Sir Frederick Hoyle has said that the probability of the sequence of molecules in the simplest cell coming into existence by chance is equivalent to a tornado going through a junk yard of airplane parts and assembling a 747 Jumbo Jet!
Imagine finding a planet where robots are programmed so that they can make other robots just like themselves from raw materials.
Now, imagine an alien visitor coming to the planet and, after many years of studying these robots, coming to the conclusion that since science can explain how these robots work, function, and reproduce, there's no reason to believe that there was an ultimate intelligent designer behind them.
The analogy above certainly is not perfect but it is sufficient to reveal the fallacious thinking of those who attack intelligent design behind life and the universe.
Chance physical processes can produce some level of order but it is not rational to believe that the highest levels of order in life and the universe are by chance. For example, amino acids have been shown to be able to come into existence by chance, but not more complex structures such as proteins which require that the various amino acids be in a precise sequence, just like the letters in a sentence. A single cell has millions of proteins.
There is no innate chemical tendency for amino acids to bond with one another in a sequence. Any one amino acid can just as easily bond with any other. The only reason at all for why the various amino acids bond with one another in a precise sequence in the cells of our bodies is because they're directed to do so by an already existing sequence of molecules in our genetic code. Without being in a proper sequence protein molecules will not function.
The sequence of molecules in DNA (the genetic code) determines the sequence of molecules in proteins. Furthermore, without DNA there cannot be RNA, but without RNA there cannot be DNA. And without eiether DNA and RNA there cannot be proteins, and without proteins there cannot be either DNA or RNA. They're all mutually dependent upon each other for existence!
If humans must use intelligence to perform genetic engineering, to meaningfully manipulate the genetic code, then what does that say about the origin of the genetic code itself!
If the cell had evolved it would have had to be all at once. A partially evolved cell cannot wait millions of years to become complete because it would be highly unstable and quickly disintegrate in the open environment.
The great British scientist Sir Frederick Hoyle has said that the probability of the sequence of molecules in the simplest cell coming into existence by chance is equivalent to a tornado going through a junk yard of airplane parts and assembling a 747 Jumbo Jet!
Considering the enormous complexity of life, it is much more logical to believe that the genetic and biological similarities between all species is due to a common Designer rather than common biological ancestry. It is only logical that the great Designer would design similar functions for similar purposes and different functions for different purposes in all of the various forms of life.
What if we should find evidence of life on Mars? Wouldn't that prove evolution? No. It wouldn't be proof that such life had evolved from non-living matter by chance natural processes. And even if we did find evidence of life on Mars it would have most likely have come from our very own planet – Earth! In the Earth's past there was powerful volcanic activity which could have easily spewed dirt containing microbes into outer space which eventually could have reached Mars. A Newsweek article of September 21, 1998, mentions exactly this possibility.
Contrary to popular belief, scientists have never created life in the laboratory. What scientists have done is genetically alter or engineer already existing forms of life, and by doing this scientists have been able to produce new forms of life. However, they did not produce these new life forms from non-living matter. Even if scientists ever do produce life from non-living matter it won't be by chance, so it still wouldn't help support any argument for evolution.
We also know from the law of entropy in science that the universe does not have the ability to have sustained itself from eternity. The existence and complexity of the universe point to a Supreme Designer and Creator!
Those advocating the teaching of intelligent design are not demanding that Darwinian theory no longer be taught. Rather, the advocates of intelligent design want the merits of both theories taught side by side when the issue of origins is covered in science classes and textbooks. This is only fair.
Science cannot prove we are here by either design (creation) or by chance (evolution), but students should have full information available to decide which position science best supports.
What we believe about life's origins does influence our philosophy and value of life as well as our view of ourselves and others. This is no small issue!
Just because the laws of science can explain how life and the universe operate and work doesn't mean there is no Maker. Would it be rational to believe that there's no designer behind airplanes because the laws of science can explain how airplanes operate and work?
Natural laws are adequate to explain how the order in life, the universe, and even a microwave oven operates, but mere undirected natural laws can never fully explain the origin of such order. An organization of highly qualified scientists, known as the Institute for Creation Research, has published some excellent books and material supporting faith in intelligent design for life and the universe.
Books published by ICR cover various issues such as the origin of life, genetic and biological similarities between species, the limits to biological variation and natural selection in nature, the fossil record, the age of the earth, etc.
This is all very good material, but there’s a problem.
Atheism is a religion with Darwinism as it’s catechism and Darwin as it’s prophet.
While it’s well and good to point out the points in this article, don’t expect an atheist to be swayed. All the points of this article go against his faith and will be dismissed or discarded, if not ridiculed.
I admire the effort, however.
I think that we who believe in God and His creative power miss the argument when it comes to macro evolutionary theory. In my conversations with atheists I have asked a much more fundamental question of them: Explain to me scientifically how something can come from nothing.
This question gets to the root issue of evolution. If evolution is true, then science has to explain where the first stuff came from, before the Big Bang, before there was energy, light, matter, or volume.
I have received thee answers from atheists. 1) The universe is eternal, which is a religious explanation, not a scientific one, 2) it is illogical to ask what happened before time, which evades the question by imposing a human construct (time) in the equation, and 3) science will explain it one day when knowledge and understanding increase, which is also a statement of faith.
A sensible person would look at the question and acknowledge that there is no possible way for something to come from nothing without outside intervention. It is interesting that atheists frequently accuse people of faith as being irrational, but everyone has a religion, don’t they?
This essay illustrates how important it is to teach evolution in schools- because as I have repeatedly witnessed, the only people who oppose evolution are those who do not understand it.
The entire essay is just repetition of incorrect assumptions about evolution that are repeated over and over by creationists, without ever bothering to do any research into evolution to find out if they are true or not.
1.) Chance and “tornados”. Evolution is not about chance. Evolution is not about a single event creating a complex system- that is the basis of Creationism, however. Evolution is about change over time. SMALL changes, over a LONG amount of time yield HUGE differences. It’s like a river carving the grand canyon.
2.) Evolution and Abiogenesis are two completely different things. Evolution is how LIFE changed over time, not how life arose from non-life. None of the questions brought up about DNA and RNA have anything to do with evolution. Evolution is a fact- yes, a fact. It has been observed, it is known to be true. It is not in the least bit questioned in the scientific community. Abiogenesis is not a fact. Well, we all know it must have occurred- even Creationists agree it must have occurred- but we don’t yet know how it occurred.
Again, misconceptions about evolution by creationists- the whole blending of evolution, abiogenesis, and even the big bang as if they were all one thing, or even in the slightest bit dependant on one another. They are not. They are three completely different things, from two completely different branches of science- biology and astrophysics.
Also, since Creationists have a fundamentalist mindset, they believe if you poke one hole, or show one unknown in a topic, then the whole topic crumbles to the ground. THat may be true when evaluating fundamentalist doctrine, but not science. Science is proud of it’s holes. Scientists spend far more time dealing with what they don’t know then what they do know. Scientists LOVE it when there are competing theories- it gives them more to do, and more to investigate. Science is different from religion to it’s core- Science LOVES change. It relishes it. Religion fights change tooth and nail. If anyone were to point out a legitimate hole in evolution, the whole biological community would exclaim “yippie!” in one breadth because you would provide more topics for them to write papers about.
But the fact is, the truth is, the reality is, creationists have not done that. They just state and restate the same old tired concepts that have been debunked in the 70′s.
3.) “there is no such thing as “partially evolved”. That is another huge misconception about evolution that creationists have. Since creationism is goal-driven, creationists assume that evolution is goal-driven, when that is not the case. It’s not like fish are grunting and straining trying to become amphibians, It’s that those who are best able to survive a changing environment do, and those who cannot do not. The ones who survive then reproduce, yielding children that have those survival traits. Every single creature is a fully evolved version of itself.
4.) The concept that the law of entropy in any way refutes evolution is an old chestnut that has been refuted long, long ago- and again, shows that the only people who oppose evolution are those who do not understand it.
http://www.google.com/custom?q=entropy&sa=Search&sitesearch=www.talkorigins.org
5.) The reason why ID should not be taught side by side with evolution in a science class is a simple one- ID is not science. They could both be taught in a civics class, or in a debate class, but not in a science class- because ID is simply the lack of knowledge about science. Teaching ID in science class is like teaching eubonics in English class. Bad english is not english, and bad science is not science.
6.) Here is the first true statement made in the whole essay:
just because the laws of science can explain how life and the universe operate and work doesn’t mean there is no Maker.
