Assumptions required for evolutionary theory?

[On the Narrow Road]

I am curious how many different assumptions one accepts when subscribing to the theory of evolution. As such, I would like this thread to be a list of assumptions rather than a creation/evolution debate.

For example: In order for evolution to have occurred, we have to assume that the earth has remained in a near perfect orbit, unmolested for X million years (due to the conditions required to sustain life).

 

[chaoschristian]

Assumption #1: that the natural world (Creation) is observable and predictable.

Theologically this implies that Creation is not corrupted or deceitful, but rather a trustworthy revelation on par with scriptural revelation.

 

[LogicChristian]

For example: In order for evolution to have occurred, we have to assume that the earth has remained in a near perfect orbit, unmolested for X million years (due to the conditions required to sustain life).

Assuming the Earth has been in a similar orbit to the one it has been in now is pretty safe.

Earth wouldn't have to remain "unmolested" for millions and millions of years necessarily. Life here has survived some pretty big "molestation events."

 

[DailyBlessings]

Assuming the Earth has been in a similar orbit to the one it has been in now is pretty safe.

Earth wouldn't have to remain "unmolested" for millions and millions of years necessarily. Life here has survived some pretty big "molestation events."

I believe the OP just desires to list the various assumptions- it doesn't really matter whether the assumption is safe or not. Obviously one who subsrcibes to a viewpoint feels the associated assumptions are safe.

 

[Willtor]

Assumption #1: that the natural world (Creation) is observable and predictable.

Theologically this implies that Creation is not corrupted or deceitful, but rather a trustworthy revelation on par with scriptural revelation.

This has, historically, been a theological conclusion, and not an assumption at all. Observation and philosophy of nature was meaningful because nature was neither puppeteered by God, nor autonomous from Him. Now, it may be stated that science doesn't deal in discussions about God, and in that context I suppose this is an assumption.

So, in a round-about way, I agree.

 

[philadiddle]

I am curious how many different assumptions one accepts when subscribing to the theory of evolution. As such, I would like this thread to be a list of assumptions rather than a creation/evolution debate.

For example: In order for evolution to have occurred, we have to assume that the earth has remained in a near perfect orbit, unmolested for X million years (due to the conditions required to sustain life).

I can assume that since fossils have only been found in the order evolution predicts, that we must have evolved.

ps. the earth didn't remain in a near "perfect" orbit. that's something you'll only find on YEC sites. when it come's to "perfect" there is no definition in relation to the orbit of the earth. find a physicist at a university or observatory and they'll tell u that the orbit changes slightly, but that measurable and predictable orbit wouldn't have been dramatically different enough 4 billion years ago to make a noticable difference.

 

[random_guy]

For example: In order for evolution to have occurred, we have to assume that the earth has remained in a near perfect orbit, unmolested for X million years (due to the conditions required to sustain life).

I don't think that's an assumption, but a conclusion from the evidence.

Also, the wording is very bad, as such what does near perfect orbit mean, and what does it mean to be unmolested? The Earth's orbit varies 6 million km, and there's been several big extinction events.

I think an assumption is that we can study the natural world without worrying about supernatural interference.

 

[Deamiter]

As many others have stated, I think the main assumption is that our observations of the universe give us accurate data that can be used to predict the result of future observations.

However, that's true of science in general. I think the "assumptions" you are asking for are actually conclusions based on observations. For example, scientists have concluded that mutations happen in predictable, yet random ways based on observation of genes before and after mutation. Scientists have concluded that the Earth is a certain age because of observations of decaying radioactive elements (though that's only a small part of the evidence).

Now one could certainly say that we must assume an old Earth to conclude common ancestry since time is an essential part of evolution. However, an old Earth really isn't an assumption as it is, in turn, a conclusion based on a separate set of data.

 

[On the Narrow Road]

I can assume that since fossils have only been found in the order evolution predicts, that we must have evolved.

ps. the earth didn't remain in a near "perfect" orbit. that's something you'll only find on YEC sites. when it come's to "perfect" there is no definition in relation to the orbit of the earth. find a physicist at a university or observatory and they'll tell u that the orbit changes slightly, but that measurable and predictable orbit wouldn't have been dramatically different enough 4 billion years ago to make a noticable difference.

First, do you really expect me to believe that fossils have only been found in the order that evolution predicts??? It seems to me that in itself is an assumption since you haven't posted any souces for the statement.

To you second point, when I say "near perfect" orbit, I mean an orbit resulting in suitable conditions for life to flourish. And I am curious how many physicists are 4 billion years old and can tell you how long ago the earth actually entered an orbit cabable of sustaining life. Since no one has witnessed the 4 billion year orbit you are claiming, we have an assumption. It may be an assumption based on some evidence, but it is an assumption just the same. BTW did the output of the sun change in those 4 billion years? Was the sun larger or smaller?

