process is discovered that proves to be the final piece of the puzzle that it would still fit into evolution. The reason for this is that from his first post on this forum he has been trying to convince everyone that the only explanation for evolutionary change is a guided process, i.e. God.

I do not suspect any forum dominated by evolution enthusiasts would enjoy the things Cypress has pointed out. It definitely has the effect of undermining some of the underpinnings of evolution. However, I am not sure that shunting the discussion off into a corner someplace effectively deals with it.

It is not necessarily the things he has pointed out (not that most of them are legitimate), but his inference from these points that he wants us to accept. Actual trained biologists have been engaging with him on this matter from the beginning and have repeatedly showed him where he has gone astray, but nothing has gotten through. cypress flat out refuses to accept the explanations from these people, all the while hypocritically claiming the usual assortment of offences ranging from dishonesty to pre-commitment and bias.

What I find disturbing is the feeling that anything that is said which is supportive of evolution is given the status of legitimate science and receives the status that religious people give to their scriptures.

Not so. Many people have been corrected that came with incorrect understandings of evolution. In the scientific community there are MANY hypothesis and theories that are being tested on a daily basis. Evolutionary biology is by no means a finished area of research, not by a long shot.

Meanwhile, any information offered that undermines evolution is dismissed as "pseudo-science" as though such commentary is an isolated non-sequiter when in reality, they are legitimate objections raised in many corners which usually go unanswered. The objections he raises are not foreign to me and I only wish I were able to articulate them from a similar knowledge base.

This is only true because usually it is pseudoscience. Pseudoscience does not have its name solely for not conforming to current theories, but because of the way it is being conducted. There is an established scientific method and anything that makes sweeping claims without conforming to this standard is pseudoscience. Questions that are asked in this manner usually are not genuine enquiries, but deliberate attempts to destroy evolution in favour of some other pre-existing non-scientific doctrine.

Opponents to evolution simply cannot accept that evolution is real, because it contradicts their non-verified, non-scientific beliefs and they won't accept that anything that comes out of legitimate and verified scientific research will eventually become solid theory. That means that if the evidence existed that directly pointed towards their beliefs and it was verified, that this would also become accepted. But no such conclusive evidence exists, not because it is being suppressed (how stupid would one have to be to suppress data that proves a god?), but because it doesn't exist.

I am certain that cypress is a thorn in your sides on a forum like this where most people who object to evolution do so on some religious grounds which have no scientific basis.

Which is exactly what cypress does. He just goes about it in a clever enough way that it is difficult to pick up on without needing a relatively good level of knowledge in the area.

Kalster said:

It is not necessarily the things he has pointed out (not that most of them are legitimate), but his inference from these points that he wants us to accept. Actual trained biologists have been engaging with him on this matter from the beginning and have repeatedly showed him where he has gone astray, but nothing has gotten through. cypress flat out refuses to accept the explanations from these people, all the while hypocritically claiming the usual assortment of offences ranging from dishonesty to pre-commitment and bias.

You do realize, I hope, that this is virtually what the skeptic world would say concerning the usual assortment of defenses which must be assembled in order to protect the "dishonesty of the pre-commitment and bias toward the evolution paradigm" which suggest all of life evolved from a single "first" cell.

I cannot speak for cypress, but I can easily agree that speciation has been witnessed. But I do not find speciation even comes close to validating all other aspects of evolutionary theory.

You do realize, I hope, that this is virtually what the skeptic world would say concerning the usual assortment of defenses which must be assembled in order to protect the "dishonesty of the pre-commitment and bias toward the evolution paradigm" which suggest all of life evolved from a single "first" cell.

Sure they do, but they argue from ignorance the vast majority of time. You almost cannot find a biologist that argues against evolution.

I cannot speak for cypress, but I can easily agree that speciation has been witnessed. But I do not find speciation even comes close to validating all other aspects of evolutionary theory.

What aspects specifically?

Originally Posted by KALSTER

Originally Posted by daytonturner

But I think what we are learning here is that the evolution community is very sensitive to legitimate and well articulated objections. I do not get the impression that Cypress is demanding that every line be traced, but would be perfectly happy if just one line could be traced.

The thing is that his concerns are not legitimate. At least, the lack of the level of evidence he requires does not have the implications he has been desperately trying to implicate from day one. It is not that he wants enough transitional fossils so that you could make a very smooth movie from start to finish (which would be a ridiculous request to the utmost),

Right lack of a string of transitional fossils does not cause me any concern. Fossils demonstrate similarities and similarities implies common descent with which I do not see an issue. The issue is with the process by which common descent could have occurred. Fossils cannot tell us about the mechanisms under which the changes occured.

but that he wants "makro" evolution to already be demonstrated with every single step described. Effectively, he wants the research to already be finished before he would be convinced.