And evolution does NOT state there is no maker. Again, a common misconception that creationists have about evolution is that evolution is atheistic. It is not. It says nothing about the existance of a creator one way or the other. As a mater of fact, MOST CHRISTIANS in the industralized world accept evolution. Europeans think Americans are silly for even debating this. The Catholic Church, as well as a number of protestant denominations, have issued documents stating that their churches have no problem with evolution, and even accept it as fact.
To a person of faith evolution simply explains HOW God created life.
As the Bible says, God created man out of clay.
It’s your choice to read that as a literal act of a sculptor instead of reading it as how God created life gradually from the primordial ooze.
ID vd Evolution is NOT Christians vs Atheists. It’s Fundamentalists vs everyone else.
One final thought- history repeats itself.
This whole debate is exactly the same as the one against the concept of the heliocentric model of the solar system vs a geocentric view of the universe.
Fundamentalists feared that by accepting the concept that the earth is not the center of the universe is to accept that mankind is not the most significant element of God’s creation. They were not basing their opinions on astronomical observation like Galileo was, but only on how the information effects their world view.
Now, most everyone accepts that Galileo was right- even many Fundamentalists now claim that the Bible agreed with Galileo all along.
ANd now, Fundamentalists fear that by accepting that life evolved over time means accepting man is just another species of animal, so then, again, mankind is not the most significant element of God’s creation. They are not basing their opinions on biological observation like Darwin was, but only on how the information effects their world view.
In the future, most everyone will accept that Darwin was right- even many Fundamentalists will claim that the Bible agreed with Darwin all along.
“…and again, shows that the only people who oppose evolution are those who do not understand it.”
The “You just don’t get it” argument. One of my favorites. Discards all argument while at the same time putting everyone else in their intellectual ‘place’. Nifty. Works well for creationists and feminists too.
Anyway, good points about evolution and abiogenesis. I always thought of them as separate. You might want to direct your ire, however, not at us unenlightened ones, but at teachers. They are the ones that tend to lump those two things together when they teach. Perhaps at higher levels of scientific learning they are separate, but not at the introductory level. The Big Bang flows into abiogenesis which flows right into evolution with a minor pitstop at the dinosaurs.
Perhaps we are too stupid to ‘get it’ because of the way it was taught to us?
In the meantime, I’ll stick with my Comment #1.
Oh, and you only get a ‘yippee!’ if you patch the hole with a similar material (something the fits the mould of evolution). If you merely proved that evolution isn’t true, you would likely find yourself branded…well, a heretic. Scientists are people too and like the rest of us don’t always like their ideas challenged. On the bright side, it would be impossible to prove that any of this (evolution, etc) was NOT true.
Doesn’t wash, Magenta. You have misrepresented both sides. It is glaringly false that contemporary science welcomes change and debate. It is just as false that creationists are goal driven in their viewpoint of how things come to be.
Science is driven by funding, not by discovery. If funding is not available, science is not available. Science is driven by special interests trying to get their agenda front and center. There’s a lot of money at stake, and that is the overridding factor on what is called science in today’s culture.
Science rarely admits its mistakes, and rarely admits that it is not the one source for truth. Far from being proud of its holes, science presents itself as the final infallible word on every topic. Anyone who disagrees is an anti-intellectual science hater.
Macro evolution is not an observed fact. The processes of billions of years of variation producing superior life forms cannot be observed. Micro evolution, the variations in species over time, is an accepted fact that no one disputes. Micro evolution would come to bear only if it could be shown that the variations in species produced a superior form. This has not, and cannot be demonstrated.
You claim that religion doesn’t change, then you claim that Christians everywhere are changing to accept evolution. So which is it? You had it right the first time, actually. Religion doesn’t change because truth doesn’t change. And it shouldn’t. Only peoples’ viewpoints change.
Lastly, “evolution and abiogenesis are two completely different things” is false. Evolution is all about the “origin of the species.” If lower forms of life are or have changed to higher forms of life due to gene mutations and natural selection, the it logically follows that we need to trace these events further back, to their origins. In order for evolution to occur, a inferior predecessor must always have existed.
So let’s go back to the first things. We have some primordial soup, where did it come from? Where did the iron, sulphur, and water vapor come from? What about the base elements? What about the atoms that make up the elements, or the forces that mysteriously hold them together? Where did photons come from? This is all about evolution, Magenta.
Lastly, evolution is necessarily atheistic. You will not find a single atheist who is a creationist. Evolution does not require a god, and in fact does its best to refute God at every turn. Some religionists have tried to harmonize their belifes with evolutionary theory to their embarassment. Why try to harmonize unchanging truth with malleable scientific theory that could be something different tomorrow? That would be absurd.
Your dogmatism borders on religious fervor, Magenta. How do you therefore differ from a creationsist, excepting only the object of your affections?
Let see, small changes over long periods of time. That must mean that
each step is simple and as such we should easily be able to find millions
of these small changes which have lead to life as we know it.
I have heard this junk for years. It is an arguement with no meat. Just
once I want some Darwinist to show a detailed sequence of small steps
which takes loose matter and makes life. If it happened by accident
then why can’t these “scientist” lay it out for all to see.
There is a logical connection between Intelligent Design and the odds
of random assembly making life. You can look at life see how
complicated it is and determine just how impossible for the big accident
to happen. Darwinist on the other hand tell us to take it on faith that
all of these small steps lead to life. They fail to show the steps.
If I am to take something on faith it will be to believe in God and his
creation.
The first lie ever told was Satan telling Eve that by eating the forbidden
fruit she would be like God. Are we to believe the lie that God does
not exist?
Ron:
1.) I made no “you just don’t get it” argument. I stated HOW the author of the essay did not get it. THe simple fact is, Creationists do not understand evolution- they just flat out don’t.
2.) Yes, science education in the public school system is abysmal- and if because of it you blended the big bang into evolution, that just demonstrates the problem. That problem should not be compounded by teaching religion as science.
3.) WHile individual scientists don’t like their egos to be deflated, science is composed of numerous individual scientists each wanting to position themselves. Take the recent discovery of the Flores hominid. Some wanted to cling to the established taxonomy, and claimed that the find was merely a woman with a birth defect. Others wanted to prove that it was a new species. This is healthy debate, because both positions are based on looking at facts and coming to conclusions based on those facts.
Creationism does no such thing. It is entirely based on ignoring facts in favor of faith.
Rich:
1.) You claim “Science rarely admits its mistakes”. Rarely compared to what? Religion? Science CONSTANTLY evolves (there’s that word again!) as new information is introduced, and it is constantly looking for new information. Taxonomic classification trees have been redrawn and rearranged radically because of the ability to analyze DNA. String theory, M Theory- the whole concept of what the universe even IS has changed dramatically in the last 50 years- heck, in the last 10 years.
2.) Again, you show a lack of understanding about evolution. Macroevolution IS microevolution. They are exactly the same thing, just over a longer period of time. SInce you acknowledge that microevolution exists, you then need to show what makes the known process of microevolution STOP after a certain degree of change. Without showing something that stops the process, there is no reason to think the process did not occur before our ability to record it. That’s like saying Gravity did not exist before Newton. If you think we have not observed a single species splitting off a new branch as a new species, think again.
3.) I never claimed religion does not change. What I said is that religion fights against change tooth and nail. Everything changes. Thus is the nature of cultural evolution.
4.) Again, you show a lack of understanding about evolution. Evolution and abiogenesis, despite your objections, are two completely different things. Evolution is about how life forms change over time. Abiogenesis is about how lifeforms came to be from non-life. Anything before that is not part of Evolution, it is another process. Even if God created a single cell as a great miracle, that would not change the fact that that sell then split, produced offspring, and that over time the offspring evolved into all of the biodiversity that exists today. The process of Evolution BEGINS at the first cellular life form. Concepts of geology and physics are NOT part of evolution. Well, there is geological evolution and stellar evolution, but they have nothing to do with biological evolution. And BTW- your objections just illustrate how IMPORTANT it is to teach science to children, because of how many adults just don’t understand it.
5.) I’m going to give you a little lesson in logic.
As i said, Evolution is NOT atheistic.
You countered that by stating that no atheists are creationists.
Yes, that’s true.
That’s because Creationism is Theistic.
What I said is that Evolution is not Atheistic.
Example:
I said you don’t have to be a vegetarian to eat a salad.
You then say That’s not true because no vegetarian will eat a steak!
Do you see how silly that is?
THe issue is who can eat the salad, not what vegetarians eat.
THe issue is who can accept evolution, not what atheists accept or not.
THe fact that no members of group B (atheists) are in group C (Creationists) does not mean that everyone in group A (Evolutionists) are in group B (atheists).
You see, Creationism is dependant on the concept that a God exists.
