Darwin's evolution theory?

[dunkel]

My goodness, you not only ignore what the ID theorists say about their own theory, but you ignore what the evolutionists say about theirs as well. Very well. Carry on with your head in the sand.

He is right. A theory just says "we think this happened and this is how we think it happened". Once the theory is created, it can be used as a tool however you want to use it.

For example, in the earlier post about the friend or the cat eating the candy bar, I walk in and see the empty wrapper, whatever all the evidence is. I come up with my theory...my friend waited until I left the room, went over, unwrapped the candy bar, and ate it. That is my theory. It doesn't say anything about the state of mind of my friend, why he would have eaten my candy bar, what made him leave the wrapper, whatever. All it says is what he did and how he did it. Now, I can also say, based on the theory, that my friend is a real *******, that he was only pretending to be my friend to get to my candy, that he is a liar, whatever I want to say. But they are two seperate things. Evolution explains the observations...you can go back and say "well, if this theory is true, it would mean xyz", but the theory itself doesn't say anything of the sort.

It's really not that hard.

tall73, that was an interesting visual aid you worked up. I honestly don't know enough about genetics to get into dormant genes or whatever. I was only basing my replies to that guy's explanations on whether they made sense or not. Assembly line birds does not many any sense at all. This may be the least of his arguments, but if it is one of his theories, it makes me question his other ones. Not throw them out, but at least make me sceptical.

Dogs are a very interesting case. I don't know of any other creature that displays so much variation and remains the same species, except maybe humans. And, like humans, all the variation is a matter of degree...longer or shorter coat, longer or shorter legs, curly or straight hair, whatever. Humans range from midgets, obviously, on up to 7'+ NBA players. Huge variations, same genome. I don't know if it is a valid comparison to look at the differences between sparrows and ostriches and the variation in humans or dogs. As I said, I'm not a geneticist. Also, is it significant that, if left to their own devices, dogs would lose all the characteristics that seperate them as different breeds? Within a generation of two, even pure bred dogs mating indiscriminently amongst themselves would have puppies that look like the typical mutts you see in the movies...medium sized, brown, medium length coat. Same with humans. Can ostriches and sparrows mate? Aside from the obvious logistical issues, I mean.

So is it possible that every bird contains every gene exhibited in every species of bird? That seems to be what you are suggesting. I guess it's possible. Unlikely, from a common sense perspective...if every bird contained all the same genes, they should all look alike. But I guess it's possible for there to be dormant genes that only pop up when needed. But how is that any better than the giraffe that wants to stretch its neck? How do the cold weather survival genes know when to activate themselves?

Both theories have problems, obviously. We just don't have enough information. But we used to think that thunderstorms meant that the gods were fighting or that an outbreak of a disease meant we were being punish or that the Earth was flat. Myths were created to explain the unexplainable and slowly but surely, we have tossed aside those myths, as science has explained weather, bacteria and viruses, and yup, that the Earth is round.

 

[Donkeytron]

My goodness, you not only ignore what the ID theorists say about their own theory, but you ignore what the evolutionists say about theirs as well. Very well. Carry on with your head in the sand.

My goodness. It's almost like there is a big difference between what a theory says (or describes is probably the better word) and what it's practictioners say about it. No so tough now, is it?

ID "theorists" can say whatever they want about ID, but until they can come up with a way to test it, it can't be studied.

 

[A. believer]

He is right. A theory just says "we think this happened and this is how we think it happened". Once the theory is created, it can be used as a tool however you want to use it.

For example, in the earlier post about the friend or the cat eating the candy bar, I walk in and see the empty wrapper, whatever all the evidence is. I come up with my theory...my friend waited until I left the room, went over, unwrapped the candy bar, and ate it. That is my theory. It doesn't say anything about the state of mind of my friend, why he would have eaten my candy bar, what made him leave the wrapper, whatever. All it says is what he did and how he did it. Now, I can also say, based on the theory, that my friend is a real *******, that he was only pretending to be my friend to get to my candy, that he is a liar, whatever I want to say. But they are two seperate things. Evolution explains the observations...you can go back and say "well, if this theory is true, it would mean xyz", but the theory itself doesn't say anything of the sort.

It's really not that hard.

