Evolution, Religion, and pre-meds

[viking]

What evidence is there to support the notion of God as a Sustainer? If God is a sustainer (presumably benevolent), then why did the Holocaust happen? Why are 1 in 5 children in America living in poverty?

As humans we strive for true free will and often fear and reject the ease and security of obedience to authority. God recognized this predicament and allowed us to believe in him of our own free will. He choose not to gain our faith and trust through miracle, mystery, and authority; but through love. When he denied the three temptations of the devil, he chose not to impress us with his powers. Instead he gave us freedom and the gift of moral responsibility. Although there is horror in the world, it would be much more horrific without choice, chance, and free will. He has left the responsiblility on our shoulders to eliminate the problems of this world; and responsibility is one of the greatest gifts anyone can be given.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[tugbug]

Originally posted by bewitched1081
hello! evolution is a religion in itself. you have to have faith to believe in something that has NEVER been proven. sure adaptation has been observed. but you need to take a leap of faith to believe that the first cell was developed from scratch and that monkeys evolved into humans. they cant even find evidence for the endosymbiont theory. so dont try to espouse the idea that evolution is more empirical than creation when there is no empirical evidence available.

As other posters have said, TOE says nothing about origins of life... there are a bunch of theories out there on this with the most accepted one being the theory of Abiogenesis.

Evolution is not a religion. I suppose it can be a religion for some if they decide that it is above doubt... but at that point they stop thinking like scientists. Evolution, and ALL things from a scientific point of view, are believed as long as they are the best explanation for what is observed. As soon as a better explanation is found, evolution should be abandoned.

What evidence would cause you to abandon your God? Any? Probably not, for most the belief would persist NO MATTER WHAT evidence/arguments were presented because they dont base their beliefs on objective facts. They have subjective reasons... And that is Faith.

I believe theres a big difference, although Im not claiming one is superior to the others.

 

[lessismoe]

Let me modify my earlier request. I want SPECIFIC examples of empirical evidence for creationism.

As for the whole question about how recessive genes are eliminated from a population-- they AREN'T! That's why we still get kids with cleft palates and genetic diseases, etc. However, there is selection against these genes, but usually only when the recessive phenotype arises in a homozygote. That's the beauty of having a redundant chromosome system (1 from mom, one from dad): you don't have to have 2 perfect copies to be healthy! You just need one. Look up Hardy-Weinberg principles.

As for the whole "finding some examples of beneficial mutations" question, I have several strains of flies in my lab that live SIGNIFICANTLY longer than other flies (e.g.- mutants of the chico gene, found by S. Benzer). In terms of humans, I can think of a couple of seemingly freakishly tall people who have turned their height into basketball careers.

Now, someone tell me why God would give men perfectly-capable-of-functioning nipples?

 

[tugbug]

Originally posted by goobernaculum
Theistic evolution has problems from both sides: creationists and darwinians.
Creationists don't like theistic evolution because adherents to this doctrine believe in a design, but it is a design only recognizable through faith. That is, the "theistic" part of theistic evolution is an optinonal tag-on if you're a "spiritual" person. Intelligent design says that everyone can view nature and see that someone must have designed this. Furthermore, Darwinism attributes all of evolution to random mutations, natural selection, etc. A designer is never mentioned, nor is it implied. "Nature" moves evolution. Unless you believe that the designer is some amorphous "nothing" called nature (or perhaps randomness), this really isn't a deity. In fact, a designer who creates via evolutionary means would be intending to conceal himself and his purposes, which in my definition would be contrary to a designer or a God's intentions (that last bit is an assumption. Darwinians look at this and simply ask, "why add the theistic part?" They take pride in denying a teleological existence or taking comforts in what a designer might have to offer (e.g.- an afterlife). To them, theistic evolutionists are, quite frankly, weak as they hold onto an unnecessary byproduce of their society.

I dont doubt that there are individuals in either the ID or evolution camp that look down on any with different beliefs. There are individuals like that in any group. I'm on the evolution side of this arguement and I have no problem with the addition of 'thiestic' to the theory if you are a believer in God.

Your main reason why belief in both God and Evolution is unworkable (if I understand you correctly) is that evolution driven by random forces... nature. Leaving no room for God... But, to an omniscient God, nothing is random. If we are to believe the christian ideas... he knew every mutation and developement that would be the result of whatever processes he started based on the initial conditions. Anyway, those forces are random only because we cant predict them... not because they are necessarily unpredictable.

An example is a coin flip... apparently random, but governed by physical forces and initial conditions we could use to predict the outcome of the flip... if only we were omniscient.

Anyway, I still see no problem with believing in both if thats what a person wants.

 

[tugbug]

Originally posted by Jonathanamine
check this link out.
it's worth reading

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-c003.html

Thats a rough site from what I read. I would agree with these authors that it is impossible to be a Literal Fundamentalist and not fight "tooth and nail" against evolution... but for the average christian I still dont see a problem.

 

[goobernaculum]

There have been mathematical models using, among other things, probability to provide empirical evidence for design. is this proof? No. It's evidence. I'm no math whiz so I would have considerable trouble reproducing the empirical evidence you want. However, a guy named Bill Dembski uses this method of discussing intelligent design (look him up if you wanna see his work). Furthermore, my first post on this thread gives a very simple example of probablistic thinking that is congruous to what the mathematics says about design. Again, I'm not dismissing microevolution. Natural selection works. And sure...recessive genes will always remain in the gene pool and other individuals will be more fit with "better genes". Where we disagree is that you point to a rare transitional fossil record and say, "see, macroevolution". I'll point to the fossil record (or anything else for that matter) and say, "see, design". You'll think of natural selection/mutation, and I'll think of probability/irreducible complexity.