Evolution is not dependant on ANY concept of God.
That does NOT mean evolution is dependant on the LACK of God.
That means that Evolution is not dependant on God either way.
No, Evolution does not “refute” God.
Again, Evolution *has nothing to do* with God.
Logic, BTW, is the basis of Science.
You think evolution refutes God because you are afraid of change, that’s all.
You say that your religion is unchanging truth?
Is the Earth flat?
Is it covered by a firmament?
Does the sun go around it?
Well, I bet you are going to say that the Bible never supported those concepts- that previous people simply misread the Bible.
Uh huh.
How I differ from Creationists is that I am advocating people look at the world around them, analyze facts objectively, rather than simply believe what someone told you an ancient book says. Science is about objective analysis of the world around us. Do some individual scientists lack objectivity? Sure, they are only human. Religion, on the other hand, does not even come close to objectivity and is then not a measure of PHYSICAL truth. SPIRITUAL truths, perhaps. But not PHYSICAL truths. If you don’t know the difference, then by golly, you are a Fundamentalist.
Magenta just did another pretty dance and ended up in the same spot. Micro evolution does not provide evidence of anything except variety. Remember, you claimed evolution is a fact. Well, show me the fact of evolution producing superior life forms from inferior ones. You can’t because such an event is not repeatable. Even if science somehow manages to create a life form from unliving matter at some point, all that shows is that life required the intervention of an intelligent designer, i.e. the scientist.
Has it ocurred to you that that theory of evolution depends entirely on abiogenesis? You can separate them all you want, but you still have to explain how something can from nothing before you can explain how something simple mutated into something complicated.
Religious viewpoints are only observations and interpretations of objective, unchanging truth. Science, however, holds itself up as the Provider of All Answers. If it doesn’t have the answer now, it will later. It is actively hostile to anything religious. You deny this? Well, I guess we can pretend if you prefer, but that doesn’t seem very scientific to me.
Afraid of change, am I? How would you know that? Are you also a psychologist? Yes, psychology does define religion as pathological, doesn’t it? More proof of my point that science hates religion. Religion competes with science for truth, and science always has to change, and it always eventually lines up with the truth that religion has taught all along.
That’s always the stereotype presented when evolutionists are challenged. “You religionists are ignorant, you don’t understand, you’re a fool for relying on an ancient book, we have all the answers, we use logic and reason and our brains.” Arrogant crap.
Lets look at the meat of this argument for a second- should ID be taught as science? To do this we must look at the true function of science and at the same time agree what we are saying about ID. I believe we can come to a common ground that advocates of ID simply wish that an ackowledgement of a supreme being is necesary as a reasonable explanation of the initial life on planet Earth, as well as the foundation of the planet Earth. We all should agree that it does not try to define which supreme being, when, or why. Science in its primitive form is “recorded knowledge.” Science is maintained through investigation and must adhere to the “scientific method.” The goal of science is “evaluating emperical knowledge which explains observable events in nature as a result of natural causes, rejecting supernatural notions.”- wikepedia
Science and intelligent design are mutually exclusive. Science has a sole purpose- to reject supernatural notions. Science is the recorded knowledge due to experiments or observation. On this basis alone, ID does not belong in the classroom. This truth is the same foundation that science does not belong in the creation discussion. Science must recluse itself from the discussion of the Big Bang Theory, Creationism, or any explanation of initial life on Earth if they choose to be a field of facts and not opinions. Lets look at the scientific method of the Abiogenesis
Model- a prediction that life came from matter. Simply put life is a result of “something from nothing.”
Hypothesis- “a prediction tested by experiment or observation.” This has not occurred. This is where Magenta conviently states,” We all know abiogenesis occurred we simply do not know how”- paraphrasing here. This is exactly where science ends in the discussion. Science cannot come to the conclusion that abiogenesis occurred. There has been no experiment or observation to state this.
Theory- “a logical self-consistent model for describing the behavior for a certain natural phenomena.” This has not occurred.
Law- “a scientific generalization based on a sufficiently large number of emperical observation that it is taken as fully verified.” This has not occurred
The conclusion I come to is one based on asking science to adhere to its own rules if it chooses to dictate what is taught in the classroom. Science cannot teach abiogenesis. Science cannot teach the Big Bang Theory. These are simple models. These do not qualify to be taught as a hypothesis, thoery, or law. The desired outcome effect that science has created in teaching what it cannot explain has opened this pandora’s box for science. Science attempted to break its own rules, then asked the rest of world (ID believers) to adhere to them. Science needs to take a step back, admit they have no clue on how life began, and then maybe, ID believers will stay out the science classroom.
I am a strong believer in ID. I have no facts to back it up, but to me, that is the very basis of ID, faith. I cannot expect my faith in God to be taught in science. Science cannot expect faith in an untested, unproven, unobserved model to be taught in science.
“you still have to explain how something can from nothing before you can explain how something simple mutated into something complicated.”
Do I need to explain how a catapult is built before I explain balistics? Or is the description of what happens after the initial action separate from a description of the initial action itself?
I can explain how a projectile flies without knowledge or explanation of how it took flight. Likewise, evolution can be described without knowledge or explanation of biogenesis. While I applaud your desire to know the cause of all things, I don’t understand why the assumption is that science must have all the answers at once?
A point that may have been missed:
Magenta never said that opponents of evolution were *incapable* of understanding evolution, just that they did not possess that understanding.
Magenta;
I appreciate your comments but I wouldn’t waste too much time on this website. These people aren’t going to pay too much attention to what you say unless you can somehow publish your thoughts in the Bible….
By the way, this argument started with ID – evolution and “evolved” into creation – evolution. I think this supports the claim that ID is just a way to get creation in the schools. I guess teaching it in church is not enough…. Ask yourselves why evolutionists aren’t complaining that evolution isn’t taught in churches. It is the evangelical fundamentalist agenda to make the world believe what they do.
One last thing (anticipating the usual attacks of character), I voted for Bush (twice). So save your “typical liberal left-wing” crap.
Thanks ever so much, Magenta. I didn’t realize that all of my 48 years of education and reading on a variety of different subjects, including evolution, just led me to not “understanding” evolution.
Let’s get at the meat of the subject: I don’t “understand” evolution like you do. Therefore only you, and, of course, those who agree with you, have the ability to comment or teach anything dealing with evolution.
There is one thing I need to know: Since when had the “Theory of Evolution” become a law, like unto the Laws of motion and Thermodynamics?
In spite of your assertion that evolution is “fact” it hasn’t become a law, and the reasons it hasn’t is because you can’t prove macroevolution in the laboratory, and there are too many holes in the “facts” supporting the theory. (By the way, there is a new theory, put forth by a Colorado University Graduate student, giving proofs that the Grand Canyon was carved in as little as 500,000 years, through a repeating cycle of volcanic dams and their breechings causing floods. So much for you using that analogy. Says something about science, doesn’t it?”)
Just your insistent replies disproves your statement that “science welcomes change”. The people that were the most vehement in their criticism of Galileo were his peers in science; the Church just got the publicity.
I have no problem with ID not being taught in schools. What I have a BIG problem with is that Evolution is taught as Law, fact, not as theory. That, my dear Magenta, is religious indoctrination of the most insidious sort.
Stop trying to open my eyes when your own are firmly shut.
Thanks for pointing that out, Chris. I did notice that. Doesn’t change the substance of my particular points, I think. Still, it’s consecending and arrogant to stereotype people like this. Magenta couldn’t get away with that if he’d been using the same language about blacks or gays, could he?
Lliam does the same thing. He just has to summarily dismiss an entire class of people, and no argument need be presented. It’s easy, quick, and requires no thinking.
I am a mathematician. I am agnostic. The closest thing I have to a religion is science, because I do not trust men. The men of science can be influenced by their emotions and by what they want to be true, just as religious fervents can. Smart educated men can make monstrous mistakes. The scientific method and the peer review process are the best tools we have to objectively look at phenomena and minimize errors. Over the last 200 years, the scientific method has been hugely successful not only at contributing to our understanding of the universe, but also at applying that knowledge to create things used in our daily lives.
I think the point I am trying to make is that an article on intelligent design does not belong on a site concerned with politics. In order for such an article to have any weight in my mind, it must be published in a scientific journal with peer review. If probabilities are calculated, I want to see how. I want citations of other related scientific works. Science has rules, the rules are not perfect, but they work better than anything else we have come up with.
An anecdote: most of the paths in the Alps discovered in the 20′th century were discovered by either preachers or physicists. Perhaps the 2 professions share more than meets the eye.
