Scienece vs Church: Evolution

[Pete Harcoff]

Man descending from ape is still a theory reguardless of all the arguements about what the evidence points to. Science even agrees that it is still just a theory.

As LewisWildermuth pointed out, "just a theory" is as good as it gets in science. Of course, scientists tend to use the term "theory" differently than laymen.

This page might clear up some of the confusion of these terms and the way scientists use them.

As far as I know there has never been found that one link between ape and man. I could be wrong about that but I doubt it.

Yeah, you are wrong. You might want to give a read to the first half-dozen or so posts in this thread (aptly titled "evidence for human evolution").

I don't dispute that evolution occurs. I simply dispute we descended from ape. If you believe you descended from ape then hey, you descended from ape. I on the other hand didn't.

You're free to believe whatever you want, but as was said earlier in the thread, beliefs and facts are two different things. I could believe France doesn't exist and the moon is made of green cheese, but that doesn't mean it will be true. If you are comfortable believing that you didn't descend from a primitive hominid species, then fine. But that's not going to change the evidence that says you are.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Weird, because I was thinking "fact" would trump "theory".

Theories in science are explanations for facts. Theories do not become "facts".

For example:

Fact: Apples fall to the ground.
Theory: The Earth's gravity pulls the apple towards it.

 

[LewisWildermuth]

Weird, because I was thinking "fact" would trump "theory".

It would, if they were the same thing... But they are not.

In science a "fact" is a piece of data about something. It is a fact that atoms give off light when stimulated in specific ways. It is a fact that people with colds have a virus in their systems.

But a theory isn't quite so simple. A theory takes several, or many facts and tries to line them up in a way that makes sense and does not contradict the facts.

I'll try and give you an over simplified example...

First we have our facts in the case.

1. I turn on a light switch and the light comes on.

2. When the switch is in the on position there is measurable electric flow in the wires leading to the light bulb.

3. When the switch is in the off position there is no measurable electric current in the wires leading to the light bulb.

Now with those facts we can construct a hypothesis.

Hypothesis: This light bulb must have electrical flow through it to light up.

Now we test the hypothesis repeatedly and then let others test it in the same way just to make sure that we all get the same results. If we all get the same results then the hypothesis becomes a theory.

That theory lasts as long as no facts are discovered that contradict the theory.

Tomorrow, someone could find the viruses that we think cause colds are only a side effect of the cold and that it is caused by something else. Just one fact that a theory cannot explain destroys that theory and one either has to rewrite the theory so that the new facts fit in or come up with an entire new theory.

I hope that helps you understand the difference between a fact and a theory.

 

[DGB454]

You do realize that "theory" is as high as you can go in science, there is no rung above the theory level. So a heliocentric solar system is still "just a theory" it existence of atoms and their structures are "just theories" and the idea that the common cold is caused by viruses is "just a theory"..

Fact is the next rung?

Well, since you are wrong one must ask who you are getting your information from since they are lying to you about how much evidence there is. .

Where am I wrong? Just saying I'm wrong proves nothing. Do you read what you write?

And what does this have to do with anything? .

Do you read what other people write?

So you take this as being a physical image? What color is God's hair then? If I hit God really hard does he bruise? Is God's blood red like mine?.

Or could it be that the image God was talking about was not the physical image?.

So when God created the single cell orginasim that "we all came from" He put his spirit in it? When it died it went to heaven? Maybe he saved heaven for the apes he put his spirit in then huh? Did he just wait till we finally evolved and then put his spirit in?

Now what if God used evolution to make man? The evidence seems to point that way, so unless God is trying to trick us by planting false evidence, the safe bet is a provisional acceptance of evolution

If God is trying to trick us, then we Christians are in trouble since our God promised he would not do such a thing.

All I have ever seen in evolution of man from ape is evolution up to a certain point then a big gap and then man. Fill in the gap. Please fill in the gap. I am open to looking at that space where ape like creatures stopped and man began if you can show me some proof. I may be wrong. If I am show me.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

All I have ever seen in evolution of man from ape is evolution up to a certain point then a big gap and then man. Fill in the gap. Please fill in the gap. I am open to looking at that space where ape like creatures stopped and man began if you can show me some proof. I may be wrong. If I am show me.