As for this:

Now, someone tell me why God would give men perfectly-capable-of-functioning nipples?

Since your statement assumes a designer exists, let me assume that also. If God is, by definition, God, then he must be at the very least "more"-knowing. I don't even have to assume complete omniscience. To question why God gave man nipples is like two things: asking why God made the grass green and a 5 year old trying to know his parents' thoughts. The former is pretty explanatory - God choosing to do something is as arbitrary to us at it is purposeful to him (or perhaps vice versa). The latter might need more explanation. The analogy is as if we were teh 5 year old and God were the parents. If the parents tell a 5 year old who enjoys his school and is comfortable with all his friends at home that the family is moving for financial reasons, do you expect the 5 year old to understand? Even if it's for his own benefit (e.g.- more money for his college fund)? It's very doubtful. The 5 year old can't even begin to comprehend many of the things his parents do. AGain...these examples are under the assumption that there is a God, as your statement had done. Remember...just because you don't understand doesn't mean it's wrong or dismissable. Otherwise, med school (if or when you enter if you're not already there) will be very very frustrating.

 

[goobernaculum]

Your main reason why belief in both God and Evolution is unworkable (if I understand you correctly) is that evolution driven by random forces... nature. Leaving no room for God

Well...I agree that God's hand can definitely be involved in what seems random to us (i.e.- mutation). But my problem with evolution is that they say that's ALL there is to it. Someone in the intelligent design camp would say that there MUST have been creative forces involved because just mutation and natural selection couldn't have produced these things we see in all their complexity, etc. It's literally impossible, they would say. And certainly, darwinism doesn't say much about teh origins of life. Furthermore, if you believe in a God that wishes to reveal himself through nature (which is true of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam), then evolution does very little, if not anything, to show a revelation of God. It's true that God can be involved in what is seemingly random to us, but randomness says nothing about God to the non-believer, hence the majority of darwinists that are agnostic or atheist.

 

[tugbug]

Theres a step missing for me in most of the ID arguments Ive read and I think in the ones you are listing goobernaculum. If we can PROVE mathematically or logically that some phenomenon or other could not have arisen by a process such as natural selection then great. Some scientist will make quite a name for themselves with that proof... but it wouldnt mean that there is no explanation other than positing a supernatural designer... if the only evidence for "design" is that selection ISNT the answer, then thats not evidence for design at all. There are always more possiblities than just the two. And we should "never mistake a lack of imagination for insight" - D. Dennett, i think.

 

[goobernaculum]

i see what you're saying. And though i don't want to emphasize semantics so much...
if something is proven true, than all other truth claims are necessarily wrong (scientifically or philosophically). But I think you might have meant to use "evidence" instead of prove (i might be wrong). Sure...this is all evidence supporting ID and evolution has its own evidence. Evidence for either one will bolster its own argument and perhaps devalue the other's. Furthermore, ID carries its own weight and doesn't necessarily have to shoot down evolution. In fact, even under evolution's own standards, it fails to adequately address macroevolution (this is a subjective statement, so don't flame me for that one). So does this say that the other is impossible? no. But in many ways, they're incompatible and it's very hard to adopt both views.

 

[tugbug]

What I was trying to say (in a very unclear way ) was simply that evidence AGAINST natural selection is not evidence FOR intelligent design. I think most of these arguments incorrectly assume that any doubt on the one hand backs up their argument. I disagree. I just see very little positive evidence for creationism, most simply suggest its the only alternative to natural selection & abiogenesis.

 

[lessismoe]

okay, Goober, I looked that guy up, and it really sounds like he's a proponent of theistic evolution, which I have no problem understanding.

"Indeed, intelligent design is perfectly compatible with common descent. Rather, the point at issue is how biological complexity emerged and whether intelligence played an indispensable (which is not to say exclusive) role in its emergence."

http://www.designinference.com/documents/2003.11.Gauging_IDs_Success.pdf

I'm still reading as I post this, but I want to add something. In terms of the probabilities associated with mutations leading to novel machinery/functions, you have to remember that, depending on the organism, for every reproducing individual, there may be thousands of individuals that perished. Over the generations, that leaves a lot of "chances" for mutations to arise.

 

[lessismoe]

Okay, Goober, I'd like you to return the favor by floowing this link:

http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/design2/article.html

Also, I'd like to add something about the whole complex function/mutations and novel proteins thing.

Novel proteins don't have to arise de novo. Let me take you through a very plausible scenario.

Single-celled organism A lives in an ideal environment, with no predators. In its genome, it contains gene B, which codes for protein B, which performs some mundane biological function, like breaking down lipids. Its genome also contains gene C, which codes for protein C, which is a scaffolding protein that sits in the outer membrane of the cell.

Because lots of both protein B and C are needed in large quantities for organism A to survive in said environment, over time, duplications of genes B and C accumulate in the genome, to no loss in fitness of the organism.

Organism F is introduced into the environment, which it is well-suited for, and it becomes a predator of organism A. Organism F begins to overtake organism A in numbers, and some kind of equilibrium is reached whereby both populations exist together.

In one variant in the population of organism A, duplicate copies of gene B and gene C become attached to one another. Specifically, the code for the active site of gene B becomes attached to the code for the scaffold of gene C.

In this variant, whenever organism F gets close enough to prey on it, this novel protein ruptures the cell's membrane and, instead, the variant can feed on the cell contents of organism F.