As an example, take the life of Albert Einstein. Einstein was a rebel from a very early age, constantly questioning authority and the opinion of experts. In particular this allowed him to perform the heressy of questioning Newtonian mecanics which was so successful at explaining physical phenomena as to be unquestionable in Einstein’s youth. Einstein was a very mystical physicist. He frequently referred to God in his research, wondering what mysteries God had in store for him. Einstein did his most seminal work between 1905 and 1918. From the age of 40, Einstein’s rebelious spirit worked against him. He dismissed quantum physics (hugely successful then and now) with a: “God does not play with dice!”
To which Niels Bohr replied: “Who are you, Einstein, to tell God what to do.”
Einstein’s work after the age of 40 is considered a dead end by active physicists today. The scientist faltered, but science simply rolled on without him, thanking the man for his enormous contribution. Science is conservative, but change is one of it’s founding principles.
I would like to stress that religion also changes with time and always has, mostly for marketing purposes. See “A History of God” by Karen Armstrong.
It is hard for us to imagine how long 1 million years takes to pass. Scientists put the age of the earth at 4.5 billion years. An astoundingly long time.
Science is fantastic. Learn as much as you can, and encourage your kids to do so as well. You may be able to turn science on it’s head, Einstein was able to, but he had to work pretty damn hard.
Ian
Did Magenta ever answer the question of where the “pre-big bang” matter and energy came from? I read an article from last year that praised a group of scientist for finally “discovering” what occurred prior to the big-bang. Their explaination was that the universe had already collapsed and that our universe is a result of a “big-bounce” rather than a “big-bang”. Why can’t evolutionist and others who reject any idea of a creator or intelligence just answer the question of where it came from? They present like they have all the answers now, so let’s hear it? It makes more sense to just accept the fact that creation by God is the first cause. Doesn’t Occum’s Razor (spelling?) suggest that with complex issues the rational approach is to accept the simplist solution? The closest thing to eternity that God has provided is the expanse of the universe. Just where does it end? Dark matter supposedly makes up 96% of the matter of the universe. The simplest explanation seems to be from the Bible, “by Him all things consist”. If we were true evolutionist who believe in natural selection, then why is it important for humans to protect the environment or animals on the brink of extention? Seems like they had their chance to survive. Why do we need laws to govern our behavior? Why do we need so many boundaries in our life to keep us in line (stop signs, yellow lines in the road, contracts). Could it be that we were really created in the image of a Holy God and our nature is to sin and stray from the truth? By our very nature, we seek answers outside our self so we can find meaning for our life. Maybe part of our nature is to find God and some are just looking in the wrong place. I have been very comfortable being in Christ and accepting the fact that I am going to be with my Creator for eternity when I die. Have a great day!
This is in response to Johnny. No offense intended, but I think it is best to restate Johnny’s points and respond to each, one by one.
“Did Magenta ever answer the question of where the “pre-big bang” matter and energy came from?”
-If he knew, he probably would have a Nobel prize.
“Why can’t evolutionist and others who reject any idea of a creator or intelligence just answer the question of where it came from?”
-Because they don’t know yet. Plus, I think you are used to debating your coworkers who think they have all the answers, but are no more experts on evolution and science than you are on the Bible. Sure, you know the gist of the Bible, but can you answer every little detail? (And I neither claim an expertise….)
“They present like they have all the answers now, so let’s hear it?”
-Your coworkers or whomever, maybe, but no respectible scientist. And a lot of religious people present like they too have all the answers – and their answer is simply “God.”
“It makes more sense to just accept the fact that creation by God is the first cause.”
-I disagree that it is a fact. A possibility, maybe.
“Doesn’t Occum’s Razor (spelling?) suggest that with complex issues the rational approach is to accept the simplist solution?”
-Here is just a silly example: If one of your parents just disappeared – you saw them one day and the next day they were gone, no body, nothing, just vanished (seems like a complex issue, to me anyway…) – would you be content just believing “God” took them away (a simple answer), or would you want a better explanation? (If you don’t like that analogy, then come up with your own….)
“If we were true evolutionist who believe in natural selection, then why is it important for humans to protect the environment or animals on the brink of extention? Seems like they had their chance to survive. Why do we need laws to govern our behavior?”
-In my humble opinion, we humans are the only species on earth that has the capacity to destroy it. We can cause more damage than any other species. This is indisputable. I think we are protecting ourselves… from ourselves.
“Why do we need so many boundaries in our life to keep us in line (stop signs, yellow lines in the road, contracts). Could it be that we were really created in the image of a Holy God and our nature is to sin and stray from the truth?”
-Stop signs, yellow lines, and contracts don’t necessarily prevent “sins.” I think the first two prevent accidents and the latter simply states an agreement between people.
“By our very nature, we seek answers outside our self so we can find meaning for our life. Maybe part of our nature is to find God and some are just looking in the wrong place.”
-To seek answers is exactly what science does. And who’s to say where the wrong place is to find those answers.
-I think basically there are two types of people; those who believe in magic and those who don’t. For those who don’t, the answer “God did it” is just not satisfying.
This is a response to no-name’s response to me. Maybe you ought to study the bible a little more. The Hebrew word for “day” in Genesis is more accurately translated as “time” or “peroid”. There are many Christian fundamentalists who believe the time needed to create the Earth was longer than the seven one-day-equals-a-thousand-years days referred to in Genesis.
Evolution was, and always has been, trumpeted by the scientific atheists because here, finally, was a THEORY that “proves” God doesn’t exist. Scince then, all discussion of said THEORY has descended to name-calling by the “priests” of the new religion any time their precious catechism is challenged; an action strangely very much like what they used to accuse us of doing. You are the perfect example of that which you preach against.
As far as “God did it: in the previous post: History shows the believers and fanatics of science and it’s discoveries and beliefs are the actual “magic believers”. Or have we forgotten the times of bleeding someone to cure them in order to release “foul vapors”, and the utter coviction of scientists that the Earth was flat.
In response to Dave;
Some Christians do believe that the world is 6000 years old – and some don’t. But you see, the only thing you have to fall back on is semantics, that is, how to interpret the Bible. And no one can seem to agree nor ever will (and everyone thinks they are the correct ones). At least science has NATURE and REALITY as its ultimate referee.
The way you use all-caps in typing the word “THEORY” suggests you have no clue as to what the term means in science. People like you always think you have that “gatcha” moment by pointing out that (fill in the blank) is just a “theory.” It is not the same as the everyday use of the word such as “I have a ‘theory’ about scratching my butt (Or whatever it is that you do).” In science, a theory refers to something that has been scrutinized and tested to a high degree. Not the “hunch” that you think it is.
Not all people believe that evolution “proves” God doesn’t exist. You’re off base.
In response to;
“As far as “God did it: in the previous post: History shows the believers and fanatics of science and it’s discoveries and beliefs are the actual “magic believers”. Or have we forgotten the times of bleeding someone to cure them in order to release “foul vapors”, and the utter coviction of scientists that the Earth was flat.”
-No one believes those “medical therapies” nowadays except for the mystics. I challenge you to find a (living) scientist who believes that. And, if by chance you do, I’ll show you a crackpot. I also challenge you to find a reputable scientist that believes in magic.
-Point two: Not only scientists believed the earth was flat. But science has progressed since then. Why can’t you acknowledge that? I bet you run to the doctor when you are sick. Do you think they just pray for you, or do you think there may be some science behind what they do? (Or are you afraid they will try to “bleed” you?)
I suppose you think it was scientists behind the Salem witch trials and such…. I think it was religious fanatics like you.
Dave, Dave, Dave… pull your head out of the sand.
“Or have we forgotten the times of bleeding someone to cure them in order to release “foul vapors”, and the utter coviction of scientists that the Earth was flat.”
Didn’t you read the rest of the posts? Science *LOVES* proving itself wrong and replacing old theories with new, better ones. The only time scientists rail against new ides is when those new ideas are not supported by experimental or observational data.
Well, evolution fits the observational data that we have pretty well. Of course, ID fits pretty well too, but it’s easy to make your “theory” fit the data when you can just fall back on saying, “it was designed that way.”
New better ones? The salem witch trials? Your deliberate misinterpretaions of my responses shows how limited your “Reality” is.
First off, I know exactly what a theory is. More than that, I know what it isn’t, and that is a law. You, and your cohorts, insist on pointing at all the holes in the theory and saying, “Look! It’s a fact!” You how about addressing the holes, for a change?
I acknowledge that science has progressed. The examples I used was not to show I still held those beliefs, but to show the ephmeral nature of science itself. Can you acknowledge that the Bible, and christianity as a whole, has progressed since the days of Galileo, and no longer holds to those beliefs? No, we’re still on witch hunts; of course, now who is hanging on to old stereotypes?