Have you ever really looked at all the fossil hominids?
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/

If they are all so obviously ape or human why are some of the same fossils called ape by one creationist and human by another?

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/compare.html

Do you think God created each of these ape-like creatures separately?


Do you think God created shared pseuogenes and shared retroviral insertions in Apes and Humans?
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section4.html
If not how did they get there? I have never seen any creationist explanation that made any sense.

The Frumious Bandersnatch

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Fact is the next rung?

Did you not see my post? There is no "next rung". Theories explain facts. They do not become facts.

 

[DGB454]

Have you ever really looked at all the fossil hominids?
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/

If they are all so obviously ape or human why are some of the same fossils called ape by one creationist and human by another?

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/compare.html

Do you think God created each of these ape-like creatures separately?


Do you think God created shared pseuogenes and shared retroviral insertions in Apes and Humans?
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section4.html
If not how did they get there? I have never seen any creationist explanation that made any sense.

The Frumious Bandersnatch

Finally someone put up something as their proof rather than just saying "You're wrong" and " This is why we are behind in science because of people like me"

I am still rather new here and for me to go back and read every post that has ever been made since the beginning of this forum is a daunting task to say the least. I am trying to look at both sides.That's why I said "I may be wrong. If I am show me." Don't just write me off by saying I'm wrong. That proves nothing.

Anyway, I will look at what you provided Frumious (may take a while) and see what I think.

In the meantime I have another question. This is for those that believe in a creator and believe that man evolved. When did God decide to put his spirit into him? Was it when he was still more apelike? Was it when he was still a single cell organism? Did he wait till he was intelligent enough to understand there is a God?

Maybe I am in the wrong part of the forum for these questions.

 

[lucaspa]

His sister, who was with him when he died, said that he did not recant and remained agnostic. If he didn't recant, then he did not except christianity, thus dying agnostic. I never said darwin was an atheist (although some might consider him a weak atheist) he was agnostic. To be honest its all kind of trival, the bottom line is darwin shouldn't be rembered as a christian.

This is two separate concepts. The creationist myth about the death-bed confession centers around the idea that evolution is atheistic and Darwin recanted because evolution was atheistic.

So, Darwin never recanted because there was no need to: evolution was never atheistic to begin with. So Darwin can be Christian and accept evolution. Failure to "recant" has nothing to do with his accepting Christianity. Years before Darwin had reassured a correspondent that there was no conflict between evolution and Christianity, saying that WHEN HE WROTE Origin, he was a devout Christian.

So, your conclusion does not follow. Now, IF the people around him had really considered him an agnostic, burial in Westminster Abbey would not have been possible. Remember, his parish minister, Brodie Innes, knew Darwin for over 30 years prior to his death, and never considered him non-Christian.

We have no idea where Darwin was in his "wild swings" between theism and agnosticism at the time of his death.

I'm glad to know our (non-creationist) misery is funny to you!! you should be sending us ammunition to fight this war on stupidity.

The misinformation in your posts is contributing to the stupidity.

 

[lucaspa]

In the meantime I have another question. This is for those that believe in a creator and believe that man evolved. When did God decide to put his spirit into him? Was it when he was still more apelike? Was it when he was still a single cell organism? Did he wait till he was intelligent enough to understand there is a God?

Darwin addressed this issue. When does God put a soul in a human embryo? At conception? At birth? Sometime in between?

The answer is: no one knows. For you, does it matter?

 

[lucaspa]

lucaspa: agnostic described his beliefs better MOST, BUT NOT ALL, of the time. \

ounds agnostic to me...

Not always. It can also sound like a typical Christian who goes thru periods of doubt.

read john 3:16, unless of course he personally recanted and told none.

John 3:16: For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life"

Where in there is there any threat of Hell for those who don't believe? Where in there is God saying that those who DON'T believe will not have everlasting life. Believing leads to everlasting life, but I see no threat or punishment for not believing. You get rewards for believing, but I see no hint of punishment.