He's wrong, and so are you. The theory of evolution was originally proposed as a way to explain biological diversity through purely naturalistic means and that's what it still is today. In other words, the theory presupposes materialistic naturalism. A better analogy than yours would be if you found that your candy bar had disappeared, and you sought an explanation with the presuppositional premise that your friend could not have eaten it. And with that as assumption firmly in place, you thought long and hard to come up with the most plausible theory you could imagine to explain the candy's disappearance that didn't include any involvement from your friend. Many scientists openly admit as much. Harvard geneticist Richard Lewontin talks about the materialistic presuppositions of modern science this way,

It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. The eminent Kant scholar Lewis Beck used to say that anyone who could believe in God could believe in anything. To appeal to an omnipotent deity is to allow that at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured, that miracles may happen.


​

Yet even in spite of the open admission of so many scientists of the philosophical foundation of modern science, many people like you still believe that evolutionary theory is an "unbiased conclusion" based on the evidence, and nothing but the evidence. There's just no excuse for this kind of philosophical naivete, especially for one who claims to worship the Creator of the universe.

 

[A. believer]

ID "theorists" can say whatever they want about ID, but until they can come up with a way to test it, it can't be studied.

If falsification is the criteria for legitimacy (and I assume that's what you mean by "a way to test it,") then to be consistent, evolutionary theory must be thrown out as well. There's a one-to-one correspondence between the two theories in that sense.

 

[Donkeytron]

If falsification is the criteria for legitimacy (and I assume that's what you mean by "a way to test it,") then to be consistent, evolutionary theory must be thrown out as well. There's a one-to-one correspondence between the two theories in that sense.

Hasn't been falsified. Used by biologists and others daily. Thanks for playing.

 

[Donkeytron]

He's wrong, and so are you. The theory of evolution was originally proposed as a way to explain biological diversity through purely naturalistic means and that's what it still is today. In other words, the theory presupposes materialistic naturalism. A better analogy than yours would be if you found that your candy bar had disappeared, and you sought an explanation with the presuppositional premise that your friend could not have eaten it. And with that as assumption firmly in place, you thought long and hard to come up with the most plausible theory you could imagine to explain the candy's disappearance that didn't include any involvement from your friend. Many scientists openly admit as much. Harvard geneticist Richard Lewontin talks about the materialistic presuppositions of modern science this way,

It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. The eminent Kant scholar Lewis Beck used to say that anyone who could believe in God could believe in anything. To appeal to an omnipotent deity is to allow that at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured, that miracles may happen.


​

Yet even in spite of the open admission of so many scientists of the philosophical foundation of modern science, many people like you still believe that evolutionary theory is an "unbiased conclusion" based on the evidence, and nothing but the evidence. There's just no excuse for this kind of philosophical naivete, especially for one who claims to worship the Creator of the universe.

Care to explain how science works if we presuppose supernaturalism?

 

[tall73]

tall73, that was an interesting visual aid you worked up. I honestly don't know enough about genetics to get into dormant genes or whatever. I was only basing my replies to that guy's explanations on whether they made sense or not. Assembly line birds does not many any sense at all. This may be the least of his arguments, but if it is one of his theories, it makes me question his other ones. Not throw them out, but at least make me sceptical.

Dogs are a very interesting case. I don't know of any other creature that displays so much variation and remains the same species, except maybe humans. And, like humans, all the variation is a matter of degree...longer or shorter coat, longer or shorter legs, curly or straight hair, whatever. Humans range from midgets, obviously, on up to 7'+ NBA players. Huge variations, same genome. I don't know if it is a valid comparison to look at the differences between sparrows and ostriches and the variation in humans or dogs. As I said, I'm not a geneticist. Also, is it significant that, if left to their own devices, dogs would lose all the characteristics that seperate them as different breeds? Within a generation of two, even pure bred dogs mating indiscriminently amongst themselves would have puppies that look like the typical mutts you see in the movies...medium sized, brown, medium length coat. Same with humans. Can ostriches and sparrows mate? Aside from the obvious logistical issues, I mean.

So is it possible that every bird contains every gene exhibited in every species of bird? That seems to be what you are suggesting. I guess it's possible. Unlikely, from a common sense perspective...if every bird contained all the same genes, they should all look alike. But I guess it's possible for there to be dormant genes that only pop up when needed. But how is that any better than the giraffe that wants to stretch its neck? How do the cold weather survival genes know when to activate themselves?

Both theories have problems, obviously. We just don't have enough information. But we used to think that thunderstorms meant that the gods were fighting or that an outbreak of a disease meant we were being punish or that the Earth was flat. Myths were created to explain the unexplainable and slowly but surely, we have tossed aside those myths, as science has explained weather, bacteria and viruses, and yup, that the Earth is round.

A. Thanks, I love vector drawing programs. They are useful for a ton of things! For some reason it is easier to picture than explain.

B. Assembly line, I really ought to see if I can find more on their thinking at the original site. Since he quoted them I assume it was their original logic.

