What is the general opinion today regarding creation vs. evolution?

Dark_Adonis · Jul 24, 2004

vossler said:
Here's an example of a scientist's state of mind or prejudice can and does affect the outcome of one's studies:

In 1785, before examining the evidence, the deist James Hutton, the founder of modern geology, proclaimed:
the past history of our globe must be explained by what can be seen to be happening now . No powers are to be employed that are not natural to the globe, no action to be admitted except those of which we know the principle.

This was later called uniformitarianism by Charles Lyell. This is a not a refutation of biblical teaching of creation and the Flood, but a dogmatic refusal to consider them as even possible explanations.

I think we might find this a little more convincing if you would provide a source... Specifically where did you find this in the literature? Name, edition, author
Also a search through the archives yields:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA230_1.html

vossler · Jul 24, 2004

Here you go...

Hutton, J., Theory of the Earth, Transactions of the Royal Society of Edinburgh, 1785;

Aduro Amnis · Jul 24, 2004

seebs said:
Perhaps because it's sort of a rude, personal, and off-topic question?

Its very relevant, its just its relevantness isn't yet apparent because the question has not been answered.

LewisWildermuth · Jul 24, 2004

Buzz_Lightyear said:
Hello there,

I disagree. Why are there scientific Laws that distinguish a fact from simply a theory?

The "Laws" came about at a time when it was thought that we had the basics of science figgured out. This was not the case however. Many of the "Laws" have turned out to be wrong. Many of the "Laws of Motion" are wrong and were overturned by Relativity. We still use the "Laws" because they are good for making general statements about where a planet should be in orbit and where a ball might land, but they are off by a small ammount.

If you have notices, scientists have stopped using the term "Law" and only use theory now. This is because so many of the old "Laws" were wrong and it was confusing students and laypeople everytime a "Law" was proven wrong.

seebs · Jul 24, 2004

Aduro Amnis said:
Its very relevant, its just its relevantness isn't yet apparent because the question has not been answered.

It may or may not be relevant, but it's still off-topic. It is very relevant to know whether you are participating in this debate honestly, or whether you're a troll trying to make Christianity look bad and drive people away from the faith because you hate it... But asking you whether that's the case or not is hardly appropriate. We must assume that people act in good faith, and keep topical. If you want to ask personal questions, ask them via PM. If you don't get a response, or you're told that the question is too personal, well, that's too bad for you. You don't have a right to answers to personal questions.

United · Jul 25, 2004

Aeschylus said:
You are either unaware of the evidence for evoultion or the evidence for the fundamntal theories of physics.

Evolution is to biology what electromagnetism, or atomic theory is to physics, we know that the basic framework is correct and by any resoanble standard of proof it has been proven.

Special relativity is a fundamental theory of modern physics and we are certain that within it's limits it is correct mainly due to the large amount of empirical evidence we have for it. Yet I doubt that we even have 1% of the evidence for special relativity that we have for evolution.

Ypou say that it is still a theory in progress, this is dishonest as yes we do not claim to know everytyhing there is to know about evoltuion, but we know the framework is correct.

Simlairly we do not claim to know everything about gravitation and the atom (what we do know is that Newton's universal law of gravitation and the atomic model are infact incorrect! They only provide approximate descriptions within certain limits), indeed we very much suspect that even our new improved models (i.e. genral relativity and the standard model) are incorrect/incomplete. So we could simliarly say that gravity and the atomic model are works in progress evenb though that we know the basic frameworkis correct. i suepct you're engineer, well we know that all the physical theories that engineers use are incomplete/incorrect.

There is no competing theory with evolution that has not been faslsifed, simliarly there is no piece of evidence that contradicts the evolutionary framework.

What ypou are trying to do is create a 'false balance', by attempting to take the middel ground you are still incorrect.

Hi Aeschylus,

Thanks for the discussion. Im sure we will struggle to agree on this item, as it really requires a lot of time spent individually on detail items to properly form a viewpoint - but it is still interesting to discuss.