I'm sure your a liberal christian, and thus your probably putting up this argument that darwin could be a christian, and this is the abuguity of your own religion. Based on what we know about christianity and what we know about darwin "most christians" would condenm him to hell.

And you started by saying Darwin was atheistic because of your atheism. When that was disproved you fall back to agnosticism. You obviously have a personal agenda for Darwin NOT being theist. Don't project your agenda onto me.

From Darwin's writings, his behavior, and how other people regarded him, Darwin could easily sit in the pew of any mainline Christian denomination today. After all, he DID sit in the pew of his local Anglican church all his life. Even funded Sunday school classes.

In his day, the official position of the Anglican Church condemned Darwin's father and grandfather, and this was one reason Darwin had serious doubts about Christianity. Remember, his doubts NEVER came from evolution. Since then, the Anglican Church has changed its own position. So Darwin was more right about the real Christian position than the Anglican Church of his day.

Today, the Biblical literalists condemn Darwin. Partly because they want evolution to be an atheist conspiracy, just like you want evolution to be atheistic. Partly because they believe that attacking a person's character is a legitimate argument; a belief you also apparently share by the data of your comments to me. However, neither position is backed by the data. Whatever you want for Darwin personally, the fact remains that at least half of all evolutionary biologists thru history have been Christians. Evolution is not, and never has been, atheistic.

But if the bible is any basis for which to draw a judgment he would be in hell.

So far, you haven't given any indication that you understand the Bible, but accept the same flawed literalist interpretation of the creationists. Your one verse certainly didn't say what you claimed it did.

Darwin adamitley stated that humans are animals orginated in africa and have a common ancestor with apes. This doesn't sound to christian to me. Wether darwin the person was agnostic or christian his ideas were agnostic/atheist. Thefore one could judge him by his ideas and not his personal ambguity.

The idea was not consistent with Biblical literalism, but that had been thrown out by Christian theologians from Augustine thru Calvin thru Sedgwick anyway. Darwin always stated that evolution was consistent with Christianity. Take a look at this from Origin, first the Fontispiece and then the text:

"But with regard to the material world, we can at least go so far as this -- we can perceive that events are brought about not by insulated interpositions of Divine power, exerted in each particular case, but by the establishment of general laws" Whewell: Bridgewater Treatise.

"To my mind it accords better with what we know of the laws impressed on matter by the Creator, that the production and extinction of the past and present inhabitants of the world should have been due to secondary causes, like those determining the birth and death of the individual." pg. 449.

You are repeating the fallacy that evolution is atheism.

My conclusion is based on reading his works. Orgin of man try it out.

I've read it, thank you. Your conclusion is based on a strawman version of Christianity.

My claims.... we are last in the industrilized world in math and science. Our eductional system is worthless. And people like you don't relize it.

and yet we turn out the best scientists in the world and lead the world in science. Something doesn't quite click here.

In new orleans 50 schools were considered unacceptable and closed down.

Relevance? Were they closed because of creationism? Is that what caused them to be unacceptable?

 

[lucaspa]

Fact is the next rung?

No. Here are some definitions for you from the National Academy of Sciences:

http://bob.nap.edu/html/evolution98/evol1.html

"Fact: In science, an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed.

Law: A descriptive generalization about how some aspect of the natural world behaves under stated circumstances.

Hypothesis: A testable statement about the natural world that can be used to build more complex inferences and explanations.

Theory: In science, a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses. "

Theories are not guesses. Valid theories, such as evolution, are well-substantiated explanations. Falsified theories, such as creationism, are explanations that were well-substantiated at one time but which new facts have shown to be wrong.

So when God created the single cell orginasim that "we all came from" He put his spirit in it? When it died it went to heaven? Maybe he saved heaven for the apes he put his spirit in then huh? Did he just wait till we finally evolved and then put his spirit in?

Since science has never found empirical evidence for "spirit", the answer to all your questions from the pov of science is "we don't know. No data."

