Do you accept evolution as a valid scientific theory?

[Edmond]

[/color]

Are we talking about the entire modern evolution edifice? If you have been following the discussion we've been having over the last two pages you'll see that we have been precisely defining the scope of "evolution" as given in the survey title, namely biological evolution or the Neo-Darwinian Theory (NDT). [I understand how it feels when you come to a thread with 15 pages of history and decide to post your own thing without actually referring to any of it. That's fine. Just expect to disconnect with the rest of the thread before it.]

Oftentimes when discussing the scientific validity of "evolution" this kind of disconnect will happen. The public view of evolution almost definitely means biological evolution, often with abiogenesis thrown in. However, philosophically evolution can actually refer to ME as edmond describes it which encompasses everything from the Big Bang to cultural anthropology-archeology (evolution of societal structures). So when the "experts" take down "evolution" as being un-scientific the public doesn't have in mind the set of propositions that says that order comes from disorder and God isn't needed to run anything; the public gets the idea that specific pictures like fish crawling onto land and dinosaurs taking to the air (both misrepresentations in themselves) are unscientific. This sort of double-meaning twisting does happen in creationist treatises, for example when Carl Baugh says that the Enuma Elish contains the theory of evolution. Doubtless he means "modern evolution" more than "biological evolution", but you'd never figure that out from the patter he spouts ...

Yes, "modern evolution" is unscientific, tied in philosophically with atheism and materialism.
Biological evolution on the other hand makes no metaphysical statements about humankind's relationship with the universe, other than that they both exist. It is simply a well-shown hypothesis concerning the origins of currently observed biodiversity. It is science.
<snip>
"Scientific" takes this definition of "valid" and extends it further, introducing the concepts of "repeatability" and "cause-effect demonstration". Basically a theory is a valid scientific theory if it makes predictions that are demonstrably and repeatably true. Einstein's theories of relativity are scientifically valid because we can accurately predict and measure such phenomena as time dilation and spacetime bending. In the same way, biological evolution is scientifically valid because we can accurately predict and measure such phenomena as speciation and adaptation.


Presuppositions such as?


Do you mean "these observations were preceded by assumption ... " well, the question here is whether evolution is a valid scientific theory, not whether evolution is a theory that goes against Genesis. You will have to show that those "assumptions and accretions" (how do you have "accretions" before observations, anyway? Just what do you intend to mean by an "accretion" in this context? Don't use words that don't fit.) are not valid scientific.

I'm curious how your public bio can define you as it does and you attempt to defend evolution as you do. Would you mind describing that apparent paradox? ...

And second...what is your clear definiton of the evolution you are attempting to defend? ....

-----------------

 

[shernren]

Up till about Feb / March this year I was a rather convinced YEC. Knew the proofs, the knee-jerk reactions, the creationist version of the facts. Then I came here and was properly exposed to evolutionism. The real version, not the (with all due respect) junk the creationists had been telling me. Since then I have been somewhat struggling with which view to take. As a scientific-minded person I tend very heavily towards the evolutionist view. But I still have some reservations with the evolution of humans, the fully mythical view of Genesis 1-11 (e.g. that Cain killing Abel represents tension between hunter-gatherers and agriculturalists) and the chemical evolution (abiogenesis) of life itself. That's why I don't think I can qualify myself as a full Theistic Evolutionist yet, at least until I become a full-fledged scientist.

What I mean by evolutionism is the theory of biological evolution, namely that the current biodiversity we see (whether alive or fossilized) was all derived from the first lifeform via small, successive, inherited changes that were chosen by the environment through differential reproductive success (or in shorter scientific lingo, common descent and natural selection).

Note that evolutionism doesn't require abiogenesis, although atheistic, philosophically naturalistic positions do. Abiogenesis is the belief that natural, reproducible processes acting upon terrestrially available chemicals were able to produce life. This I'm inclined to disbelieve, but I think the jury's still somewhat out on this issue.

Also, there is the old earth view, namely that the earth is about 4-5 billion years old and the universe is about 13~ billion years old. Personally I also hold to that.

Of course, these are the most scientific options I see available to me. Now, just because something is non-scientific / anti-scientific doesn't mean that it didn't happen. The resurrection for example happened although it broke quite a bit of science in the process. In the same way it is conceivable that YECism is true although it is not scientific. However, what disqualifies it for me is the great preponderance of evidence against it (as well as the often hostile attitudes one finds in creationism against evolutionists and even other creationists who happen to disagree).

Have I answered you to your contentment?