And if science loves proving itself wrong, why the religious fanaticism show by the evolutionists whenever their beliefs are challenged. Answer the questions, oh holy scientists, instead of countering with name-calling and and utterances of “Heathen! Ignorant Savage!”
And just how long have scientists been making their theories to fit their observations (isn’t that what facts are; repeatable observations?)?
By the way, I know plenty of reputable scientists who believe in magic; some who even practice it. Christians to wiccans, they can all be scientists. But, only the select few, those who denounce god and christianity, are allowed to speak in the hallowed halls of evolution. All others are heretics.
Dave,
You do not know what a theory is. Make whatever claim you want, but the way you use the term states otherwise.
But… you are right on one thing – a theory is not a law. But I bet you don’t know that some long-standing theories will never become laws. I get the feeling that you think that every theory can become a law and that is not the case.
I suppose you have the right to twist what I say to try to “corner” me, such as claiming that I believe that you still are hunting for witches. Try to read more carefully – I never made that claim. Furthermore, you were the one to throw out old stereotypes, not me. I simply stated who was behind the witch trials before we got blamed.
“Answer the questions, oh holy scientists, instead of countering with name-calling and and utterances of “Heathen! Ignorant Savage!””
“…oh holy scientists…”
-And who is doing the name calling?
I see that you read things into that which isn’t there. Sounds like a personal problem….
“And just how long have scientists been making their theories to fit their observations (isn’t that what facts are; repeatable observations?)?”
-Dave, you clearly have no idea about what it is to do science. You state that scientists make their theories fit observations as if it is the wrong thing to do. That’s exactly the right thing to do. Observations (NATURE and REALITY) have the final say! Not a theory. So it’s the theory that must evolve. And you have no clue that a theory can be correct, yet incomplete. For example, there are some that think General Relativity is incomplete. It may be, but it hasn’t failed yet (to my knowledge anyway) and if it is incomplete, then it will work in all but a few circumstances, much the same way Newton’s law of gravity does. Speaking of which, Newton’s law of gravity is not a complete theory (by the way… it’s called a “law” yet is not complete – GR is a more “complete” theory). It breaks down in certain circumstances, e.g., in strong gravitational fields (a large star for example), yet it was sufficient to get us to the moon. That is, in preparing to go to the moon the corrections to gravity that GR provides weren’t significant enough that we had to use it instead of Newton’s. So (hopefully) you can see that incomplete “theories” can still have their uses (provided you DO believe that we went to the moon….)
Furthermore…
You also clearly have no concept of observations. You really think they are repeatable facts? Well, to some extent… yes. But I implore you to try to make repeatable “observations.” And I don’t mean to watch “Joe” eat the same sandwich for lunch every day. When you repeatedly observe/measure something you get statistical fluctuations and possible instrumental errors. The “facts” you refer to are the underlying pattern/function/size/what-have-you – not the observations themselves. And much of the time the best we can do is quote an average and an error. Now your eyes are probably lighting up thinking I just provided you with future ammunition and you can say “but… scientists can’t even make good measurements…blah blah.” I have no hope that you will ever see the power in getting an average and an error. These are constraints to some extent. If I do the science on your vehicle and tell you that to drive to Dallas you’ll need 332 +/- 15 gallons of gas with a 99% confidence interval, that is pretty powerful. You’ll be able to plan to pay for 347 gallons worst case scenario and there is a 1/100 chance that it could be more or less than the upper and lower limits so you can plan on a little extra “emergency” money.
And even furthermore,
Dave, you obviously are not a scientist (based on your lackluster skill set). But you expect me to believe you know a lot of scientists? What, is two a lot for you? It is perfectly fine to be Christian, Muslim, even Wiccan and be a scientist. And not all Christians believe in magic.
Here is the whole point;
If someone long ago were sick and the “medicine man” did some form of ritual and the person was healed, would you just blow it off as magic performed by the medicine man, or would you want to find out the ingredients in the potions or what-have-you and find out exactly what was the cure? Was it some certain plant, perhaps a phychological effect? Penicillin?
You see, people like you would not have the human race advance. Yet I’m sure you take full advantage of modern medicine and technology (afterall, if it weren’t for science you wouldn’t be able to use your computer to post your messages on this website!).
What exactly IS the “magic” your reputable scientist “friends” practice? I think you said that just to throw in a hollow rebuttal.
Have you ever even been on a college campus? At the one I’m at, this Summer as a matter of fact, they’re having an evolution discussion forum lasting 15 weeks or so, a few days a week where people from many departments (especially the theology department. Yes… they have one of those here!) gather to discuss evolution. And please notice I said “discuss,” not try to persuade like you would do. These are people who are genuinely interested in the (search) for the truth.
Dave, stop embarrassing yourself. Let it go man….
If I may make a comment referring back to the original topic;
You all seem to possess the general gist of intelligent design. So you must be learning it somewhere….
Plus, how hard is it to teach ID? It’s a pretty simple concept is it not? Parents will have a much easier time teaching their kids ID than… say… calculus. Just a thought.
The first time I really learned about it was in school believe it or not. Well… college. It was in a philosophy course. I found it very interesting actually. I believe it was William Paley who first come up with it and the “watchmaker” argument.
If I may also make a comment about “Honker’s” comment (#10);
Honker states that the big-bang theory shouldn’t be taught as science (read comment # 10 for his full argument).
I just would like to point out that the big-bang theory can be (and is being) tested. I think most (if not all) scientists would agree with me that one of the main criterion for a good theory is that it be testable. If you can’t test it, then you can never prove it wrong. Now ID on the other hand is clearly not testable. That is where the difference lies.
Read “The World as Will and Representation” by Schopenhauer for a view on the underlying metaphysical principle of being. It is a better explanation that evolution or i.d.
I so enjoy reading comments on evolution and ID. Since we cannot go back in time and see
for ourselves we take what we can see and make a theory that fits the data. For either side
to say their theory is fact is a reach. It all boils down to faith.
I for one believe that the Earth is but 8,000 years old. I also believe that the whole of
creation was done in six days. Notice I did not say it is a fact. My beliefs are consistant
with observable data because the theories that I believe in do not hold some atomic
characteristics constant over time. Again a belief and not a stated fact. What I find very
interesting in these discussions is the charged up emotional responses. When I talk to
people about what I believe in it is to get people to start asking themselves questions about
their place in the universe and hopefully that will lead them to a belief in God. I am open
about my agenda.
I started years ago to get my mind around quantum mechanics. The bottom line in the
world of small is all of the rules change. One could look at the world as a digital simulation in
which the packets of energy know way more about each other and what they are going to do
in the future than we do. I looked at a lot of work done by molecular biologist and others.
Again I came up with a completely different view of their work than they did. I see the
systems that manipulate some of our DNA code as trying to hold on to information contained
in ancient DNA, not create new information. What lead me to conclude this was the lack of
mutated young in all species. Again just a view. Now that I have this view it is easy for me
to not use these systems to confirm evolution. Others have the exact opposite view. When I
looked at the geologic record I saw massive catastrophies which lead to the fossil record. For
me I saw many of God’s creatures dieing off. What I did not see was new life being made.
The debate will go on and I for one welcome it.
The three most assisnine modern ideas: Evolution, Intelligent Design, Libertarianism.
Last post, I promise. Hakez, I work on a college campus. I have more college credits that you’ll ever dream of possesing. Once again, as with your defense of evolution, you make assumptions about things you can’t begin to understand (remember Magenta?) and wind up wiping the meringue off your own face.
I love the last post. good job, Brandon.
Hakez, your priests of Evolution no more “discuss” evolution than I “discuss” potty training with my 2-year-old granddaughter. They sit around a huge round table and quietly, in reverent tones, talk about
how to fit their own discoveries into the Holy Text of Darwin. Meanwhile, those with valid questions about the sacred text, are prevented from even entring into the discussion, having been given the scarlet letters of “repulican”, “conservative”, and the most damning of all, “Believer in God”.
When you and your ilk are ready, Hakez, to actually answer the fundamental questions of how utterly wrong evolution is, and why so much of it starts off with assumptions baseless in true science (something the Darwinian Faithful say alot, but know nothing about), then we Christians, we lackwits and ingnoramuses, we won’t have to worry about a thing, because the Second Coming will ahve happened, and we will be happily engaged elsewhere.