 

[On the Narrow Road]

I don't think that's an assumption, but a conclusion from the evidence.

Also, the wording is very bad, as such what does near perfect orbit mean, and what does it mean to be unmolested? The Earth's orbit varies 6 million km, and there's been several big extinction events.

I think an assumption is that we can study the natural world without worrying about supernatural interference.

Fine it's a conclusion, based on the assumption that we are properly interpreting the evidence.

Also if you want to comment on wording, I would have said the post was poorly written, not "the wording is very bad".

 

[Mallon]

Assumption: That God would not deceive His people by faking the fossil record so as to make it look like evolution took place over billions of years.

 

[Mallon]

And I am curious how many physicists are 4 billion years old and can tell you how long ago the earth actually entered an orbit cabable of sustaining life.

I am a 4 billion year-old physicist and I can attest to the old age of the earth. And for you to claim otherwise would be blasphemy since I didn't see you there.
(See how lousy that kind of argument is? It doesn't get you anywhere.)

 

[On the Narrow Road]

As many others have stated, I think the main assumption is that our observations of the universe give us accurate data that can be used to predict the result of future observations.

However, that's true of science in general. I think the "assumptions" you are asking for are actually conclusions based on observations. For example, scientists have concluded that mutations happen in predictable, yet random ways based on observation of genes before and after mutation. Scientists have concluded that the Earth is a certain age because of observations of decaying radioactive elements (though that's only a small part of the evidence).

Now one could certainly say that we must assume an old Earth to conclude common ancestry since time is an essential part of evolution. However, an old Earth really isn't an assumption as it is, in turn, a conclusion based on a separate set of data.

I agree that the assumption is that we are getting accurate data. Another assumption is that we are properly interpreting the data.

I am somewhat curious about how we can have predictable, yet random mutations. These seem to be mutually exclusive.

OK, let's not get tangled up in the assumption/conclusion thing here. Almost all conclusions have some sort of assumption behind it. You mention an old earth and evidence. We have assumptions built in to the evidence. For example, we must assume the amount of carbon in the atmosphere remained constant if our radio carbon dating is to be accurate.

So, I am looking for assumptions here, not to have my original post picked apart for it's language or even necessarily to be debated. Thanks.

 

[The Lady Kate]

To you second point, when I say "near perfect" orbit, I mean an orbit resulting in suitable conditions for life to flourish.

Now you are the one assuming that life could only exist at this orbit.

And I am curious how many physicists are 4 billion years old and can tell you how long ago the earth actually entered an orbit cabable of sustaining life.
Since no one has witnessed the 4 billion year orbit you are claiming, we have an assumption.

The old, "Were you there?" argument?

Did it occur that if the orbit of the Earth had radically shifted within the last 4 billion years, it might have left some noticable signs?

It may be an assumption based on some evidence, but it is an assumption just the same. BTW did the output of the sun change in those 4 billion years? Was the sun larger or smaller?

Stars tend to age predictably. Through observations of other stars, we can estimate the age of our sun, and then tell you what changes it has most likely been through.

Assumptions? Perhaps, but so is the assumption that the Sun will rise tomorrow...

 

[LewisWildermuth]

The basic assumptions that evolution, and all of science, has to make are:

I (the observer) exist.
The universe (the things being observed) exist.
I (the observer) can have a relationship (can effect, measure, test) the universe (the things being observed).

That is it, the rest is testable and able to be falsified.

 

[LoG]

Evolutionism assumes:

1. Heliocentricity
2. Errant scripture
3. Uniformatism
4. Dinosaur extinction 65 million years ago
5. Abiogenesis
6. The present is the key to the past
7. Genetic similarities are proof of common ancestry
8. There is no plan, goal, or purpose in the universe
9. 15+ Billion year Universe
10. 4.5 Billion year Earth
11. Unbroken line of descent since abiogenesis
12. The Bible contains little or no usable or relevant ideas which can be applied in present-day origins science
13. Evolutionistic pronouncements have priority over biblical statements

 

[Dannager]

Evolutionism assumes:

1. Heliocentricity

This is supported by uncontested evidence and is a conclusion, not an assumption.

2. Errant scripture

Allegorical scripture. Straw men already?

3. Uniformatism

You mean uniformitarianism. Yes, this is an assumption. Without evidence to the contrary science operates with the conditions it is aware of.

4. Dinosaur extinction 65 million years ago

Not an assumption as it is supported by evidence. This is a conclusion.

5. Abiogenesis

This is not assumed by evolutionary theory. Stop it with the straw men.

6. The present is the key to the past

Man, what?

7. Genetic similarities are proof of common ancestry

This is a conclusion supported by evidence, not an assumption.

8. There is no plan, goal, or purpose in the universe

This is not assumed by evolutionary theory. Straw man after straw man after straw man.