Now, the variant will predominate in the population of Organism A. Over time, other functional parts of other proteins may mix-and-match, or even fit into the scaffolding of protein C, and add new, very complex functions to this new protein.

I just wanted to make the point that protein functional parts can mix and match, and that can lead to seemingly novel and new proteins.

 

[Nemo]

,

 

[Nemo]

.

 

[Nemo]

Lessis more,

In the case of the bacterial flagellum, for example, co-option is not a good counter argument. It is not just that only, say 25%, of the proteins were originally available for co-option, but the assembly process is irreducibly complex as well.

http://www.idthink.net/biot/index.html

Best,

Nemo

 

[Doctor Octopus]

Originally posted by lessismoe

Now, someone tell me why God would give men perfectly-capable-of-functioning nipples?

Better yet, someone tell me why god has nipples, a navel, or any other piece of anatomy that he oviously doesn't need (we were made in his image, afterall). But for anyone who still wonders about this:

It seems that human embryos develop mammary tissue before they bother to check on whether they're going to be male or female and start modifying the basic plan with surges of this or that hormone. After only a few weeks, milk ridges form -- two stripes of tissue that start in the armpits, curve out over the chest, go straight down the stomach and then veer in toward the groin, ending somewhere high on each thigh. Later the milk ridges regress to some extent, usually leaving us with just two nipples.

 

[Chrisobean]

someone once told me it is possible for males to lactate with enough stimulation, i dont know exactly what that means.
is that true?

 

[dl2dp2]

I took James Shapiro's advanced genetics class at UChicago...and let me tell you what a PIMP he was and the grading scheme in that class, oh my...that hurt

However, he was in no way an "intelligent-design" person. He was very avidly atheistic, I thought. He was essentially a bacteriologist. His point is that there are certain elements in the genome that active promote directed processes of natural selection. However, he never really attempted to explain "why" this is so.

The whole concept of "intelligent design" is very ill defined and really not testable, and has essentially no predictive value. Hence that theory itself is not really part of science and therefore should be excluded from biology cirriculum. It's that simple. However, i'm sure it has its place in a philosophy class.

 

[lessismoe]

Chrisobean, yes, it is possible for males to lactate. There are a lot of cases where male goats have been seen to lactate. And, I believe I read in Jared M. Diamond's book "Why Is Sex Fun: The evolution of human sexuality" about how some of the jewish men who were starved nearly to death in the Nazi concentration camps began to lactate after they began eating again. Apparently, the proteins involved in the hormonal regulation were degraded in the starvation state, and the suppression system took a while to rebuild all of the proteins after they ate again.

And just to make it clear, neo-Darwinism also allows for "punctuated gradualism", which is the process whereby speciation is speeded up due to new selection factors. For example, in human terms, if Bill Gates decided to buy a 3 bedroom house for every person born with a cleft palate when they turned 18, you might expect that the added security in their lives might encourage them to start reproducing at an earlier age-- thus improving fitness. If they have more kids, the proportion of people who have cleft palate genes will increase in the population, and now a rare genetic occurence that would probably not be reflected in a fossil record previously will become more and more common. Eventually, such mutations could become fixed, and voila, the human population would have changed over a short period of time. Thus, the changes species don't have to come about only during the period of time when selection is present: it just has to exist around that time, and that is why recessive mutations are so important.

And I really have to thank you, Nemo, for giving more concrete examples. I'm going to do some more research, and I'll get back to you.

 

[Gbemi24]

Originally posted by Tezzie

Evolution is both theory and fact.

This is contradictory. A theory by definition is not a fact. Another thing to note is that empirical evidence cannot prove a nontrivial scientific theory to be true, it can only confirm or disprove the theory. The more evidence confirms a theory, the more confidence scientists have in that theory. The theory of evolution is a historical narrative without any intelligent observers recording the precise sequence of events; therefore, it can never be proven to be true.

Scientists are human, and thus have many human needs. Like the average layman, most scientists have the need for some degree of certainty or a meaningful belief system. Therefore, they subconsciously get attached to "successful" theories, that is to say, theories that are supported by a large body of evidence or are yet to be disproven. This is precisely the reason scientists are generally resistant to new and radical theories, even when there are large bodies of evidence supporting these theories.

A perfect example of this was the vociferous resistance to quantum theory by many prominent physicists in the earlier part of the 20th century. Einstein and other prominent physicists were so attached to the classical view of the world that they simply could not imagine quantum theory to be a "correct" theory, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Be careful not to put too much faith into any scientific theories, for they are just that--theories.

 

[Dr. Steve Urkel]

Originally posted by Tezzie

Evolution is both theory and fact.

I understand its a theory but where is the fact??? We cannot even begin to describe an environment billions of years ago without taking a huge leap. IT IS NOT FACT, SCIENCE IS NOT 100% ANYTHING.....science has fallen FLAT ON ITS FACE BEFORE!!

Even if Darwins theory on how things exactly happened is proven wrong at some point in time and replaced with something else, it doesn't take away the fact that the human race evolved from apes.

There is not one piece of evidence that describes that we evolved from apes. NO EVIDENCE, JUST THEORIES....where is the proof???

You have faith in something when you don't have any actual facts.

Ah funny I could say the same thing about you and evolution

There are no facts leading to creationism.

Contrary to what you might have been "lead" to believe (as everyone just spits out what other people believe), historical accounts agree with the Bible on every level. Things that have happened, people that have existed. This is proof of the Bible's (as a book) validity. We have tangible historical records that "aren't theorized" that prove toward the biblical account, thus, giving the Bible authority over what first happened.