All I have ever seen in evolution of man from ape is evolution up to a certain point then a big gap and then man. Fill in the gap. Please fill in the gap. I am open to looking at that space where ape like creatures stopped and man began if you can show me some proof. I may be wrong. If I am show me.

I've done that in a separate thread entitled Human Transitionals. I will repost the data here. I am talking about individual fossils that are so intermediate that we can't tell which species they belong to. These transitional individuals link A. afarensis to H. habilis to H. erectus, to H. sapiens -- us.

Afarensis to habilis: OH 24 is in between A. afarensis and habilis

Habilis to erectus:
Oldovai: Bed I has Habilis at bottom, then fossils with perfect mixture of characteristics of habilis and erectus, and erectus at top. At bottom of Bed II (top of Bed I) have fossils resemble H. erectus but brain case smaller than later H. erectus that lies immediately above them. pg 81
OH 13, 14 was classified by some anthropologists as H. habilis but others as early H. erectus. 650 cc
D2700 from Dmasi has features of both hablis and erectus. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/d2700.html

Koobi Fora: Another succession with several habilis up to 2 Mya, then transitionals, and then erectus at 1.5 Mya.

Erectus to sapiens: Omo valley. Omo-2 "remarkable mixture of Homo erectus and Homo sapiens characteristics" pg. 70.
Omo-1: another mix of erectus and sapiens
Skhul and Jebel Qafza caves: "robust" H. sapiens at 120 Kya that have brow ridges like erectus but brain case like sapiens.
Tautavel, 200Kya: large brow ridges and small cranium but rest of face looks like H. sapiens.
"We shall see the problem of drawing up a dividing line between Homo erectus and Homo sapiens is not easy." pg 65.
Ngaloba Beds of Laetoli, 120 Kya: ~1200 cc and suite of archaic (erectus) features.
Guamde in Turkana Basin, 180 Kya: more modern features than Ngaloba but in-between erectus and sapiens.
Skhul, Israel "posed a puzzle to paleoanthropologists, appearing to be almost but not quite modern humans"
Omo Valley, Ethiopia: ~ 500,000 ya. mixture erectus and sapiens features
Sale in Morrocco: skull discovered in 1971, ~300,000 ya. also shows erectus and sapiens features.
Broken Hill skull: another skull with mixtures of erectus and sapiens features

 

[lucaspa]

He is being told the truth (by his Mother and Father)that he was created in Gods image by God.(Prove me wrong on this)

There are two separate issues in this sentence:

1. The theological issue that God created.
2. The scientific issue of HOW God created.

The first is outside science and we are not trying to prove it wrong. The second is within science and the data shows that God did NOT create human beings either instantaneously by speaking, or forming them from dust, in their present form.

Did God create by evolution? Most Christians believe so.

I simply dispute we descended from ape.

So this isn't about science or Christianity, but about YOUR pride. Isn't pride a deadly sin?

 

[lucaspa]

Originally Posted By: LewisWildermuth

You do realize that "theory" is as high as you can go in science, there is no rung above the theory level. So a heliocentric solar system is still "just a theory" it existence of atoms and their structures are "just theories" and the idea that the common cold is caused by viruses is "just a theory".

Weird, because I was thinking "fact" would trump "theory".

Facts do trump theory. Lewis got carried away. But remember the context of the remarks: Lewis was responding to a poster who claims that valid theories are just guesses unbacked by facts. IOW, he wants to ignore valid theories because he dissociates theories from facts

 

[lucaspa]

I'll try and give you an over simplified example...

First we have our facts in the case.

1. I turn on a light switch and the light comes on.

2. When the switch is in the on position there is measurable electric flow in the wires leading to the light bulb.

3. When the switch is in the off position there is no measurable electric current in the wires leading to the light bulb.

Now with those facts we can construct a hypothesis.

Hypothesis: This light bulb must have electrical flow through it to light up.

Now we test the hypothesis repeatedly and then let others test it in the same way just to make sure that we all get the same results. If we all get the same results then the hypothesis becomes a theory.

Theories are not "grown up" hypotheses. What you have here is a well -supported hypothesis.