Again, I assert ID has no place in schools; neither does Evolution taught as FACT, or LAW, instead of Theory. (A theory is supported by facts, or by repeatable experimentation. Please show me the facts, especially the repeatable experiments, the show, not natural selection, but evolution. When you’ve wasted your laife trying to find one, just one true fact, give me a call. I’ll tell you there are nos\ne, and that I’ve known that for years. Evolution is a religion, Gentlemen, and I’ll take the fullness of my religion over the emptiness of yours every day, and yes, twice on Sundays.)
Okay Dave,
You make three points I’d like to respond to:
First point:
“Hakez, I work on a college campus. I have more college credits that you’ll ever dream of possesing.”
(I HAVE to respond to this one….)
-This may be true, but I (highly!!!) doubt it. Maybe… a big maybe… if you possess two Ph.D.s, or had to repeat many classes, this might be true. But even then I think it’d be close. This is something I CAN back up with hard “facts.” If you care to post some contact information (your full name, college/university, and department will suffice), I’d be happy to send you my cv. Anything less on either of our parts is just hollow flaunting.
Please understand why I would rather not post my contact info…. (I suppose I can make a temporary email if you’d like.)
(For readers other than Dave, my apologies for wasting your time with that which you have no interest in and that doesn’t pertain to the topic. But I HAD to respond to it since I truly do believe it to be false. Not that Dave is lying. I think he may sincerely believe it. I acknowledge that his arrogance was probably spurred on by some arrogance on my part, but this should not go unchecked.)
Second point:
“Hakez, your priests of Evolution no more “discuss” evolution than I “discuss” potty training with my 2-year-old granddaughter. They sit around a huge round table and quietly, in reverent tones, talk about
how to fit their own discoveries into the Holy Text of Darwin. Meanwhile, those with valid questions about the sacred text, are prevented from even entring into the discussion, having been given the scarlet letters of “repulican”, “conservative”, and the most damning of all, “Believer in God”.”
-Dave, if you knew the university of which I referred to (the place where I work), I truly believe you would be embarrassed by the uninformed errors of your previous quote. Funny you mention “priests”… we have a few here (Catholic that is…). And you’d be hard pressed on this campus to find a room without a crucifix. (I hope this gives you enough clues.) So if you choose to believe me, do you still stand by your previous statement?
Third point:
“Once again, as with your defense of evolution….”
-”Once (again)….”!! Read more carefully Dave! Not only do you think I defended evolution, but you think I did it repeatedly. I only defended science in light of your lack of knowledge of what the word “theory” means, not necessarily evolution (although I do prescribe to it more so than creation). Science Dave… yes, I think evolution is science and ID and creation are not. Your reading comprehension abilities are found wanting….
P.S. Yes… “Lliam Hakez” is an alias… for the same reason you don’t post your last name. So if you based your superior education assertions on a google search of my “name,” you would be led to make the false assertions you made.
P.S.#2. Google search. This reminds me of a previous post of yours where you claim to have “reputable scientist friends” that practice magic. Well… if they are indeed reputable, state their names. We all should be able to Google them and see for ourselves….
P.S.#3. I do hope you respond even though you promised your previous post was your last. I’m sure we all would forgive you if you post again.
All this talk of Science vs. Religion whenever the topic of Evolution comes up! It all sounds like a great
pro wrestling match, with appropriately costumed well muscled actor wrestlers in Mother of all WWF
matches. But please, it’s all so pointless. Outside of North America so many happily traditional religious
believers have accepted the notion of “guided Evolution”, which accepts an evolutionary process set in motion by a Creator. In my own humble way I have tried in the past to make this point whenever I had the
chance, and so I’ll try again- the God Hypothesis and Evolution are not linked. They are not even roommates.
This rumble is as pointless as any bar room brawl.
I think I finally get it! This is a competition of semantics rather than reason. It doesn’t matter that matter and energy had to be created from nothing and some intelligent being had to make it happen; it’s really about how good a writer is with formulating sentences that hold up to criticism. Any person with strong beliefs either way will not persuade a person with an opposing viewpoint to switch sides. What we need is an infallible witness who was there to see either the big bang happen or creation. Since we have no credible witness for the big bang and we (Christian) do for creation, I choose to believe the creation story as provided in the Bible. The bible is not a book of science–it is a book describing how God created, put man on earth (and how mankind screwed up a good thing), and then what God did through Christ to give us a chance to have a relationship with Him now and after death. Yes, it defies logic and reasoning. All I can tell you is that it doesn’t make scientific sense to believe in the creation. It seems less foolish for me to believe that God created everything full-grown and with the appearance of age, than to believe everything has evolved along by chance. I have visited numerous sites trying to find an evolutionist that can explain how chance can result in a universe of matter and energy that came together on an atomic scale and continues to do so. Everyone who has posted to this site has demonstrated their ability to reason to a point. Bible believing Christians will believe in creation, while non-believers will not.
Hi Johnny,
Here is a question then:
Why would God break His own rules (the laws of physics that is) when it’s not necessary?
I think it is that Genesis is more of an allegorical account than a literal one….
I’m not a scientist, but is seems that the “laws of physics” is a physicist’s explaination of how and why things are the way they are–not God’s. Science is still exploring discoveries that seem to defy the laws of physics. How do the laws of physics explain the existence of a black hole, dark matter, or the origin of RNA? To interpret creation as God breaking His own rules seems to be a stretch–and an opinion. Truth is absolute and no person can recognize truth unless the Source of the truth reveals it. I believe that is why we have the Bible. You may agree with the premise that a Christian believer’s faith and belief system stands are falls on whether or not the Bible is telling the truth or just a good read. I have been on the side of the sceptic, but I now choose to believe in the Biblical account of creation and mankinds accountability to God. I am not surprised that you see the creation story as an allegory. I used to believe the same thing. Evidence and reason leans toward creation–in my opinion.
Thanks Johnny.
I am a physicist, so I know a little about black holes and dark matter. I like to think that God (if He exists) is the ultimate physicist. I also like to think that physicists do not create the laws of physics, but discover them instead. If I am to believe the Biblical story of creation, then it is not just an opinion that God broke his own rules (as we know them anyway…).
I think it is dangerous to blindly follow a “book.” That is why we have so many problems in the Middle East in my humble opinion. Instead, I think God (again, if He exists) gave us brains for a reason. I don’t think He would ask us to do anything that we were incapable of doing (this would just be unfair!). And I think we can agree that God is fair. So I think it is within all of us to figure out what is “right/moral/true/…” without the necessity of having a preacher, cleric, priest, imam, nor anyone else tell us. (Imagine if a person had no access to any of the above! – Also, can you imagine a guilty criminal being let off with the defense that he was not told what was right and wrong!?! We have brains. Think of the bracelet that says “W. W. J. D.”)
The literal creation of the Bible still seems far-fetched. As some believers in creation maintain, that the earth is ~6000 or so years old, then why on earth do we have dinosaur fossils that date much older? And why does the universe appear to be much older? Did God make it that way just to play a trick on us? I don’t think God would do that. What would be the purpose? Again, I think God would be disappointed that we are not using our brains….
I liken it to shopping for a gift. Imagine two of your kids go out to buy you a gift. One of them thinks very hard about what you might like, searches all over, spends a lot of time agonizing about what to get you, (tries to understand what you are like) – but in the end, the gift is not really what you wanted. Imagine the other child just goes out and gets the first thing they could find – which just happened to be the thing you wanted. Now imagine you knew the individual effort each child put into the gift. Which one would you appreciate more? I don’t see this as much different than someone continually questioning their faith and searching for the truth and perhaps, in the end, getting it wrong – and someone who just happened to be born into the “right” faith (if there is one…). And if you were to punish the child that got the wrong gift, then what kind of father would you be?
You see, on earth, it is not that clean-cut. We have thousands of “options” around the world, each telling us that “theirs” is the correct one. What else other than our brains can we rely on? One can’t say the Bible because that presupposes that Christianity is the correct “one” and that argument wouldn’t convince a Muslim for instance. Furthermore, the Muslim could use the very same argument!
Look, the main reason I started posting on this site was because of the total misrepresentation of science that I read, not only in the comments, but in the main articles too – that for some reason science is bad. I think a lot more good has come out of science than, say, this website for example. I just ask you all to think about it the next time you drive a car, use a computer, use toothpaste, or have to see a doctor. Think about where these luxuries came from….