 

[gluadys]

What I mean by evolutionism is the theory of biological evolution, namely that the current biodiversity we see (whether alive or fossilized) was all derived from the first lifeform via small, successive, inherited changes that were chosen by the environment through differential reproductive success (or in shorter scientific lingo, common descent and natural selection).

Great post, shernren!

I would quibble very slightly with the bolded phrase in this paragraph. Striclty speaking common descent does not imply that all life forms were derived from the first lifeform, but from the last universal common ancestor (LUCA). The LUCA need not be the first life-form. It need not even be in the first generation of life forms. But it does need to be the only early life form which continued to have descendants down to the present day.

 

[Edmond]

Up till about Feb / March this year I was a rather convinced YEC. Knew the proofs, the knee-jerk reactions, the creationist version of the facts. Then I came here and was properly exposed to evolutionism. The real version, not the (with all due respect) junk the creationists had been telling me. Since then I have been somewhat struggling with which view to take. As a scientific-minded person I tend very heavily towards the evolutionist view. But I still have some reservations with the evolution of humans, the fully mythical view of Genesis 1-11 (e.g. that Cain killing Abel represents tension between hunter-gatherers and agriculturalists) and the chemical evolution (abiogenesis) of life itself. That's why I don't think I can qualify myself as a full Theistic Evolutionist yet, at least until I become a full-fledged scientist.

What I mean by evolutionism is the theory of biological evolution, namely that the current biodiversity we see (whether alive or fossilized) was all derived from the first lifeform via small, successive, inherited changes that were chosen by the environment through differential reproductive success (or in shorter scientific lingo, common descent and natural selection).

I think I understand. You really believe that environment condition that surround an organism can change the DNA and produce another type of organism. Wow, and you call that real science. I believe what you're actually saying is you're haven't decided if only part of Genesis 1-11 is a lie or whether all of it is a lie.

Note that evolutionism doesn't require abiogenesis, although atheistic, philosophically naturalistic positions do. Abiogenesis is the belief that natural, reproducible processes acting upon terrestrially available chemicals were able to produce life. This I'm inclined to disbelieve, but I think the jury's still somewhat out on this issue.

When the jury is in then you can decide what to do with the rest of Genesis.

Also, there is the old earth view, namely that the earth is about 4-5 billion years old and the universe is about 13~ billion years old. Personally I also hold to that.

Of course, these are the most scientific options I see available to me. Now, just because something is non-scientific / anti-scientific doesn't mean that it didn't happen. The resurrection for example happened although it broke quite a bit of science in the process.

Broke quite a bit of science? I believe you have the perception that science knows no bounds. It is far from being 'all reaching' or 'all-measuring'. It is by far not the final definer of all things. Has it ever occurred to you that science is limited by it own definitons and self-imposted scope of research to include only the study of the chemical/physical universe to begin with? The resserection didn't break science. Anything supernatural operates well beyond the neasurable or preceptable scope of 'science' by its virtual definition. God's functions within the universe cannot only 'braek' science. His functions are regularly garenteed to be well beyond being measure by a system of knowledge that to ONLY equipped to attempt to define the natural, physical universe. 'Science', my friend, is capable of defining or tracking nothing of that which transcends the natural, which is all that is supernatural...ie. all of the operation of God. Therefore science is not capable of defining or tracking God nor does it want to be. It, by definition, confines itself exclusively to the realm of the empirical, physical elements of the universe. I think you have gotten several things out of perspective. One of them...science doesn't define God's operations. Its the other way around. God defines the operations that science later tries to measure, define and wishingly comprehend just a little bit about.

In the same way it is conceivable that YECism is true although it is not scientific. However, what disqualifies it for me is the great preponderance of evidence against it (as well as the often hostile attitudes one finds in creationism against evolutionists and even other creationists who happen to disagree).

Have I answered you to your contentment?

By 'the great preponderance of evidence' do you mean the great string of assumptions that Lyell and darwin proposed to set their propositions into motion? I have studied the ramifications of both sides of this argument for over 30 years. I can tell you without hesitation, there are far more gaping holes in the conclusions of the geological and biological presuppositions upon which evolution is based than there is evidence that actually and consistantly support either of them. You are right about one thing, evolution is an 'ism'. It is far more an ideology than it ever has been a science.

----------------------------------

 

[Edmond]

Great post, shernren!

I would quibble very slightly with the bolded phrase in this paragraph. Striclty speaking common descent does not imply that all life forms were derived from the first lifeform, but from the last universal common ancestor (LUCA). The LUCA need not be the first life-form. It need not even be in the first generation of life forms. But it does need to be the only early life form which continued to have descendants down to the present day.