KALSTER, this is where you repeatedly get balled up. Experimental biology has now largely unraveled the basic molecular and cellular alterations required to define new form and function. We no longer need to observe every single step to a novel form which is fortunate because these pathways would seem to take several hundreds of thousands of years at least. We only need to observe a handful of individual steps including for example generation of a new protein-protein binding site, a novel protein tertiary structure, a novel gene regulatory control site, advent of a new developmental pathway, etc. These are not hopelessly complex items, they are the lowest level sub-steps to novel function. You mischaracterize my objections when you describe the issue so poorly. It makes me suspicious of your motives.

Evolution is a fact in the same way gravity is.

Only in the sense that organisms change over time. That is certainly a fact. How the observed diversity occurred is what is in question. Again you mischaracterize the debate and display the bias of which I take issue when you repeat such sound bites.

Like I said, that evolution happens is a fact. It is a direct observation. The problems with this exists solely in the minds of those that favour a creator. Life changes itself over time. This is the fact. How it happens is being investigated.

Much better, however since how it happens is not yet known, then you and I actually agree. Go figure.

cypress does not see the change as evolution,

Nonsense. I agree with this definition and therefore see nothing worthy of debate over this particular definition.

but the processes currently under investigation as evolution and attempts to show this definition of evolution as bunk.

Not bunk. Many are ideas in short supply of evidence. They are ideas that seem to fail when tested by molecular and experimental biology.

Despite his contention to the contrary, he does not like the idea that if a new process is discovered that proves to be the final piece of the puzzle that it would still fit into evolution. The reason for this is that from his first post on this forum he has been trying to convince everyone that the only explanation for evolutionary change is a guided process, i.e. God.

Huh? You need to read my posts more closely. We very much seem to need some new processes. These new processes must overcome the shortcomings of random processes and therefore should be deterministic or guided. I favor some form of deterministic systems (self or environmentally driven) but I also not that currently there are known processes in operation today that can account for the kinds of molecular alterations required to form new function and I understand that this is a thorn in the side of those with a materialistic bias. I however am open to the possibility that life was made and evolved with purpose and therefore don't object to the implications of these observations though I can also see that this does not have to be God.

I do not suspect any forum dominated by evolution enthusiasts would enjoy the things Cypress has pointed out. It definitely has the effect of undermining some of the underpinnings of evolution. However, I am not sure that shunting the discussion off into a corner someplace effectively deals with it.

It is not necessarily the things he has pointed out (not that most of them are legitimate), but his inference from these points that he wants us to accept. Actual trained biologists have been engaging with him on this matter from the beginning and have repeatedly showed him where he has gone astray, but nothing has gotten through.

I find these biologists are generally correct for what they say. The trouble is that they almost never address the actual issue. Just as here you mischaracterize my points. It is a consistent pattern with those who seem to have a prior commitment to materialism. Nearly all of you want to engage on settled matters and avoid the substance.

cypress flat out refuses to accept the explanations from these people,

This is just it. I accept what they are saying. They almost never address actual issue.

all the while hypocritically claiming the usual assortment of offences ranging from dishonesty to pre-commitment and bias.

It is difficult to remain above the fray when being insulted regularly. I am prone to my faults.

What I find disturbing is the feeling that anything that is said which is supportive of evolution is given the status of legitimate science and receives the status that religious people give to their scriptures.

Not so. Many people have been corrected that came with incorrect understandings of evolution.

That is funny. Surely you misunderstood Dayton's point.

Meanwhile, any information offered that undermines evolution is dismissed as "pseudo-science" as though such commentary is an isolated non-sequiter when in reality, they are legitimate objections raised in many corners which usually go unanswered. The objections he raises are not foreign to me and I only wish I were able to articulate them from a similar knowledge base.

This is only true because usually it is pseudoscience. Pseudoscience does not have its name solely for not conforming to current theories, but because of the way it is being conducted. There is an established scientific method and anything that makes sweeping claims without conforming to this standard is pseudoscience. Questions that are asked in this manner usually are not genuine enquiries, but deliberate attempts to destroy evolution in favour of some other pre-existing non-scientific doctrine.

I wonder what makes this thread worthy of pseudoscience. On this site Dayton seems to have a better grasp of what ends up in this category.

