What creationists need to do to win against evolution.

[Speedwell]

What is the real problem?
I believe it's not understanding our nature...
and we don't understand our nature because many do not believe God exists,,, and that there is absolute morality.

IF everyone truly was a disciple of Christ, and I mean a pure disciple - not persons with some nutty idea - this world would change in the twinkling of an eye.

Into a grim and intolerable place. No thanks.

 

[Shemjaza]

If you say so Speedwell,,,
I've been thru this before with you and it's pretty pointless.

There's an association whose FELLOWS number about 50 or so.

So I think it would be really easy to get to 200 scientists that do not believe evolution is a good model for how we got here...and I'm talking world-wide anyway.

Too much doubt.
I don't really see this doubt in other areas of science.

And there's plenty more here for those that might be interested and reject your theory that there are not even 200 scientists that frown upon evolution.

evolution bacteria to beethoven - YouTube

The problem is both the motivations and justifications for the doubt.

No one is doubting the conviction of anti-evolution believers. The fact that their evidence is vague at best and reasoning applied completely inconsistently makes them entirely unconvincing.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

So I think it would be really easy to get to 200 scientists that do not believe evolution is a good model for how we got here...and I'm talking world-wide anyway.

I'm interested to know how many of those work in the biological sciences - if they don't, their opinion of evolution has no significant authority.

Too much doubt.
I don't really see this doubt in other areas of science.

Most other areas of science don't contradict popular religious beliefs.

I'm interested to know how many of those scientists don't have religious affiliations.

Given that you think, "... it would be really easy to get to 200 scientists that do not believe evolution", any chance you could substantiate the claim? Better still, get figures for how many are working biologists with no religious affiliation?

 

[pitabread]

Too much doubt.
I don't really see this doubt in other areas of science.

Oh, there's arguably way more internal doubt/controversy in other areas of science (e.g. physics). Here is an example: Survey shows physicists can't agree on fundamental questions about quantum mechanics

In comparison, the relevant support for biological evolution is quite firm in the scientific community. Those who dissent tend to be on the fringe.

The reason you hear about the latter and not the former is because the former doesn't have religious implications for people. The controversy over evolution is entirely driven by religious beliefs.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Oh, there's arguably way more internal doubt/controversy in other areas of science (e.g. physics). Here is an example: Survey shows physicists can't agree on fundamental questions about quantum mechanics

In comparison, the relevant support for biological evolution is quite firm in the scientific community. Those who dissent tend to be on the fringe.

The reason you hear about the latter and not the former is because the former doesn't have religious implications for people. The controversy over evolution is entirely driven by religious beliefs.

Agreed - in case my previous post gave the appearance of suggesting that evolution was more in doubt than other areas of science, I was assuming the doubt mentioned by GodsGrace101 was among religious believers.

 

[GodsGrace101]

The problem is both the motivations and justifications for the doubt.

No one is doubting the conviction of anti-evolution believers. The fact that their evidence is vague at best and reasoning applied completely inconsistently makes them entirely unconvincing.

OK I understand your point.
But what evidence of theirs is vague?
They're arguing for ID,,,whatever that is.
It might be God....or maybe something we can't even think of right now.

I don't know what the motivation could be.
If God decided to make us evolve through macro-evolution, then so be it.

I PERSONALLY, also have a difficult time with this idea and I'm not a fundamentalist or YEC.

What do YOU think the motivation of the anti-evolutionists could be?

I hear them saying that life and cells are too complicated for random "construction".

I hear them saying that NOTHING should be removed from the table...everything should be taken into consideration. UNTIL it can be absolutely proven that macro-evolution is true.

 

[Speedwell]

OK I understand your point.
But what evidence of theirs is vague?
They're arguing for ID,,,whatever that is.
It might be God....or maybe something we can't even think of right now.

I don't know what the motivation could be.
If God decided to make us evolve through macro-evolution, then so be it.

I PERSONALLY, also have a difficult time with this idea and I'm not a fundamentalist or YEC.

Why is that, exactly? Maybe you can answer your own questions.

What do YOU think the motivation of the anti-evolutionists could be?

In my experience it has always been defense of their interpretation of Genesis.

I hear them saying that life and cells are too complicated for random "construction"

An argument from ignorance carries no weight.

I hear them saying that NOTHING should be removed from the table...everything should be taken into consideration. UNTIL it can be absolutely proven that macro-evolution is true.