C. Dogs, yes they are an example of exageration. There were already variance among dogs which is why they could be selectively breeded by humans. So these differences were expressions of variety, but much more could be gained by pairing the alleles desired. This would be the same thing that would happen in a limited way in natural selection. An environment would tend to push toward favoring certain sets of alleles, certain traits. So yes, dogs are the same as what we could see in nature, but on a much larger scale.

As to all birds being derived from the same species...I don't actually know as he would go that far or not. He might. But the point is that there is a lot of variety in each, even if there were several original types of birds. I think what he objects to is looking at an animal, seeing a few slight difference and then calling it a new species.

 

[dunkel]

He's wrong, and so are you. The theory of evolution was originally proposed as a way to explain biological diversity through purely naturalistic means and that's what it still is today. In other words, the theory presupposes materialistic naturalism. A better analogy than yours would be if you found that your candy bar had disappeared, and you sought an explanation with the presuppositional premise that your friend could not have eaten it. And with that as assumption firmly in place, you thought long and hard to come up with the most plausible theory you could imagine to explain the candy's disappearance that didn't include any involvement from your friend. Many scientists openly admit as much. Harvard geneticist Richard Lewontin talks about the materialistic presuppositions of modern science this way,

It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. The eminent Kant scholar Lewis Beck used to say that anyone who could believe in God could believe in anything. To appeal to an omnipotent deity is to allow that at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured, that miracles may happen.


​

Yet even in spite of the open admission of so many scientists of the philosophical foundation of modern science, many people like you still believe that evolutionary theory is an "unbiased conclusion" based on the evidence, and nothing but the evidence. There's just no excuse for this kind of philosophical naivete, especially for one who claims to worship the Creator of the universe.

Great, well, think what you want. The purpose of scientific theory, ANY scientific theory is to explain how something happened, not necessarily why. I don't care what people have said about whatever theory you might pick on, the bottom line is that "why" is not one of the things you look for when testing a theory. Your theory can lead to the "why" question or you might discover "why" during the testing, but the theory itself is just there to explain it. I can't help it if some people take theories and use them for whatever purposes they want to use them for.

Now, I will allow that evolution does not factor in whatever input God might have had on the process, so in that regard it does "presuppose" no divine influence. But if we were to start throwing out scientific theories based on that criticism, we'd have nothing left. What makes the apple fall to the ground? God! What makes the Earth go around the Sun? God! What is it about penicillin that makes it fight bacterial infections? God! Science is about tests and observation...you can't test or observe the "God factor", so it is left out of scientific theories. I guess I could have said "God ate the candy bar", but since I can't very well go ask him and, unfortunately, he doesn't leave fingerprints, I guess I had to go with what I could actually see.

BTW, I have never said that any scientific theory, let alone evolution, was unbiased. Anything done by man is going to be biased, from scientific theories to the stories you see on the evening news. It is impossible to be 100% objective, although that is, of course, the goal. Yes, people have falsified evidence, or just made it up, for evolution. I don't deny that. But 1) people have done that in every scientific field that exists and 2) Creationists are hardly innocent in that regard. Again, if we have to start throwing out scientific theories because someone, at some point, might have skewed the data, we'd have nothing left either...and that includes any Creationism or Intelligent Design theory out there.

 

[GraceInHim]

Dunkel - you have kept this thread alive - wow how many pages - you are good

 

[dunkel]

Thanks, I guess

I only reply when I see something outrageous that no one seems to want to argue. I think that if we can all get our story straight, and avoid what I call "amatuer apologetics", we can actually do better at spreading the word.

 

[A. believer]

Hasn't been falsified. Used by biologists and others daily. Thanks for playing.

Hasn't been falsified. Can't be falsified. That's the point.

 

[A. believer]

Care to explain how science works if we presuppose supernaturalism?

I'll address that question (yet again) after you explain how, if Scripture does happen to be correct that biodiversity was present when life first began, scientists could ever reach the correct conclusion under the presuppositional assumptions you say must necessarily be an implicit part of science.

 

[A. believer]

Great, well, think what you want. The purpose of scientific theory, ANY scientific theory is to explain how something happened, not necessarily why. I don't care what people have said about whatever theory you might pick on, the bottom line is that "why" is not one of the things you look for when testing a theory. Your theory can lead to the "why" question or you might discover "why" during the testing, but the theory itself is just there to explain it. I can't help it if some people take theories and use them for whatever purposes they want to use them for.

I'm not proposing that we need to ask "why" when testing a theory.