On the other hand there are facts that prove evolution (*not the theory of evolution*),

Where are the facts??? You have yet to mention ONE!!

Where is the proof? Is anything tangible, it is all speculation buddy.

so you don't actually have faith in something anymore but rather you see, understand and know.


The problem is that we assume the little knowledge we do have about our world is fact!! There is soooo much more to learn and investigate. Until that time we cannot assume, as scientists, that we have a view that is superior to any other (it is all theory). If we try and bend the universe to conform to our "scientific method" then, my friend, we are digressing.

 

[DocWannaBe85]

Don't come to the table and say the Bible has never been contested without any examples. You look like you are parroting when you do that.

Contrary to what you might have been "lead" to believe (as everyone just spits out what other people believe), historical accounts agree with the Bible on every level.

The problem is that we assume the little knowledge we do have about our world is fact!! There is soooo much more to learn and investigate.

Urkel, can you prove the historical validity of the Great Flood and the rest of Genesis? You seem to have an agenda to get across, where it is not even needed.

Microevolution is FACT (no way you can dispute this). Macroevolution is THEORY. AFAIK.

I didn't want to start a cock fight, but I was provoked!

 

[Tezzie]

Originally posted by Gbemi24
This is contradictory. A theory by definition is not a fact. Another thing to note is that empirical evidence cannot prove a nontrivial scientific theory to be true, it can only confirm or disprove the theory. The more evidence confirms a theory, the more confidence scientists have in that theory. The theory of evolution is a historical narrative without any intelligent observers recording the precise sequence of events; therefore, it can never be proven to be true.

A perfect example of this was the vociferous resistance to quantum theory by many prominent physicists in the earlier part of the 20th century. Einstein and other prominent physicists were so attached to the classical view of the world that they simply could not imagine quantum theory to be a "correct" theory, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Be careful not to put too much faith into any scientific theories, for they are just that--theories.

I think we need a slight introduction to begin with.

When you talk about biological evolution, which aspects of it are you taking into account? Because there are the two major sub questions. If : a) evolution occured from ancestral organisms or b) if modern orgarnisms are the ones actually changing or c) both.

Biological evolution is a fact! Although i will agree that there is no such thing as 100% certainty in anything on this planet.

The MECHANISM of evolution is the theoritical part. Whether or not species evolved the way Darwin said or not that doesn't take away the fact that biological evolution occurs.

 

[Dr. Steve Urkel]

Originally posted by DocWannaBe85

Don't come to the table and say the Bible has never been contested without any examples. You look like you are parroting when you do that.

Oh I am sure it has been contested to death (we need not look past this thread alone) but has the Bible been proven wrong....nope. If it has I would like to see the proof....good luck finding any.

Urkel, can you prove the historical validity of the Great Flood and the rest of Genesis?

I can't, but SCIENCE CAN. Research is currently being done on this VERY thing that supports the historical account of Noah's Ark and the Great flood.

http://www.nationalgeographic.com/blacksea/

Of course like all science we can only theorize and not prove anything one way or another. That is how science works.

You seem to have an agenda to get across, where it is not even needed.

Oh but it is needed. People fabricate their own truths (promote them as fact) in hope of having people believe their viewpoint.

Microevolution is FACT (no way you can dispute this). Macroevolution is THEORY. AFAIK.

Agree. This however does not disprove Creationism.

I didn't want to start a cock fight, but I was provoked!

lol, yea yeah.

 

[DocWannaBe85]

No offense, but it is the job of those wishing to convince others that the bible is in fact true to prove it. The burden of proof lies on the one who claims. There is no proof that the things that happened in Genesis actually occured. Therefore, there is no need for exhaustion in disproving if it cannot be proven in the first place.

Macroevolution has not been proven either, it's just a theory. This isn't saying that scientists have blindly made the theory, but rather there has been evidence that suggests that this is the case. It is not set in stone.

You see, Creationism and Macroevolution have not been proven nor disproven. Although, I lean towards Macro at the moment because it is built upon evidence. Creationism's evidence lies in the Bible.

Research is currently being done on this VERY thing that supports the historical account of Noah's Ark and the Great flood.

There is NO support, yet. This is an unconcluded expedition so don't go claiming victory just yet.

To your dismay, what the searchers are looking for is evidence of a great flood caused by melting glaciers 7,000 years ago that spilled over from the Mediterranean Sea to the Black Sea.

Here are a couple of direct quote from the theory portion of the site:

Their theory: As the Ice Age ended and glaciers melted, a wall of seawater surged from the Mediterranean into the Black Sea.

Seared into the memories of terrified survivors, the tale of the flood was passed down through the generations and eventually became the Noah story.

( http://www.nationalgeographic.com/blacksea/ax/frame.html )

 

[lessismoe]

There is not one piece of evidence that describes that we evolved from apes. NO EVIDENCE, JUST THEORIES....where is the proof???

1. Proximity of ancestral ape species to ancestral human species.

2. Similarity of human and chimpanzee genome. Some of the differences, including chromosomal translocations and transversions, would have been enough, in themselves, to cause speciation. (PM me for an explanation)

3. Homo erectus, Homo habilis, Homo sapiens. Fossils of these appear in successive strata. Modern humans have characteristically huge heads, to accomodate our large brains, and these fossils reflect an increase in brain size (as well as a narrowing of the pelvis, reflecting upright posture).