Hello,
thought I would through my two-cents into the discussion. As a biology teacher in a Christian school, pursuing my Master’s degree in biology, I hope that I have sufficient background in both subjects to offer some pertinent opinions. I am a firm believer in Christ, His Deity, and His path to salvation. I also firmly believe what someone has pointed out, that God has given us minds to stretch and use. Also, that He often inspires and reveals knowledge to us. That being said, I would like to offer the following criticisms:
First, I have been continually disappointed in my Christian brothers and sisters in their lack of knowledge in the basic tenets of evolutionary mechanisms. While reading through this thread, I found myself groaning at the misuse of common evolutionary terms that even my AP biology students would know. We should, as Christians, strive to the utmost in understanding terms and concepts as they are used so that we may argue and discuss without showing our basic ignorance. We should be able to engage in thoughtful discussion, but we should come prepared to at least use terms correctly. Conversley, scientests should strive to understand some basic theology if they want to discuss theology we Christians.
That being said, I think we are so limited in our concept of God, our finite nature limits our concept of His nature. I remember a conversation I had with a student regarding the age of the universe (the inevitable short-day versus the long-day discussion!). The student in question did not like me stating that the days could be long periods of time, claiming that I was reducing God’s power, that He “needed” long periods of time in order to create. My response was that God did not even need a week. If he desired to, He could simply speak everything into being, but according to our scripture, He took time to craft and sculpt the universe. There is plenty of discussion in theological circles concerning the age of the earth. My personal view is that we waste entirely too much time (ha) on this…non-issue. We have the freedom in scripture to look and observe and read, using what we understand of the Hebrew language to try to determine the order of events.
Science is a tool that we use because we rely on our observations. We use the scientific process to test and hone our ideas. I have always loved science and loved scripture teaching that God loved His creation and took pleasure in His creation. Science is limited by what we can observe, and our observations can be faulty, our interpretations can also be faulty. But I will accord the scientific community with high standards and principles, they have set-up the process to self-correct. Yes, biases and preferences do exist. As Christians who believe that we all have fallen short of the glory of God, why are we surprised when there are biases and antagonism? However, the scientific community at least has set the foundation of self-correction. Who knows…in fifteen years, we could find out something amazing about the nature of time that dictates a shift in our idea of the age of the universe!
Because of our reliance on observation, I actually do *not* like the intelligent design movement, not necessarily for its philosophy, but rather because it sets out to presume God’s intentions and test them, limiting Him to our finite and feeble observations. In scripture it states that His ways are mysterious and that we will not always understand things. For us as Christians to state that we can test his purposes seems an incredibly scary slope to be on. I remember reading a report about an intelligent design proponent stating that God would not create junk DNA so therefore junk DNA must have a purpose…they claimed that this was a testable hypothesis…and lo and behold, there is some evidence that junk DNA can have regulatory functions !!! Yikes, to place our faith on what we deem as purposeful in God’s eyes, knowing what He intended? I would not dare to presume to know His intentions in creating “junk”. I would hope that such an awesome and indescribable God as we believe in could not be simplified this much!
Also, as soon as we dictate our faith on what we cannot explain, as so many intelligent design followers do (we cannot explain this, therefore God must have been involved), we create a horrible situation. What happens when we can explain explain the mechanism? We have painted ouselves in a corner. Oops, now we can explain it…
anyway…in my humble opinion :-)
In the end, Genesis states the He created the universe, He planned it, He ordained it, purposefully and in certain orders (but there are several theological interpretations for this order.) It does not say how He created it.
My plea would be that the scientist would not limit philosophies (I am purposely using this word) based solely on what you can observe and test. God is above the natural, He cannot be placed in a box, not can be limited by our physical observations. CS LEwis used an apt analogy in his book “The Horse and His Boy”, when Alsan revealed himself not as a lion, but as a small cat, because the boy only understood and saw the cat, as well as being comforted by it, revealing himself as a lion when the boy was ready.
I believe that science and Christianity need not be enemies, but I must confess, I am not enamored of the intelligent design movement as a bridge.
Amen, Zoe, and Amen.
Hakez, I have not Googled your info. Nor do I want to.
These last two answers have said it all. Thank you.
I didn’t lie about my last post being my last, just that I a great release after reading the last two posts.
Take care, Hakez and Magenta. Go well with whatever God you worship.
The supernatural remains logically possible, and thus an option for belief, only because it is not susceptible to confirmation or disconfirmation on the basis of evidence. But this status is permanent–the metaphysical status of supernaturalism as at most a logical possibility will never change. To become more than a logical possibility, supernaturalism must be confirmed with unequivocal empirical evidence, and such confirmation would only demonstrate that this newly verified aspect of reality had all along never been supernatural at all, but rather a natural phenomenon which just awaited an appropriate scientific test. – Barbara Forrest
I just stumbled across this website and after reading the above article (but not much of any of the responses to it) I thought I would post a few quotes by some people that are probably a tad more informed on the subject than anyone in this forum… PHD or not… I don’t have a college degree, and that’s why I don’t feel that I need to post my own opinions. I learn, just like everyone in this room, from people who are smarter than me, so here are a few interesting quotes that have taken part in forming my opinion on this issue…. thanks
The Dude
http://www.myspace.com/jtwhite
http://www.blog.myspace.com/jtwhite
“The chance that higher life forms might have emerged this way (that is, by chance) is comparable with the chance that a tornado sweeping through a junk yard could assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein.”
-Sir Fredrick Hoyle, Nature, Nov 12, 1981
“Do not be afraid of being free thinkers! If you think strongly enough you will be forced by science to the belief in God, which is the foundation of all religion. You will find science not antagonistic but helpful to religion.”
-Lord Kelvin
“Question is: Can you tell me anything you know about evolution, any one thing, any one thing that is true? I tried that question on the geology staff at the Field Museum of Natural History and the only answer I got was silence. I tried it on the members of the Evolutionary Morphology Seminar in the University of Chicago, a very prestigious body of evolutionists, and all I got there was silence for a long time and eventually one person said, ‘I do know one thing…. it ought not to be taught in high school.’”
-Dr. Colin Patterson (Senior Paleontologist, British Museum of Natural History, leading cladistic taxonomist), Keynote address at the American Museum of Natural History, New York City, November 5, 1981
“Nine-tenths of the talk of evolutionists is sheer nonsense, not founded on observation and wholly unsupported by facts. This museum is full of proofs of the utter falsity of their views. In all this great museum, there is not a particle of evidence of the transmutation of species.”
-Dr. Etheridge, senior paleontologist of the British Museum of Natural History, cited in Dr. Scott Huse, The Collapse of Evolution
“The notion that not only the biopolymers, [that is, the DNA molecules and proteins in living systems] but the operating program of a living cell, could be arrived at by chance in a primordial soup here on earth is evidently nonsense of a high order. Quite a few of my astronomical friends are considerable mathematicians and once they become interested enough to calculate for themselves, instead of relying on here-say argument, they can quickly see this point.”
-Sir Fredrick Hoyl, New Scientist, Vol. 92, pg. 1280
“To improve a living organism by random mutation is like saying you could improve a Swiss watch by dropping it and bending one of its wheels or axis. Improving life by random mutations has the probability of zero.”
-Albert Szent-Gyorgi, Nobel Laureate (Medicine, 1937)
“…as I became exposed to the law and order of the universe, I was literally humbled by its unerring perfection. I became convinced that there must be a divine intent behind it all… My experiences with science led me to God. They challenge science to prove the existence of God. But must we really light a candle to see the sun?”
-Dr. Wernher von Braun
“For example, no scientist could logically dispute the proposition that man, without having been involved in any act of divine creation, evolved from some ape-like creature in a very short space of time — speaking in geological terms — without leaving any fossil traces of the steps of the transformation. As I have already implied, students of fossil primates have not been distinguished for caution when working within the logical constraints of their subject. The record is so astonishing that it is legitimate to ask whether much science is yet to be found in this field at all.”
-Lord Solly Zuckerman, M.D., D.Sc., Beyond the Ivory Tower (New York: Taplinger, 1970), p. 64
“I wish I were younger. What inclines me now to think you may be right in regarding [evolution] as the central and radical lie in the whole web of falsehood that now governs our lives is not so much your arguments against it as the fanatical and twisted attitudes of its defenders.”
-Dr. C.S. Lewis, in letter to Capt. Bernard Acworth of the Evolution Protest Movement, 1951
“Evolutionism is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless.”
-Professor Louis Bounoure, past president of the Biological Society of Strassbourg, Director of the Strassbourg Zoological Museum, Director of Research at the French National Center of Scientific Research. (Quoted in The Advocate, March 8, 1984.)