Nothing in science is ever "absolutely proven." Scientific theories are only accepted provisionally pending further evidence. But scientific theories must also explain. None of the alternatives offer any explanatory or predictive power. Just saying "God did it" or "a designer did it" does not really explain how it happened, or even rule out evolution. Thus, at the present time there is nothing on the table but the theory of evolution

 

[GodsGrace101]

Well, PragerU has that reputation, so you shouldn't be surprised. But if you can't argue against the theory of evolution without misrepresenting it, why bother?

Why am I misrepresenting it?

 

[GodsGrace101]

Into a grim and intolerable place. No thanks.

Why would it be grim and intolerable?
What do you think Christianity is, anyway?

 

[Speedwell]

Why am I misrepresenting it?

Not you, PragerU.

 

[Speedwell]

Why would it be grim and intolerable?
What do you think Christianity is, anyway?

I've lived in the Bible Belt as the "wrong" kind of Christian. I wouldn't want to see the whole world run that way.

 

[GodsGrace101]

I'm interested to know how many of those work in the biological sciences - if they don't, their opinion of evolution has no significant authority.

Why would you believe this?
Didn't the beginning have something to do with chemistry more than biology?

It might be Chemistry that finally discovers how life began.

This might help with biology, but chemistry comes first.

Most other areas of science don't contradict popular religious beliefs.

I'm interested to know how many of those scientists don't have religious affiliations.

I don't doubt that a person brings their world-view with them wherever they go.

So an atheist cannot think that an intelligent being programmed our DNA.

Just like a Christian might have a problem with believing that humans come from apes.

Galileo went against religious beliefs and he turned out to be right. Maybe evolution might turn out to be right too...but everything should be considered....for some scientists any other road to understanding how we became what we are have been closed for further examination. If some are so against evolution...then more study needs to be done.

Given that you think, "... it would be really easy to get to 200 scientists that do not believe evolution", any chance you could substantiate the claim? Better still, get figures for how many are working biologists with no religious affiliation?

I wouldn't care to do this even if I had the time or knew how. I listed tens of scientists that do not accept evolution...now you want to know their religious affiliation. What would be the point?
The point is that ALL VENUES should be kept open and investigated.

I believe this to be true:

Certainly Augustine would have argued that the current ultra-literal interpretations that lead to young earth creationism are not required by the text, and would have warned that such a rigid interpretation, regardless of what other evidence comes to the scene, could potentially be quite dangerous to the faith, in that it would make believers out to be narrow-minded and potentially subject to ridicule. And in a certain way, that warning has come true with the battles we’re having right now.

source: The ’Evidence for Belief’: An Interview with Francis Collins

 

[GodsGrace101]

I've lived in the Bible Belt as the "wrong" kind of Christian. I wouldn't want to see the whole world run that way.

Well, I agree with you.
I think some Christians don't do their faith any favor.
They believe God sat at a computer and wrote out the bible.

Genesis 1 has no witnesses.
God is INSPIRING someone to write the story.
Some don't understand the difference.

 

[Speedwell]

Why would you believe this?
Didn't the beginning have something to do with chemistry more than biology?

It might be Chemistry that finally discovers how life began.

This might help with biology, but chemistry comes first.

I thought we were talking about macro-evolution?

I don't doubt that a person brings their world-view with them wherever they go.

So an atheist cannot think that an intelligent being programmed our DNA.

He can think whatever he wants about it, but unless there is evidence for it he is unlikely to take it seriously. So far there isn't any.

Just like a Christian might have a problem with believing that humans come from apes.

Some Christians might, but the only reason I can think of is adherence to a particular interpretation of Genesis.

Galileo went against religious beliefs and he turned out to be right. Maybe evolution might turn out to be right too...but everything should be considered....for some scientists any other road to understanding how we became what we are have been closed for further examination. If some are so against evolution...then more study needs to be done.

No doors are ever "closed" for the scientist, a priori. Scientists follow evidence.

I wouldn't care to do this even if I had the time or knew how. I listed tens of scientists that do not accept evolution...now you want to know their religious affiliation. What would be the point?

Back on the old Beliefnet forum we had a challenge that ran for years, to name a scientist who expressed doubts about evolution before converting to fundamentalist Christianity. The challenge was never met.

The point is that ALL VENUES should be kept open and investigated.

All evidence is being considered. That will have to satisfy you.

 

[pitabread]

No doors are ever "closed" for the scientist, a priori. Scientists follow evidence.