I really would like to draw attention to my earlier explanation of what a theory is in science-- I know, not much attention is given to semantics, but the word "theory" in science really is used differently than in everyday language.

I'd also like to reiterate from a previous post that, even if macroevolution WERE disproven, it would not neccessarily prove creationism right. A commercial for "The Surreal Life" shows Vanilla Ice's colorful theory about how aliens are the root of life on this planet-- which goes to show that anyone can have a (colloquial) theory, but people laugh unless you have some proof to back it up. This is why I am BEGGING more people to give concrete evidence for their arguments-- I honestly want to learn more about your points of view.

 

[lessismoe]

Contrary to what you might have been "lead" to believe (as everyone just spits out what other people believe), historical accounts agree with the Bible on every level. Things that have happened, people that have existed. This is proof of the Bible's (as a book) validity. We have tangible historical records that "aren't theorized" that prove toward the biblical account, thus, giving the Bible authority over what first happened.

Are you sure you're not talking about the New Testament, which was written long after Genesis? I mean, I know that there are records of people in the New Testament's existance, but I don't think that they have found proof that anyone in the Old Testament existed-- and I'm afraid that the ice age ending, causing glaciers to melt, proves nothing of Noah's existance.

Also, how can we KNOW that, even if one part of the bible tells the truth, the rest of it isn't lies? (Devil's advocate-type question; I have a lot of respect for the bible.) I mean, wouldn't it be a leap of faith in itself to believe that something that holds true once holds true always (as in, "Gee, the ground looks flat here, it must be flat for all of the earth")?

And as for "what first happened", which account in genesis are you talking about, because there are two. In one, God creates Man and Woman, and in the other, God creates Adam, then makes Eve out of a rib. I highly doubt that the bible was meant to be taken literally on this point.

Change our minds, Creationists; give us your evidence! The only ones who have given us good arguments is the Intelligent Design people, and theirs is mostly based on the current void of knowledge surrounding genome evolutions.

 

[Integra96]

The ethical integrity of "good" science is hurt every time a creationist tries to cite "evidence" for his or her position. People that believe in a creation by a God should stick to the view that God somehow created everything and that no evidence is needed to support that, or just say something of faith. Creationists make fools of themselves as soon as creationist "science" is brought into the ring. It is disgusting to me the desperate, hollow attempts that have been made in the efforts to disprove evolution and demonstrate creation.

Edit: just a tasty little example of creationist hilarity:

http://www.creationism.org/topbar/faq.htm

I sincerely hope that no self-respecting pre-med here would try to defend such garbage. Note that I'm not attacking a belief in God or religion, only the pseudo-scientific justification for such beliefs.

 

[DrBodacious]

I understand its a theory but where is the fact??? We cannot even begin to describe an environment billions of years ago without taking a huge leap. IT IS NOT FACT, SCIENCE IS NOT 100% ANYTHING.....science has fallen FLAT ON ITS FACE BEFORE!!

Religion, namely christianity, has more frequently fallen flat on its face.


There is not one piece of evidence that describes that we evolved from apes. NO EVIDENCE, JUST THEORIES....where is the proof???

Comon now, I can undersand some inevitable degree of uncertanty. i.e. are we really alive or are we part of the matrix or something like that. But solid scientific evidence has led us to be 99.99% sure that we evolved from the same lineage as apes, monkeys what have you. If you can't accept this much than you are hopelessly stuborn at remaining ingnorant.


Contrary to what you might have been "lead" to believe (as everyone just spits out what other people believe), historical accounts agree with the Bible on every level. Things that have happened, people that have existed. This is proof of the Bible's (as a book) validity. We have tangible historical records that "aren't theorized" that prove toward the biblical account, thus, giving the Bible authority over what first happened.

LOL I'm not going to go into this too far but the bible is a written record full of biasis. Just like any history book that glamorizes slavery or the conquest of the Native Americans. Not to mention it was translated to english from hebrew and was rewritten under several more biases. To say that the Bible is historically accurate "on every level" is a joke, right? Good one.

 

[DrBodacious]

Originally posted by Integra96
The ethical integrity of "good" science is hurt every time a creationist tries to cite "evidence" for his or her position. People that believe in a creation by a God should stick to the view that God somehow created everything and that no evidence is needed to support that, or just say something of faith. Creationists make fools of themselves as soon as creationist "science" is brought into the ring. It is disgusting to me the desperate, hollow attempts that have been made in the efforts to disprove evolution and demonstrate creation.

Edit: just a tasty little example of creationist hilarity:

http://www.creationism.org/topbar/faq.htm

I sincerely hope that no self-respecting pre-med here would try to defend such garbage. Note that I'm not attacking a belief in God or religion, only the pseudo-scientific justification for such beliefs.

Very funny link Integra

 

[bella_dottoressa]

ok, i didn't read much of this thread before posting so forgive me if i'm restating anything anyone else has already said...there is obviously a ton of proof and indication that evolutionary theory is correct....for the religious people out there grappling with the creation vs. evolution question i wanted to share something a catholic priest once told me...he said, it's fine to believe in evolution as long as we believe that the moment that we as humans became humans was the same moment that God infused a soul into these beings. That made a lot of sense for me and made it easy to accept evolution while still maintaining your religious integrity.

 

[Dr. Steve Urkel]

Originally posted by Integra96
The ethical integrity of "good" science is hurt every time a creationist tries to cite "evidence" for his or her position. People that believe in a creation by a God should stick to the view that God somehow created everything and that no evidence is needed to support that, or just say something of faith. Creationists make fools of themselves as soon as creationist "science" is brought into the ring. It is disgusting to me the desperate, hollow attempts that have been made in the efforts to disprove evolution and demonstrate creation.