“Scientists of the highest standing would today accept many of [Bishop] Wilberforce’s criticisms of Darwin just as they would also accept the criticisms raised by the geologist [and Christian clergyman] Adam Sedgwick, whose review was published in The Spectator in April 1860…
Missing links in the sequence of fossil evidence were a worry to Darwin. He felt sure that they would eventually turn up, but they are still missing and seem likely to remain so. What we are to make of that fact is still open to debate, but today it is the conventional neo-Darwinians who appear as the conservative bigots and the unorthodox neo-Sedgwickians who rate as enlightened rationalists prepared to contemplate the evidence that is plain for all to see.”
-Professor Sir Edmund Leach, addressing the 1981 Annual Meeting of the British Association for the Advancement of Science
“ICR’s [Institute for Creation Research] followers take science more seriously than most scientists do…”
“[ICR faculty have] absolutely respectable, legitimate doctorates from major American universities…”
“…more than half of the adults in North Carolina accept the general outline of the creationist argument.”
-From a Ph.D. thesis in anthropology, by evolutionist Paul Toumey
“It’s such a deeply ingrained faith, such a strong dogma on which we are all raised from an early age. Interestingly, I’ve read a number of biographies of scientists who are leaders in both creationist and evolutionary thought. The overwhelming trend is that the leaders of evolutionary thought all make their living purely from evolutionary theory. They are ‘specialists in evolution’ and there is no way that you could see how someone whose entire life and reputation and livelihood were bound up with the theory could turn against it. On the other hand, the leaders of the creationist movement usually have made a name for themselves in some area of fundamental and applied science — real science — before moving into creation science.”
-Kouznetsov, in Dr. Carl Wieland, “Interview with Dr. Dmitri Kouznetsov,” Creation Ex Nihilo, Vol. 14, No. 1, p. 36
An ACLU member says:
“For the past five years, I have closely followed creationist literature and have attended lectures and debates on related issues…. based solely on the scientific arguments pro and con, I have been forced to conclude that scientific creationism is not only a viable theory, but that it has achieved parity with (if not superiority over) the normative theory of biological evolution. That this should now be the case is somewhat surprising, particularly in view of what most of us were taught in primary and secondary school.
In practical terms, the past decade of intense activity by scientific creationists has left most evolutionist professors unwilling to debate the creationist professors. Too many of the evolutionists have been publicly humiliated in such debates by their own lack of erudition and by the weaknesses of their theory.”
-Robert E. Smith, “Origins and Civil Liberties,” in Creation Social Sciences and Humanities Quarterly, 3 (Winter 1980): 23-24
“Let me be blunt on this matter. Evolutionists around the world have had to learn the hard way that evolution cannot stand up against creationism in any fair and impartial debate situation where the stakes are the hearts and minds of intelligent, undecided – but nevertheless objective and open-minded – audiences. Experience will prove that the same is true for the age issue as well. Evolutionist beliefs regarding the origin and development of life cannot withstand the scrutiny of an informed opposition, and neither can evolutionist claims to the effect that the universe has existed for 10 to 20 billion years. To delay the collapse of widespread public acceptance of such claims, it will be necessary for evolutionist scientists carefully to avoid debate.”
-Dr. Paul D. Ackerman, It’s a Young World After All (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1986), p. 13
“I believe that one day the Darwinian myth will be ranked the greatest deceit in the history of science.”
-Dr. Soren Lovtrup, Darwinism: The Refutation of a Myth (New York: Croom Helm, 1987), p. 422. (Note: Lovtrup is an evolutionist, albeit not an “orthodox” one.)
“Most of us might opt for rejection in most circumstances. Yet in the case of the synthetic theory, we hold it, not with a light hand as advocated by T.H. Huxley, but with an ironclad grasp, unwilling to let go, unwilling to explore alternatives.”
-E.O. Wiley, Systematic Zoology, 24(2):270 (1975)
“…contrary to what is widely assumed by evolutionary biologists today, it has always been the anti-evolutionists, not the evolutionists, in the scientific community who have stuck rigidly to the facts and adhered to a more strictly empirical approach.”
-Dr. Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (London: Burnett Books, 1985), p. 353, 354. (Note: Dr. Denton is neither a creationist nor a Christian
“Just as pre-Darwinian biology was carried out by people whose faith was in the Creator and His plan, post-Darwinian biology is being carried out by people whose faith is in, almost, the deity of Darwin.”
-Dr. Colin Patterson, quoted by Brian Leith, The Listener, 8 October 1981, p. 392
“It is a religion of science that Darwinism held, and holds men’s minds… The modified, but still characteristically Darwinian theory has itself become an orthodoxy, preached by its adherents with religious fervor, and doubted, they feel, only by a few muddlers imperfect in scientific faith.”
-Marjorie Grene, Encounter, November 1959, p. 48
“…science can establish, by the observed facts of nature and intellectual argumentation, that a super-human Power exists.”
-John C. Monsma, in The Evidence of God in an Expanding Universe
“Any suppression which undermines and destroys that very foundation on which scientific methodology and research was erected, evolutionist or otherwise, cannot and must not be allowed to flourish. It is a confrontation between scientific objectivity and ingrained prejudice – between logic and emotion – between fact and fiction. …In the final analysis, objective scientific logic has to prevail – no matter what the final result is – no matter how many time-honored idols have to be discarded in the process…
After all, it is not the duty of science to defend the theory of evolution and stick by it to the bitter end – no matter what illogical and unsupported conclusions it offers. …If in the process of impartial scientific logic, they find that creation by outside superintelligence is the solution to our quandary, then let’s cut the umbilical cord that tied us down to Darwin for such a long time. It is choking us and holding us back.
…Every single concept advanced by the theory of evolution (and amended hereafter) is imaginary as it is not supported by the scientifically established facts of microbiology, fossils, and mathematical probability concepts. Darwin was wrong. …The theory of evolution may be the worst mistake in science.”
-I.L. Cohen, in Darwin Was Wrong – A Study in Probabilities
“Evolution is not a fact. Evolution doesn’t even qualify as a theory or as a hypothesis. It is a metaphysical research program, and it is not really testable science.”
-Dr. Karl Popper, leading philosopher os science
(most quotes found on http://www.marshill.org)
I must respond to at least the last quote from Dr. Karl Popper.
This is what I am talking about. People throw quotes around but need to examine them before using them as support. Microevolution, and by this I am referring to changes in gene frequencies over generations, is absolutely testable. Thousands upon thousands of experiments show that populations shift in gene frequencies. Whether or not this leads to broad scale changes needs much more examination, but this is that populations shift and change has been well documented.
Even in scripture, Jacob uses this idea when he only allows the spotted sheep to breed, thus increasing the percentage of spotted gene frequency in the next generation. This is not a horrible, evil, concept that Christians need to worry about, and indeed, even most creations support microevolution. God has mandated that we are stewards over the earth, and we have clearly changed populations of animals and plants with the basics of microevolution.
We can debate evolutionary philosophy as it pertains to origins, abiotic synthesis of molecules, even whether microevolution supports the classic understanding of eolutionary history but please, please, lets not use vague, ambiguous quotes that do nothing but aggravate this highly emotional issue. Most of these quotes use evolution with respect to philosophy…not mechanisms.
And finally, my encouragement to the dude….(I can’t really type that with a straight face…I’m sorry)…I would encourage you seek out the books that are out there…since when is it enough to simply let others think for us? There are plenty of good, thoughtful books that explain concepts well…being able to use these quotes mean nothing if you do not understand their context.
Zoe
Do you know the Catholics in Europe have an interesting line on all this. I spoke to a catholic priest once and asked him about the big bang. He said the church is completely open to anything modern science comes up with. When asked specifically about the beginning of time itself he simply said, “well it was god who put the golf ball sized piece of matter there in the first place, that exploded outward to form the universe”. By which he cleverly had it both ways.
The same thing when asked about evolution, “god made the rules by which animals evolved”. Simple, eloquent and hard to argue with. It made the fundamentalist rantings of the bible literalists seem like complete nonsense.
Well… I was going to let the list of quotes go unanswered myself but changed my mind in light of Zoe’s latest post.
Anyone who quotes Fred Hoyle is discredited in my mind. Do a little background research on Hoyle before you quote him. Though he did some good work in astrophysics, he was the pioneer of the “steady-state” theory and an opponent of the big bang until his death. He was an opponent because the big bang discredited his own theory. Talk about blindly defending one’s own stance….!
I’m with Zoe on doing some thinking for yourself. No matter how smart someone is, they are wrong from time to time.
Furthermore, something creationists like to do is point out the faults in opposing theories. But they ignore one main fault in their own – the fact that the universe is old. If given one clear piece of evidence of an old universe then one has discredited the young-earth claim. Perhaps, when the next article of similar nature appears on this site (and we all know it will…), I will give some examples and we can all discuss them. As it stands, this article is about to be “lost” in the archives.