If you want to make this a theory, change the statment to read "ALL light bulbs must have electrical flow through them to light up."

Then your hypothesis becomes one of the many supported hypotheses on individual light bulbs that become part of the theory.

Hypotheses tend to be specific statements about a specific part of the universe, such as ONE PARTICULAR light bulb. Theories are more general statements about the universe: ALL light bulbs.

However, the demarcation line is not hard and fast, and colloquial misuse of the terms confuses the issue even more.

But, bottom line, theories are NOT hypotheses with a lot of repitition behind them. Instead, hypotheses with a lot of repitition behind them are simply well-supported hypotheses. Which are also then accepted as (provisionally) true and factual.

That theory lasts as long as no facts are discovered that contradict the theory.

Now, this is true.

Just one fact that a theory cannot explain destroys that theory and one either has to rewrite the theory so that the new facts fit in or come up with an entire new theory.

Ah, not quite. This is known as "naive falsification" and is not used. We can get into a technical discussion about why naive falsification fails. Falsification does work, but the naive falsification of "just one fact" is too simplistic. You will get clobbered for this statement someday.

 

[DGB454]

Darwin addressed this issue. When does God put a soul in a human embryo? At conception? At birth? Sometime in between?

The answer is: no one knows. For you, does it matter?

I'm not talking about birth. I'm talking about when during the evolution of humans.

I am just asking for opinions and not facts.(unless of course someone has facts.)

For me, yes it does matter.

 

[Nathan Poe]

I'm not talking about birth. I'm talking about when during the evolution of humans.

I am just asking for opinions and not facts.(unless of course someone has facts.)

For me, yes it does matter.

Before we ask "when did God put the soul in?" Wouldn't it make more sense to first ask, "where is the soul?"

In the brain? the heart? The left kidney? the uvula (that little thing that hangs in the back of your throat)?

Find the soul, and we'll tell you when and how it got there.

Otherwise, this isn't really a biological discussion.

 

[lucaspa]

I'm not talking about birth. I'm talking about when during the evolution of humans.

I am just asking for opinions and not facts.(unless of course someone has facts.)

For me, yes it does matter.

What I am saying is that you don't know when an INDIVIDUAL soul is placed in a body. Yet this unknown has no effect on the Christian faith. It is simply unknown. Christians blithely accept it as unknown and don't worry about it. It plays no role in deciding whether the steps in human embryonic development is correct or not.

The same type of logic applies to the first soul placed in the hominin lineage. There's no way to know. Nor does it matter to the Christian faith. And it has no bearing on whether evolution is correct or not.

Why does it matter for you?

 

[lucaspa]

I am just asking for opinions and not facts.(unless of course someone has facts.)

There is nothing to base an opinion on. As Nathan pointed out, we can't FIND the soul to begin with. So any speculation on the subject of the implantation of a soul, whether an individual or the hominin lineage, is a waste of time.

Why does it matter to you?

 

[goodseedhomeschool]

I am sure someone has already pointed this out at one time or another. I would like to say this just in case. As far as the shape of the earth goes, the bible tells us in at least 3 places about this
Isaiah 40:22
Job 26:10
Psalm 103:12

rotation of earth
job 38:12, 14

there are lots of answers in the bible and always have been. Just my two cents worth. Thanks for listening.

 

[DGB454]

What I am saying is that you don't know when an INDIVIDUAL soul is placed in a body. Yet this unknown has no effect on the Christian faith. It is simply unknown. Christians blithely accept it as unknown and don't worry about it. It plays no role in deciding whether the steps in human embryonic development is correct or not.

The same type of logic applies to the first soul placed in the hominin lineage. There's no way to know. Nor does it matter to the Christian faith. And it has no bearing on whether evolution is correct or not.

Why does it matter for you?

I am a Christian and it does matter to me in understanding God's plan in evolution. Again, I am not asking for someone to give me facts or the exact time it was placed in man. I am just asking other Christians that believe in evolution of man their opinion of when it took place. I have an opinion or guess but I was just wondering what others might think. If you have no opinion then that's ok . You don't have to answer.

Thanks
Later