Edit: just a tasty little example of creationist hilarity:

http://www.creationism.org/topbar/faq.htm

I sincerely hope that no self-respecting pre-med here would try to defend such garbage. Note that I'm not attacking a belief in God or religion, only the pseudo-scientific justification for such beliefs.

http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/descent.html

 

[Integra96]

Introduction: Actually, evolutionary theory states that we didn't evolve from anything at all. One thing does not become another in evolution. it's called common descent. Not knowing that concept is a big strike...

The beginning of trouble - lack of genetic diversity among modern humans: A lot of this section made no sense, had improper definitions, and I'm not sure how any of this counts as an objection to anything.

Still more trouble - Discontinuous morphological changes in the hominid lineage: Again, what problem does this babbling present for evolutionary theory? Also, who ever said that evolution has to happend constantly at the same, slow, gradual rate? It would be odd if there weren't fluctuations in the "acceleration" of evolution.

Another problem - too many deleterious mutations: Absolutely wrong. I'm not even going to go there. I think every deceased genetics professor and researcher just rolled over in his or her grave.

Recent origin of modern humans confirmed through molecular biology: OK, yeah, mtDNA, maternal...yeah, so the point is...? And Y-chromosome analysis, so what if different studies yielded different estimates of common ancestors' age? That's how science works, theories are honed and sculpted to have the best explanatory power. This shows the strength of evolutionary theory - the fact that it's still being perfected - not a weakness of it.

The nail in the coffin: What nail? This is a joke, right?

Summary: Sounds like someone with the last name of Deem likes to throw around genetic terminology and cite various studies without having a clue that: 1) there is no coherent argument here, 2) disagreement among scientists over exact dates when 'x' happened is to be expected, 3) This disagreement, in no way, is evidence either for creation or against evolutionary theory, and 4) there are people like me who take the time to filter out crap like this and are not simply impressed with a quick glance of tables, figures, and other vacuous "support" for an otherwise disastrous article that chokes and sputters in its desperate attempt to disprove "The Descent of Man".

Nice try, though.

 

[MrSosa]

 

[punjabiprince]

uhhh, change does not have to be gradual for evolution to take take place. For example, catastrophic events lead to abrupt changes in fossil morphology whereas relatively stable environmental periods show much slower change. Its one of Gould's theories...it was something titled with "decimation", but you certainly should look it up if you think that abrupt change = creationism.

I honestly feel that if you try to look for evidence of God's handiwork against science you will ALWAYS be proven wrong eventually if you keep your arguments logical (i say logical only because often creationist arguments often do not address the question or challege presented directly and rather create some parallel analogy that does not actually refute the challenge presented).

If you want to believe in god then don't believe in science or believe in science and just say god is there but not touching anything. Didn't einstein say something about either everything is a miracle or nothing is a miracle? Its like that i think...

but yeah, i think creationism, intelligent design, the whole works is a complete sham. Don't bring up scientists being wrong either, because in the modern era conclusions can be wrong, but over time, if the data is correct, "theories" that are written based on lots of evdience do an excellent job of explaining phenomena and predicting future outcomes as well.

I mean, look at protein evolution. It is so clear that proteins from single cell organisms changed slightly as they move up the evolutionary ladder. You can even see points where a single protein gene, because of a mutation, is transcribed twice and then you have two proteins being coded, then four and then eight as you move up the ladder. Its the only logical explanation for gradual change resulting in greater complexity.

As far saying the bible is "true" based on its use as an accurate historical document, just because some historical data is certainly accurtate within the bible, it does not mean that jesus is anything other than a normal guy. Of course some historical data will be correct, as it was written by people who used historical things as reference points.

Religion is faith. Science is fact. Evolution theory is based on many studies and outcomes, all of which are congruent with evolution theory. Creationism, just like all religious thought, is merely philosophy that can be changed at a whim. I mean stuff like the fact god put in the "appearance of age" on the earth is complete BS that is a convenient way of trying to move around issues that stop creationism in its path.

Lets say evolution is finally proven. Will that make people stop believing in the bible? If that were the case, there is some value in arguing it. However, since you can always make some excuse or change to creation theory, as it is not grounded in fact (i mean, carbon dating not working!?), how can you defeat it logically?

 

[vizzini]

Im telling you, if you want some interesting discussions on the Bible (mainly Genesis) and its connection with science, read "The Science of God" by Gerald Schroeder.

 

[lessismoe]

http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/descent.html

Even assuming that the evidence presented on that website is true, I'd like to point out where the evidence ends and where the conclusions begin.

The evidence that the website presents is that mtDNA and Y chromosome analysis indicate that the last common ancestor of all humans was alive ~50,000 years ago, or whatever the number was.

The website jumps to the conclusion that the only explanation for this is that God must have created humans around then. A perfectly plausible explanation (and one featured on a recent PBS program, I believe) is that all of the humans alive today are the descendants of a single woman-- as in, the descendants of all the other women 50,000 years ago perished and are not present in today's population.

You have to separate the evidence from the conclusion-- that's why scientific papers have different sections for the data and the conclusions.

 

[The JockDoc]

Evolution and creationism are incomparable. There should be no debate.

Lets look at a different discipline, just to make things clear, like math. Math has its own rules and regulations, and it abides by these rules exclusively to function. Math does not use history or science - two very different fields - to prove its point.