Gluadys,greetings...I would like to ask you the following. 1) What are your conclusions about the account of creation as presented in Genesis 1 ... and why? 2) What are your conclusions about the documentation of the flood in Gen. 6-8 ... and why? 3) What are your conclusions about Jesus, the rest of the Bible ...and why? ....

----------------------------

 

[seekthetruth909]

Many biologists, mathematicians and physicists have recently been disputing the theory of evolution.

Check out these books reviews on Amazon



http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/search-handle-url/104-1119057-6967933?url=index%3Dblended&field-keywords=darwins+black+box&Go.x=3&Go.y=13

 

[gluadys]

I think I understand. You really believe that environment condition that surround an organism can change the DNA and produce another type of organism. Wow, and you call that real science. I believe what you're actually saying is you're haven't decided if only part of Genesis 1-11 is a lie or whether all of it is a lie.

If you think the theory of evolution predicts that DNA will change in response to environmental changes, you haven't figured out yet how evolution works. You have put the cart before the horse.

I have studied the ramifications of both sides of this argument for over 30 years. I can tell you without hesitation, there are far more gaping holes in the conclusions of the geological and biological presuppositions upon which evolution is based than there is evidence that actually and consistantly support either of them.

Yet in 30 years you have not taken into account that science is built on positive evidence, not on gaps of whatever size.

What alternate scientific explanation can you give for the positive evidence that supports an old earth and/or evolution?

I would also like to know what pre-suppositions 19th century creationist geologist cum paleontologists like Georges Cuvier, Louis Agassiz and William Smith subscribed to.

 

[gluadys]

Many biologists, mathematicians and physicists have recently been disputing the theory of evolution.

Check out these books reviews on Amazon



http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/search-handle-url/104-1119057-6967933?url=index%3Dblended&field-keywords=darwins+black+box&Go.x=3&Go.y=13

Hmmmm. The only biologist I saw on that list of authors was Keith Miller, author of the Christian pro-evolution book, Finding Darwin's God.

I am not familiar with all the names, so if I have missed a biologist, please point him/her out to me.

Lists of scientists who have problems with evolution do tend to be dominated by mathematicians, physicists and engineers, i.e. scientists who have little expertise in biology.

 

[Edmond]

If you think the theory of evolution predicts that DNA will change in response to environmental changes, you haven't figured out yet how evolution works. You have put the cart before the horse.
I don't think that at all. Your last conclusion seemed to propose that. How then do you propose to define and identify the mechanism by which one species turns into another?
Yet in 30 years you have not taken into account that science is built on positive evidence, not on gaps of whatever size.

When the gaps in the evidence far out weigh the 'posiitve' evidence it is time to conclusion that your assumptions may be very wrong. The is the case with 'the evidence of the past' validating evolution.

What alternate scientific explanation can you give for the positive evidence that supports an old earth and/or evolution?

If you have need to ask such a question, that tells me you have most probably been schooled in only one viewpoint of how to interpret the evidence.

I would also like to know what pre-suppositions 19th century creationist geologist cum paleontologists like Georges Cuvier, Louis Agassiz and William Smith subscribed to.

I know of these men, their positions and their 19th century conclusions. I also know the vast limitations of the scope of the world both laterally and vertically that they had covered to reach such 'global' conclusions. Modern paleontology has simply continued the extrapolate their initial presuppositions. It serve their purposes just fine...date the age of the rocks by the supposed age of the fossils and the age of the fossils bu the age of the rocks. Perfect circular reasoning.

Please take the time if you will to repsond to the questions I asked. It will offer a much clearer conclusion of where you are coming form in your belief system. Thank you. ...

------------------------

 

[gluadys]

Gluadys,greetings...I would like to ask you the following. 1) What are your conclusions about the account of creation as presented in Genesis 1 ... and why? 2) What are your conclusions about the documentation of the flood in Gen. 6-8 ... and why? 3) What are your conclusions about Jesus, the rest of the Bible ...and why? ....

----------------------------

First, I find the historical-critical school of hermeneutics the most plausible explanation for the compilation of the bible. This includes the JEPD Documentary thesis for the origin of the Torah.

Hence I take Genesis 1:1-2:4b to be a composition from the late kingdom or early exilic period (well after the destruction of the northern kingdom by the Assyrians). It is part of the P material, and this section on creation is a quasi-poetic rejection of pagan polytheism such as that expressed in the Enuma Elish.