9. 15+ Billion year Universe

Again, this is supported by evidence and is thus a conclusion, not an assumption.

10. 4.5 Billion year Earth

See comment just above this. I'm getting tired of typing it out.

11. Unbroken line of descent since abiogenesis

Abiogenesis isn't assumed in the first place. Also, the lines of descent are supported by evidence and are therefore conclusions.

12. The Bible contains little or no usable or relevant ideas which can be applied in present-day origins science

This isn't an assumption. This is fact. The Bible can't be used as a science textbook as it has already been proven scientifically unreliable.

13. Evolutionistic pronouncements have priority over biblical statements

The two are not contradictory - no one has priority over any other. Another straw man.

 

[chaoschristian]

Evolutionism assumes:

1. Heliocentricity
Irrelevant to evolutionary theory. Not an assumption in and of itself, but a conclusion based upon observation.

2. Errant scripture
You make this sound like a bad thing. Scripture contain errors; despite that it is still truthful. This is an old creationist lie.

3. Uniformatism
If by this you mean that we can expect to be able to make predictions based upon observation and past behaviour, then yes.

4. Dinosaur extinction 65 million years ago
Again, not an assumption of evolutionary theory, but a conclusion of paleontology based upon observation of data.

5. Abiogenesis
Wrong. Neither an assumption of nor necessary for evolutionary theory

6. The present is the key to the past
If by this you mean that we can use logic and reason to postulate about past events based on evidence, then yes.

7. Genetic similarities are proof of common ancestry

8. There is no plan, goal, or purpose in the universe
Wrong. Evolutionary theory states that evolutionary pathways are not goal oriented. The universe does have a purpose, being part of Creation and all, but evolutionary science cares not about the theology of the thing.

9. 15+ Billion year Universe
Not an assumption of, but a conclusion of other fields of science.

10. 4.5 Billion year Earth
See #9

11. Unbroken line of descent since abiogenesis
Nonsense statement since it assumes that abiogenesis is a part of evolutionary theory.

12. The Bible contains little or no usable or relevant ideas which can be applied in present-day origins science
Since scripture is not intended to be either a modern science textbook or a modern history textbook, this is actually a reasonable statement within the context of evolutionary science. However, I believe its purpose to be incriminating.

13. Evolutionistic pronouncements have priority over biblical statements
Wrong. The revelation of scripture contends with the 'why' of Creation, not the 'how'; whereas Creation itself deals with the 'how and not the 'why' Each revelation is equal in truth.

The whole purpose of this list was yet again another lame attempt as associating evolutionary theory with evil Godless atheist science, while ignoring that science and theology are completely compatible and that evolutionary theory and Christianity are completely compatible.

 

[Dannager]

I assert that this entire thread is based on a disingenuous proposal. I feel that it is the intent of the OP to compile a list of what he calls "assumptions" and use this as a reference in other threads, along with statements of admission by TEs.

You cannot conflate "conclusion" with "assumption". If you feel that a conclusion is based on assumptions, target the assumptions it is based on, not the conclusion itself. I have a feeling you will come down to the same two assumptions that science must operate under every time. They are: "the natural world can be observed" and "the natural world operates on the same basic principles it always has unless evidence indicates otherwise".

 

[LewisWildermuth]

Evolutionism assumes:

None of what you have posted.

1. Heliocentricity

A heliocentric solarsystem is a testable idea that has yet to be falsified, not an assumption.

2. Errant scripture

Science can only look at creation so no it assumes nothing about the Bible because it cannot use the Bible.

3. Uniformatism

Again a testable idea.

4. Dinosaur extinction 65 million years ago

Again a testable idea.

5. Abiogenesis

Evolution does not assume abiogenesis, even if God did poof everything into existence 6000 years ago, since there is imperfect replication, evolution can still occur.

6. The present is the key to the past

No, just that the past is real, not a lie.

7. Genetic similarities are proof of common ancestry

This was a prediction by the theory of evolution made before DNA was even found, not an assumption.

8. There is no plan, goal, or purpose in the universe

This is not an assumption but simply a fact that science cannot read the mind of God but only look at His creation. So far we have not found a goal laid out in the fabric of the universe.

9. 15+ Billion year Universe

Again a testable idea.

10. 4.5 Billion year Earth

Again a testable idea.

11. Unbroken line of descent since abiogenesis

Now this is just plain silly. Is there a break in between you and your grandparents? If there was a break then you would not exist, so none of our ancestors from Adam or before died without having children otherwise they would not be our ancestors.

12. The Bible contains little or no usable or relevant ideas which can be applied in present-day origins science

Science can only look at creation so no it assumes nothing about the Bible because it cannot use the Bible.

13. Evolutionistic pronouncements have priority over biblical statements

Huh? When was the last time a biology prof. knocked your pastor off of the pew to teach a biology class?