Now, I will allow that evolution does not factor in whatever input God might have had on the process, so in that regard it does "presuppose" no divine influence. But if we were to start throwing out scientific theories based on that criticism, we'd have nothing left. What makes the apple fall to the ground? God! What makes the Earth go around the Sun? God! What is it about penicillin that makes it fight bacterial infections? God! Science is about tests and observation...you can't test or observe the "God factor", so it is left out of scientific theories. I guess I could have said "God ate the candy bar", but since I can't very well go ask him and, unfortunately, he doesn't leave fingerprints, I guess I had to go with what I could actually see.

Again, this has nothing to do with the point. The point is that one must allow for the possibility that the theory could be false, and allow for the possibility of other theories. It's dishonest and foolish to assume that biodiversity must necessarily not have existed from the beginning because the only way it could have been so is if the natural world is not all there is. Yet this is precisely what evolutionary dogma is based on. It's this assumption that makes scientists so afraid to allow Intelligent Design theory a place in the public square. Don't be fooled into thinking that ID theorists are saying that evolution should be tossed aside in favor of ID. They're saying, let both theories be tested, taught, and considered.

 

[tall73]

Care to explain how science works if we presuppose supernaturalism?

You have the equal challenge of explaining why God states that He works through supernatural means if you think he actually only works through naturalistic ones.

Science can explain the natural laws. They simply can't explain everything.

 

[A. believer]

Thanks, I guess

I only reply when I see something outrageous that no one seems to want to argue. I think that if we can all get our story straight, and avoid what I call "amatuer apologetics", we can actually do better at spreading the word.

We're all amateurs here on this board, and being an amateur isn't necessarily anything to be ashamed of.

 

[Donkeytron]

Hasn't been falsified. Can't be falsified. That's the point.

Can be falsified. Several ways were pointed out somewhere in this thread.

 

[A. believer]

Can be falsified. Several ways were pointed out somewhere in this thread.

We've already discussed this point, remember? Since you apparently don't, I'll repeat it. Certain specifics of the theory can be falsified, and many have, but that doesn't falsify the whole paradigm. One can just assume that the specifics were false and go back to the drawing board to rework them. In fact, in regard to evolutionary theory, there's virtually no specific that all scientists agree on. It's just the overarching paradigm that most still agree on. And that doesn't say much for the "proof" of evolutionary theory.

 

[Donkeytron]

We've already discussed this point, remember? Since you apparently don't, I'll repeat it. Certain specifics of the theory can be falsified, and many have, but that doesn't falsify the whole paradigm. One can just assume that the specifics were false and go back to the drawing board to rework them. In fact, in regard to evolutionary theory, there's virtually no specific that all scientists agree on. It's just the overarching paradigm that most still agree on. And that doesn't say much for the "proof" of evolutionary theory.

OK now you're just making up stuff. You didn't show us proof of any chimeras or oddly plaed fossils. I don't know where you got this from, but it doesn't make any sense. The theory has been falsified, but it's still used by every life scientist? I don't know what "overarching paradigm" you're referring to, but at this point, it doesn't matter. Debating with you is pointless.

 

[A. believer]

OK now you're just making up stuff. You didn't show us proof of any chimeras or oddly plaed fossils. I don't know where you got this from, but it doesn't make any sense. The theory has been falsified, but it's still used by every life scientist? I don't know what "overarching paradigm" you're referring to, but at this point, it doesn't matter. Debating with you is pointless.

Making stuff up? You mean evolutionary theory hasn't "evolved" since Darwin first published his book? Certain aspects of the theory haven't been discarded?

It's convenient, though, for you to drop out of the discussion before answering my question, "How, if Scripture does happen to be correct that biodiversity was present when life first began, scientists could ever reach the correct conclusion under the presuppositional assumptions you say must necessarily be an implicit part of science."

Oh well. Since you've dropped out, perhaps someone else who shares your position might be willing to answer it.

 

[Donkeytron]

Making stuff up? You mean evolutionary theory hasn't "evolved" since Darwin first published his book? Certain aspects of the theory haven't been discarded?

It's convenient, though, for you to drop out of the discussion before answering my question, "How, if Scripture does happen to be correct that biodiversity was present when life first began, scientists could ever reach the correct conclusion under the presuppositional assumptions you say must necessarily be an implicit part of science."

Oh well. Since you've dropped out, perhaps someone else who shares your position might be willing to answer it.

The question doesn't need answering, because it's nonsensical. It's like asking how evolution is possible if we really came from a great cow in the sky like some creation myths say.

Of course evolution has changed since Origin was published. The then-unknown science of genetics had much to add.