Most of Genesis 2:4b-11:32 is dominated by the writing of J who tends to use the classic ancient genre of folk-myth. The form of Hebrew used is considerably more antique than that used by P indicating that it was written much earlier, possibly early in the two kingdom era. J writes from the perspective of an inhabitant of the southern kingdom.

However, there are substantial contributions by P to this section of Genesis, as well as additions by a later editor who combined the earlier writings.

This whole segment offers mythological explanations for the human condition from such trivialities as "why do snakes not have legs?" and "why do people speak different languages?" to deep theological teachings on the human relationship to God, to each other, to the rest of nature, on sin and pride and judgment. (Note: "mythological" as used in this context does not mean "false". It does mean non-scientific and non-historical.)

As for Jesus, although we have no hard evidence of his existence, I see no reason not to accept that a man of this name lived around that time and that the gospels fairly represent his teachings, and that he aroused the fear and ire of the authorities who arranged to have him crucified.

Beyond that we get into questions of theology for which we cannot use scientific or historical research for answers.

As for the rest of the bible, there is no one-size-fits-all answer. The writers and the writings are too different from each other. The book of Job cannot be evaluated in the same way as the books of Kings or the book of Amos, or anything in the NT. And in the NT the book of Acts, Paul's epistle to the Romans, his epistles to Timothy, the epistle to the Hebrews, John's letters and Revelation are all quite different in content and style and purpose. So each needs to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.

 

[gluadys]

When the gaps in the evidence far out weigh the 'posiitve' evidence it is time to conclusion that your assumptions may be very wrong. The is the case with 'the evidence of the past' validating evolution.

No gap can outweigh evidence since a gap is not evidence, but the absence of evidence. Theories are constructed from an examination of evidence, not from an examination of nothingness.

If you have need to ask such a question, that tells me you have most probably been schooled in only one viewpoint of how to interpret the evidence.

That is not an acceptable excuse for evading the question.

I know of these men, their positions and their 19th century conclusions. I also know the vast limitations of the scope of the world both laterally and vertically that they had covered to reach such 'global' conclusions.

Do you know of any geological find outside of Europe that has contradicted their initial conclusions?

Modern paleontology has simply continued the extrapolate their initial presuppositions.

And what were those pre-suppositions again?

It serve their purposes just fine...date the age of the rocks by the supposed age of the fossils and the age of the fossils bu the age of the rocks. Perfect circular reasoning.

Of course, this circular reasoning has never been used in science, so this is an appeal to creationist distortion of scientific method.

Please take the time if you will to repsond to the questions I asked. It will offer a much clearer conclusion of where you are coming form in your belief system. Thank you. ...

------------------------

Just did. See previous post.

 

[Edmond]

No gap can outweigh evidence since a gap is not evidence, but the absence of evidence. Theories are constructed from an examination of evidence, not from an examination of nothingness.

When an assumption like bio evolution predicts a requirement for the findings of massive amount of transitional forms of life, yet such evidence is everything but void...that means the assumptions are based on what is not there, not what is there. That is the condition that has been found with regard to Darwin's predictions.

That is not an acceptable excuse for evading the question.

First, please respond to the questions I presented and have re-posted below.

Just did. See previous post.

Again...these are the questions. ...I would like to ask you the following. 1) What are your conclusions about the account of creation as presented in Genesis 1 ... and why? 2) What are your conclusions about the documentation of the flood in Gen. 6-8 ... and why? 3) What are your conclusions about Jesus, the rest of the Bible ...and why? ....

----------------------------

 

[shernren]

Agreed, gluadys. Thanks for correcting me and pointing that out about the LUCA.

I think I understand. You really believe that environment condition that surround an organism can change the DNA and produce another type of organism. Wow, and you call that real science.

You understand what? I hope you'll phrase yourself clearly, because that is actually (on surface level) a creationist belief. When they are presented with certain examples of evolution such as antibiotic resistance and the nylon bug, some will say that in fact, the environment has directly acted on the DNA causing it to change and exhibit beneficial properties, thus showing no net increase in information (whatever they mean by information in the first place).

What I mean to say is that because of environmental influence, certain members of a population will be able to reproduce more than other members of a population. This means that the traits they carry genetically will be passed on more often and gradually the genetic makeup of the population will be changed. The environment does not directly affect DNA, it affects it through reproduction. And this has demonstrably produced new species.

I believe what you're actually saying is you're haven't decided if only part of Genesis 1-11 is a lie or whether all of it is a lie.

When the jury is in then you can decide what to do with the rest of Genesis.

Who said anything about lying? Wasn't me.