It is perfectly possible to have a concept like, a "imaginary number", in math. But, say you look into history/empiricism. There is no example of i (the square root of -1) in history. There wasn't a year i, and there is nothing in nature, or in recorded events that indicates that it exists. Nobody was ever born with the existence of i written on his/her head. So, according to empiricism, i doesn't exist.

But in math, the imaginary number i is real, so to speak. Why? Because the math rules say so, regardless of what history has to say. While math's facility is to work with logic, empiricsim's job is to digest what is observable, and what can be concluded from those observations. They have different functions, work with different material, and have wildly different conclusions on the same topic. Yet, we know that imaginary numbers are real - so to speak - because it works in its own system.

This is similar to the creationist/evolutionist debate. Evolutionary theory was created using science's rules, which are built to deal with empiricism. In science, you put forth a hypothesis, and test it. Evolution is a hypothesis, and there has been overwhelming support for it, so it by all means should exist in science - until substantial empirical evidence is shown to counter it.

Religion, which spawned creationism, is clearly built on faith, and not empiricism. Thus, it should stick to the matters that deal with faith, which doesn't include empiricism (and hence evolution). Comparing a religious idea such as creationism to evolutionary theory would be exactly like the math/history example I gave above. It cannot compute.

 

[g3pro]

it sounds like the people who are against creationism are simply looking for a way to say that God does not exist. i'm wondering if they can answer the following questions:

what is the very origin of the universe? a collection of gaseous atomic particles before the big-bang? i thought matter was neither created nor destroyed. how did all this matter/energy come into existence?

how can evolution be used as a way to say that creationism is false? do you claim to know more and are more intelligent than God when you say you know the 'mysteries of the universe' are found in the theory of evolution? in other words, how do you know that evolution is not God's plan?

 

[DrBodacious]

Originally posted by g3pro
it sounds like the people who are against creationism are simply looking for a way to say that God does not exist. i'm wondering if they can answer the following questions:

what is the very origin of the universe? a collection of gaseous atomic particles before the big-bang? i thought matter was neither created nor destroyed. how did all this matter/energy come into existence?

how can evolution be used as a way to say that creationism is false? do you claim to know more and are more intelligent than God when you say you know the 'mysteries of the universe' are found in the theory of evolution? in other words, how do you know that evolution is not God's plan?

As I said before, science will never be able to disprove religion, or prove it for that matter, because we cannot experiment with the supernatural. Religion is simply faith in an explanation that we really can't prove. I haven't had any spiritual experiences that would have led me to believe in religion, so I don't have faith. I need evidence, or at least some sort of hunch to go on.

 

[mmapcpro]

just a couple things to throw out here...

Vanilla Ice says we're all aliens derived from some ancestral alien with superior intelligence and technology...so I guess that puts an end to all of this discussion.

Then again, Newton's Theory of Gravity explains gravitation, and we're all still walking around (so theories can become de facto facts in science).

I"m curious about this, because I see it referenced both as the Theory of Universal Gravitation and the Law of Universal Gravitation...what's the deal?

From NYU:
http://www.physics.nyu.edu/courses/V85.0020/node28.html

From a Nasa engineer:
http://www-istp.gsfc.nasa.gov/stargaze/Sgravity.htm

not that it has any real bearing on this discussion...

 

[lessismoe]

g3pro, no one here is trying to disprove God. Again, most of the people here seem to have absolutely no problem with theistic evolution because we aren't arguing the significance of evolution, just that it happened. There was a really great post earlier about how science can only say how things happened, not what it should mean to you.

I am personally struggling to understand how Creationists deal with the evidence for Evolution.

As for the universe before the big bang, aren't there theories that the universe cyclicly explodes and implodes? But honestly, does it matter? No one is saying that science has ALL of the answers, just that there is evidence for the process of evolution that should be acknowledged.

 

[Integra96]

Originally posted by g3pro
it sounds like the people who are against creationism are simply looking for a way to say that God does not exist. i'm wondering if they can answer the following questions:

what is the very origin of the universe? a collection of gaseous atomic particles before the big-bang? i thought matter was neither created nor destroyed. how did all this matter/energy come into existence?

how can evolution be used as a way to say that creationism is false? do you claim to know more and are more intelligent than God when you say you know the 'mysteries of the universe' are found in the theory of evolution? in other words, how do you know that evolution is not God's plan?

To assume that God exists is to make an assumption that is not able to be tested. However, if we assume that God does not exist, all it would take is one single counter-example to make this assumption invalid. However, because there has not yet been a counter-example to this assumption, some people prefer to not believe in God until someone can demonstrate the existence of God. If we can't detect or verify God or God's interaction with the universe, how can we distinguish this God from other things we can't test or prove - like an evil spirit or a nice witch, etc.? I'm not necessarily advocating atheism, but this is just some food for thought.

Now, the people against creationism aren't necessarily against a belief in God. They, and I, are opposed to the misuse and abuse of science to try to prove a divine creation. As seen above, creationists who do this are, in effect, lying and being misleading intentionally to support their cause. As someone stated above, religious fanatics who incorrectly use science in support of creationism are stepping out of bounds, and should be ridiculed and criticized for this.

Just because we don't know exactly how, or even if, the origin of the universe occurred, it doesn't give anyone justification to say "God did it". God may have done it, and if that's your belief (emphasis on belief), then fine. Otherwise, it makes no sense philosophically or scientifically to assume a God's presence in some matter when we can't explain something.