Opponents to evolution simply cannot accept that evolution is real, because it contradicts their non-verified, non-scientific beliefs

True of many.

and they won't accept that anything that comes out of legitimate and verified scientific research will eventually become solid theory.

I think 50 years is long enough to wait for something to bear fruit. I think is is more than time to look for a more capable process than random mutation and natural selection.

That means that if the evidence existed that directly pointed towards their beliefs and it was verified, that this would also become accepted. But no such conclusive evidence exists, not because it is being suppressed (how stupid would one have to be to suppress data that proves a god?), but because it doesn't exist.

I won't speak for you KALSTER but for nearly all materialists friends of mine that I speak with on this topic it is just plain false and they reluctantly admit it. There are several aspects of this physical universe that currently seem better explained by a creator, and I find it silly to pretend otherwise so I keep an open mind about it. Perhaps one day this will change, and then again perhaps not. In the last 20 years it seems to me to be drifting away from materialism.

Sure they do, but they argue from ignorance the vast majority of time. You almost cannot find a biologist that argues against evolution.

This is simply false. Surveys indicate a large minority of biologists reject that random processes and natural selection account for diversity of life. When you expand the set to life sciences you get a majority that reject this view.

I happen to enjoy these kinds of conversations, not because one side is going to convince the other, but because we can have a display of varying opinions as to how the current information we have should be interpreted.

It is often difficult to tell just how much believer v. non-believer bias is actually present. The one thing I do know is that IF there is some non-materialistic causitive factor, no amount of materialistic investigation will expose or define it.

The next thing is that those of us who confess certain non-materialistic beliefs accept materialistic explanations as far as they go. We do not accept, however, that if one can count to 10, it is prima facie evidence that the same person can count to a million. I, for example, can count to 10 in French, but beyond that, I have problems, like with the 70s and 90s and just about anything past 100. In similar fashion, just because we can count some of the final steps of evolution, it does not mean that the first steps have been adequately explained.

For example, did all animals evolve from the same one single-cell animal or did several different one-celled animals evolve into different multi-celled animals such that the only relationship between some multi-celled animals would be at the single-cell animal level?

Originally Posted by daytonturner

It is often difficult to tell just how much believer v. non-believer bias is actually present. The one thing I do know is that IF there is some non-materialistic causitive factor, no amount of materialistic investigation will expose or define it.

Which makes it completely without utility and unworthy of our attention, energy, or investigation... In other words, you've just described precisely why it should be flatly dismissed without reservation.


By the way, your analogy of counting to a million is non-representative of what's happening here. The only thing it represents is your continued use of broken logic.

Originally Posted by daytonturner

It is often difficult to tell just how much believer v. non-believer bias is actually present. The one thing I do know is that IF there is some non-materialistic causitive factor, no amount of materialistic investigation will expose or define it.

Interesting point. Those who accept only materialistic explanations have a blind spot. They will apriori dismiss explanations that invoke goal driven processes even when evidence exists that suggest purpose and forethought. I presume you are not suggesting that goal driven causation leaves no evidence. That being the case, scientific processes can discover the evidence, and test for these processes. Science done right rejects nothing but instead follows the evidence wherever it leads.

The next thing is that those of us who confess certain non-materialistic beliefs accept materialistic explanations as far as they go. We do not accept, however, that if one can count to 10, it is prima facie evidence that the same person can count to a million. I, for example, can count to 10 in French, but beyond that, I have problems, like with the 70s and 90s and just about anything past 100. In similar fashion, just because we can count some of the final steps of evolution, it does not mean that the first steps have been adequately explained.

For example, did all animals evolve from the same one single-cell animal or did several different one-celled animals evolve into different multi-celled animals such that the only relationship between some multi-celled animals would be at the single-cell animal level?

To build on this point, exactly what processes do generate the diversity we observe? We simply do not know at this time. We know from experimental science that the processes invoked by proponents of neoDarwinian evolution, namely mutation and natural selection, do not generate the subcomponents required to affect observed differences in a sufficient time frame. This suggests that other processes are involved. But advocates of material only processes seem blind to this reality and seem content in their ignorant bliss to proclaim that they are smarter than the majority who reject this idea.

Unbiased scientists recognize these limitations you speak of (the analogy was not missed on me) and remain open to the idea that other processes, materialist or not, waiting to be discovered are involved. As I noted before, a majority of scientists support alternative explanations to this rigid model advocated by those with hard-fast prior commitments.