Myths and lies are two different animals. Myths are what happens when God has to accommodate His word and story to pre-scientific cultures. He wasn't going to wait around until they developed the scientific concepts and vocabulary of GR and quantum physics and evolutionism before He told them just what the world is there for. So He went ahead and told them the whole why of it knowing there was no way He could possibly fit the how into their science at the time.

Lying? That's a serious charge.

Broke quite a bit of science? I believe you have the perception that science knows no bounds. It is far from being 'all reaching' or 'all-measuring'. It is by far not the final definer of all things. Has it ever occurred to you that science is limited by it own definitons and self-imposted scope of research to include only the study of the chemical/physical universe to begin with? The resserection didn't break science. Anything supernatural operates well beyond the neasurable or preceptable scope of 'science' by its virtual definition. God's functions within the universe cannot only 'braek' science. His functions are regularly garenteed to be well beyond being measure by a system of knowledge that to ONLY equipped to attempt to define the natural, physical universe. 'Science', my friend, is capable of defining or tracking nothing of that which transcends the natural, which is all that is supernatural...ie. all of the operation of God. Therefore science is not capable of defining or tracking God nor does it want to be. It, by definition, confines itself exclusively to the realm of the empirical, physical elements of the universe. I think you have gotten several things out of perspective. One of them...science doesn't define God's operations. Its the other way around. God defines the operations that science later tries to measure, define and wishingly comprehend just a little bit about.

Yes, you're right. I was careless about choosing my words. It would have been better for me to say that the resurrection transcended science. All the same, though, I think the scientific evidence points against YECism because it would have to be spectacularly anti-science in extremely mind-boggling ways. There is a whole lot of naturalistic evidence that should be there if the universe is 6000 years old. Instead, we see not only the nearly-complete lack of naturalistic evidence for a young earth, we see a complete preponderance of physical evidence - of appearance of history - that no young-earth theory adequately explains.

By 'the great preponderance of evidence' do you mean the great string of assumptions that Lyell and darwin proposed to set their propositions into motion? I have studied the ramifications of both sides of this argument for over 30 years. I can tell you without hesitation, there are far more gaping holes in the conclusions of the geological and biological presuppositions upon which evolution is based than there is evidence that actually and consistantly support either of them. You are right about one thing, evolution is an 'ism'. It is far more an ideology than it ever has been a science.

(Evolution is an 'ism' as you defined it - namely methodological / philosophical / atheistic evolutionism - and by no means as what other posters on this forum believe - namely biological evolutionism. It is possible to believe the latter without the former.)

Even if one ignores Darwin and Lyell there is the simple plain fact of the speed of light and the constant rate of radioactive decay. Those two alone put to flight many notions of a young universe.

 

[Marshall Janzen]

Hmmmm. The only biologist I saw on that list of authors was Keith Miller, author of the Christian pro-evolution book, Finding Darwin's God.

Actually, Keith Miller edited Perspectives on an Evolving Creation, and he is a geologist. I also got Keith and Ken Miller mixed up, and that's how I ended up reading Finding Darwin's God (I thought it was by the same author as this other book). It turned out to be a happy mistake; the book was well worth the read!

 

[gluadys]

Actually, Keith Miller edited Perspectives on an Evolving Creation, and he is a geologist. I also got Keith and Ken Miller mixed up, and that's how I ended up reading Finding Darwin's God (I thought it was by the same author as this other book). It turned out to be a happy mistake; the book was well worth the read!

You are right. I get them mixed up too.

 

[LoG]

Even if one ignores Darwin and Lyell there is the simple plain fact of the speed of light and the constant rate of radioactive decay. Those two alone put to flight many notions of a young universe.

Both of those have been proven to be variable to some extent. Speed of light is especially being put to the test by several different scientists who have theorized that its speed was much greater in the past.

 

[Stacey]

I'll accept it the day the bible and creationism is proven wrong.

 

[gluadys]

I'll accept it the day the bible and creationism is proven wrong.

Give me your definition of creationism and we will see if it has been proven wrong.

Note that proving creationism wrong does not prove the bible wrong, as the bible can be understood in a non-creationist fashion.

 

[invisible trousers]

I'll accept it the day the bible and creationism is proven wrong.

Is it safe to say (young earth) creationism is wrong because there is not a single piece of physical evidence which supports it?

 

[LoG]

Give me your definition of creationism and we will see if it has been proven wrong.

That would be interesting considering that many scientists consider Creationism as being a psuedo-science because it is unfalsifiable. By stating it is proven to be wrong you are also stating it is a legitimate science.