The caveat being that scientific explanations must fall with the purview of the scientific method. A scientists can't invoke a supernatural miracle as an explanation, since there is no way to test such a claim scientifically.

 

[pitabread]

The point is that ALL VENUES should be kept open and investigated.

In what context though? Creationists don't have a way of scientifically testing their ideas, since their ideas are based on the occurrence of supernatural miracles.

If something cannot be scientifically tested, then it's not going to fall under the realm of scientific inquiry.

 

[Shemjaza]

OK I understand your point.
But what evidence of theirs is vague?
They're arguing for ID,,,whatever that is.
It might be God....or maybe something we can't even think of right now.

When your description includes "whatever that is", it isn't a good sign for its lack of vagueness.

All the forms of ID I've seen presented do not propose mechanisms for how their ideas can occur or even measurements and metrics for how their ideas can be measured.

For example a very common ID trope is that "information" cannot be increased without the action of intelligence. But don't actually demonstrate a metric for information or objective method of measuring it in context of biology.

I don't know what the motivation could be.
If God decided to make us evolve through macro-evolution, then so be it.

This is not a common attitude among people who oppose evolution.

Many people are offended by the concept of being related animals like chimps.

Many people are offended but the haphazard methods of evolution, seeing existence as meaningless as a consequence.

Many people cannot accept the truth of the Bible unless the creation of humanity and the fall of man are as literal and specific as they are described in genesis.

I PERSONALLY, also have a difficult time with this idea and I'm not a fundamentalist or YEC.

But WHY?

Why do you specifically have a difficult time with it?

As a child I had a difficult time with understanding that seasons came from axial tilt, not how close we were to the sun over the year. That doesn't make astronomy suspect.

What do YOU think the motivation of the anti-evolutionists could be?

These motivations are often plainly stated when a discussion of evolution seages into commentary that evolution/atheism invalidates the truth of the Bible an will inevitably lead to moral nihilism.

I hear them saying that life and cells are too complicated for random "construction".

The problem is that "too complicated" without a consistently applied method of measuring "how complicated" is just a fancy way of saying "I just don't like the idea".

I hear them saying that NOTHING should be removed from the table...everything should be taken into consideration. UNTIL it can be absolutely proven that macro-evolution is true.

Using the colloquial definition of proven as "demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt" that happened long ago.

The evidence for the diversity of life (the origin of species, if you will) coming from evolution is overwhelming.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Why would you believe this?
Didn't the beginning have something to do with chemistry more than biology?

It might be Chemistry that finally discovers how life began.

This might help with biology, but chemistry comes first.

Evolution is about explaining the diversity of life, not its origin. That is a different field, called 'abiogenesis'.

I don't doubt that a person brings their world-view with them wherever they go.

So an atheist cannot think that an intelligent being programmed our DNA.

Just like a Christian might have a problem with believing that humans come from apes.

I can't speak for all atheists, but for me, there is an important distinction - I try to make provisional judgements on the available evidence rather than believing faith-based dogma.

In my view, it's an entirely reasonable question - the intelligent programming of DNA is clearly possible - we have reached that capability ourselves. So it's possible that our DNA may have been modified by a non-human intelligence with a more advanced capability, although, comparing our DNA with the most similar non-human DNA, there is no evidence of that.

But if this was the case, I would put the likelihood of it having been done by alien visitors to Earth, though extremely remote, as far greater than that of some supernatural entity being involved - for reasons I'm happy to explain if you wish (if you haven't seen my previous posts on the God hypothesis).

Galileo went against religious beliefs and he turned out to be right. Maybe evolution might turn out to be right too...but everything should be considered....for some scientists any other road to understanding how we became what we are have been closed for further examination. If some are so against evolution...then more study needs to be done.

In every field of science there are some individuals that reject the consensus or the orthodoxy, and this is generally a good thing - if they have valid scientific reasons for doing so. However, incredulity and/or a conflicting belief system are not valid scientific reasons. I'm wondering how many of the scientists you say reject it have valid scientific reasons for doing so.

'More study' has been done, for over 160 years, and whole new fields of science have contributed to our knowledge of it - and every new discovery has refined our understanding and reinforced the theory. There are now multiple independent lines of evidence for it and literally millions of pieces of information supporting it; we even use evolutionary principles ourselves to generate novel designs for technical and commercial applications - we know it's an explanation that works, and all the evidence is consistent with it.