Finally, evolutionary theory is subject to being falsified by a better theory (including the Bible's account of creation!) if the new theory better explains the data and evidence we have. On the other hand, creationist theory is not subject to challenge or abondonment among its proponents because, by definition, it's God's work, and cannot be questioned or tested, end of story. At this point in time, creationists have failed miserably to scientifically demonstrate that life on Earth today is the result of a Biblical account of creation. Conversely, evolutionary theories have staggering, enormous explanatory power when it comes to the how/when/where's of life.

You're quite right when you say I don't know if evolution is God's plan. Since that doesn't appear to be testable, and there's no evidence to refute the negative claim of that, I don't believe that evolution is God's plan, but I'd love to be proven wrong! What's funny here, besides the circular reasoning in your last paragraph, is that if evolution is God's plan, doesn't that mean you'd have to abandon a creationist point of view and accept the science of evolution? You could still believe in God, but you'd have to ditch the literal or semi-literal Biblical account of things. Reminds me of something the Pope said...

Interesting how God has taken on fewer and fewer duties over the ages as science reveals natural explanations for the formerly mysterious. I mean, it would have been completely OK for me to believe that God created the Bubonic Plague to punish sinners hundreds of years ago because there was no evidence to the contrary. Since we know the plague's causative agent now, and that it doesn't morally discriminate among its victims, many religious people have retreated from the aforementioned position. And so it goes...

 

[bigbaubdi]

Originally posted by Integra96
Interesting how God has taken on fewer and fewer duties over the ages as science reveals natural explanations for the formerly mysterious.

 

[Doctor Octopus]

Originally posted by g3pro


what is the very origin of the universe? a collection of gaseous atomic particles before the big-bang? i thought matter was neither created nor destroyed. how did all this matter/energy come into existence?

I think we get into trouble with the assumption that something that exists had to have been made or created by something else. It's perfectly natural to think that way, since we "make" our offspring, homes, tools, clothing, etc. We make things, so something must have made the things with which we make. As far as matter, energy, and the universe are concerened, what if it was just always there? The problem is that we are not programmed to think about things with neither beginning nor end. Infinity is a concept that we just can't wrap our minds arounds. Perhaps the universe was always there, and perhaps there is truth in some people's belief that there are periodic cyclical big bang/cruch events. Many things in nature/mathmatics occur in cyles, so I don't see it as too much of stretch (not that my mind is made up or anything). I also don't think it's too big a stretch to believe that some higher power created the universe and it's laws. I think the first sentence of genesis is interesting because it says "in the beginning there was the word." What or when was the beginning, and what was before that? Or was "the word" always there, and there was no other way to put it into words. It's enough to make your head hurt. I don't think it really matters if you believe that God created everything, if it all came from nothing, or if it just always existed, as long as you keep an open mind and consider the merits of all possibilies. I will say that intelligent design doesn't seem to have any real scientific basis beyond the use of pseudoscientific articles designed to sway lay people with sophisticated sounding language. My problem with that is how dishonest it is to disguise the obvious religious agenda of ID in an attempt to get it taught (with equal footing, no less) alongside legitimate science. The whole idea is to get people to fall for it early on, I think. Embrace religion, teach it to your children - we are fortunate to be free to do these things as we chose. But please, don't impose your religion in sheep's clothing on others and call it science.

 

[Dr.Bevo]

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000D4FEC-7D5B-1D07-8E49809EC588EEDF


this is a really awesome article that scientific american ran last year

enjoy

 

[Aptamer]

Originally posted by ms_tommy
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000D4FEC-7D5B-1D07-8E49809EC588EEDF


this is a really awesome article that scientific american ran last year

enjoy

Ha, this is posted in my lab somewhere!

 

[JohnHolmes]

Originally posted by sluox

The whole concept of "intelligent design" is very ill defined and really not testable, and has essentially no predictive value. Hence that theory itself is not really part of science and therefore should be excluded from biology cirriculum. It's that simple. However, i'm sure it has its place in a philosophy class.

Brilliant.

Coops

 

[Gbemi24]

Originally posted by Tezzie

When you talk about biological evolution, which aspects of it are you taking into account? Because there are the two major sub questions. If : a) evolution occured from ancestral organisms or b) if modern orgarnisms are the ones actually changing or c) both.

Biological evolution is a fact! Although i will agree that there is no such thing as 100% certainty in anything on this planet.

Yes, microevolution is a fact because we observe it in microorganisms all the time. What is not a fact is macroevolution. It is a reasonable theory, but it is far from a fact. Many scientists are not able to imagine macroevolution being untrue because they are so attached to it. Macroevolution seems like a good theory, but I am not entirely convinced. There is not a single person on this thread that can prove it is true.

 

[Gbemi24]

Originally posted by g3pro
it sounds like the people who are against creationism are simply looking for a way to say that God does not exist. i'm wondering if they can answer the following questions:

what is the very origin of the universe? a collection of gaseous atomic particles before the big-bang? i thought matter was neither created nor destroyed. how did all this matter/energy come into existence?

I don't know why people insist on using this argument to suggest the necessity of the existence of a God. Just as the universe suggests creation to you, wouldn't the existence of a God also suggest creation too? Where does the causal link end?

Originally posted by g3pro

how can evolution be used as a way to say that creationism is false? do you claim to know more and are more intelligent than God when you say you know the 'mysteries of the universe' are found in the theory of evolution? in other words, how do you know that evolution is not God's plan?

Can you prove that God exists? No you can't. I also cannot prove that God doesn't exist. What we do know, however, is that macroevolution is a more empirical sound theory than biblical creation. Whether macroevolution is actually true or not is yet to be determined. Only time will tell.