Can we imagine intelligent aliens or supernatural entities contributing to our evolution somehow? Obviously we can - but there is an infinite number of things we can imagine being involved, some more plausible than others, but - lack of evidence apart - none of which are necessary.

I wouldn't care to do this even if I had the time or knew how. I listed tens of scientists that do not accept evolution...now you want to know their religious affiliation. What would be the point?

Do you not think it's relevant whether or not they have valid scientific reasons for rejecting it?

 

[GodsGrace101]

When your description includes "whatever that is", it isn't a good sign for its lack of vagueness.

"WHATEVER THAT IS" was referring to ID.

What do you think the intelligent in ID is?
I don't believe I can know, nor can you.

All the forms of ID I've seen presented do not propose mechanisms for how their ideas can occur or even measurements and metrics for how their ideas can be measured.

For example a very common ID trope is that "information" cannot be increased without the action of intelligence. But don't actually demonstrate a metric for information or objective method of measuring it in context of biology.

I don't believe we're dealing with something that can be measured.

If something, some being, created us,,,,then it is not part of this universe or of time itself. How does one measure something that is not part of us?

Is the watchmaker part of the watch?
How would we go about discovering who/what the watchmaker is? It's not as easy as measuring things that ARE designed.

This is not a common attitude among people who oppose evolution.

Many people are offended by the concept of being related animals like chimps.

I don't remember what attitude of mine you're referring to, but the reason Christians do not like to teach that we come from an ape is because we feel that God created us in a special way. You can't deny that we are very different from every other animal...we have a conscience, we are self-aware, we know our end, we know about the universe, and we can ponder things we cannot see: Math, physics, etc.

Many people are offended but the haphazard methods of evolution, seeing existence as meaningless as a consequence.

Many people cannot accept the truth of the Bible unless the creation of humanity and the fall of man are as literal and specific as they are described in genesis.

Genesis was written by someone to teach a moral lesson....to tell of how the first persons came about...how the earth happens to be here. It teaches about evil and why man is the way he is.

It is NOT meant to be a history book. If some Christians believe this,,,it is their right, I don't know anyone that believes Genesis 1 is literal.

I'll say this however: The BB reminds me of when God said LET THERE BE LIGHT. Somehow everything started...it seems to me that science agrees with the bible ! Boom, it just happened.

But WHY?

Why do you specifically have a difficult time with it?

As a child I had a difficult time with understanding that seasons came from axial tilt, not how close we were to the sun over the year. That doesn't make astronomy suspect.

I have a difficult time with macro-evolution because of what I hear about cells in our body. I don't understand how eyes evolved. Were all animals blind before full evolution? Did vision take millions of years? How did animals find food before the eye was fully developed?

How long does it take for a fish to develop lungs that could use air? Did the first fish come out of the water and just die? Why would they have even developed lungs if they didn't need them to live in water?

Too many questions.

And it seem impossible that nano machines inside cells just developed randomly.

These motivations are often plainly stated when a discussion of evolution seages into commentary that evolution/atheism invalidates the truth of the Bible an will inevitably lead to moral nihilism.

Well, if science invalidates the bible one day, we Christians will just have to rethink everything and maybe accept that all we see came by chance.

The fear you describe is just as bad as the fear some atheists have of MAYBE discovering that God is real...although I don't know how that could ever be done.

The problem is that "too complicated" without a consistently applied method of measuring "how complicated" is just a fancy way of saying "I just don't like the idea".



Using the colloquial definition of proven as "demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt" that happened long ago.

The evidence for the diversity of life (the origin of species, if you will) coming from evolution is overwhelming.

If by diversity of life, you mean micro evolution,,,then I agree.

Darwin happened by with a good idea which has not been replaced....who knows what will happen in the future?

 

[Speedwell]

I have a difficult time with macro-evolution because of what I hear about cells in our body. I don't understand how eyes evolved. Were all animals blind before full evolution? Did vision take millions of years? How did animals find food before the eye was fully developed?

How long does it take for a fish to develop lungs that could use air? Did the first fish come out of the water and just die? Why would they have even developed lungs if they didn't need them to live in water?

Too many questions.

All of which have convincing, evidence-based answers, if you actually wished to study the subject.

Well, if science invalidates the bible one day, we Christians will just have to rethink everything and maybe accept that all we see came by chance.

Science can only invalidate a literal reading of the Bible. Nothing that science has discovered nor in principle could discover in future can deny the existence of God.