I should point out that I agree with parts of your email. Your comments about laws of gravitation etc being a simplified model of the real process are completely correct. I have studied relativity, electromagnetics, quantum theory etc in detail at University and I am intimately aware of all of your comments. I can see this philosophy discussion turning more into a play on words then a genuine scientific discussion - but we will see how we go.

From my viewpoint, you are attempting to compare apples with oranges. Yes there is still much to learn in modern physics, but we still know that we have models that are without question extremely accurate in many areas. I am yet to be convinced of any such accuracy with the theory of evolution. I for one would not build a 50 storey building based on the theory of evolution, so to speak.

My previous comments about the DEGREE of proof still stand. I am not questioning the evidences of evolution. Only that after studying them (in detail and with an open mind), I have not been persuaded that it is a proven theory in anything like the same way I have been persuaded of other scientific proven theories. Who knows, that may change down the track when more evidence comes to light. But until then, I will keep an open mind...

Buzz_Lightyear · Jul 25, 2004

LewisWildermuth said:
The "Laws" came about at a time when it was thought that we had the basics of science figgured out. This was not the case however. Many of the "Laws" have turned out to be wrong. Many of the "Laws of Motion" are wrong and were overturned by Relativity. We still use the "Laws" because they are good for making general statements about where a planet should be in orbit and where a ball might land, but they are off by a small ammount.

If you have notices, scientists have stopped using the term "Law" and only use theory now. This is because so many of the old "Laws" were wrong and it was confusing students and laypeople everytime a "Law" was proven wrong.

Hello Lewis!

Thanks for clearing this up for me This is why I have respect for science as despite what people might think it is honest. My main gripe however is with the folks who treat evolution as a fact, which actually discredits science.

gluadys · Jul 25, 2004

United said:
My previous comments about the DEGREE of proof still stand. I am not questioning the evidences of evolution. Only that after studying them (in detail and with an open mind), I have not been persuaded that it is a proven theory in anything like the same way I have been persuaded of other scientific proven theories. Who knows, that may change down the track when more evidence comes to light. But until then, I will keep an open mind...

Just a query. Do you think this may be because biology is much less open to mathematical precision than physics?

It seems that, in general, the scientists most skeptical of evolution are those whose main field of study is physics and engineering. I am just wondering if the beautiful mathematical symmetries which often attract people to physics also leaves a less mathematical science like biology apparently less certain from their perspective.

gluadys · Jul 26, 2004

vossler said:
Here's an example of a scientist's state of mind or prejudice can and does affect the outcome of one's studies:

In 1785, before examining the evidence, the deist James Hutton, the founder of modern geology, proclaimed:
the past history of our globe must be explained by what can be seen to be happening now . No powers are to be employed that are not natural to the globe, no action to be admitted except those of which we know the principle.

This was later called uniformitarianism by Charles Lyell. This is a not a refutation of biblical teaching of creation and the Flood, but a dogmatic refusal to consider them as even possible explanations.

emphasis added--gluadys

Actually, it is not a dogmatic refusal to consider the biblical teaching. It simply says that events leave traces of their occurrence. If a global flood occurred we can, by extrapolating from the effects of known floods, predict the physical traces which would be left by a global flood. We can then examine the geological strata to find where such physical remnants of the flood are to be found.

This is what many geologists of the late 18th and early 19th century were doing---looking for the geological strata which showed evidence of being laid down by the flood. That is not a dogmantic refusal to consider the flood as a possible explanation.

What they eventually concluded is that there are no geological strata which can be attributed to Noah's flood. That is a conclusion from the evidence, not a dismissal of the possibility beforehand.

By contrast, when it was first suggested that a meteor impact was a major cause of the extinction of dinosaurs, it was also proposed that there should be a global trace of that event, namely a layer rich in irridium. And that layer was found, giving support to the meteor impact theory.

Furthermore, one can see from this latter theory, that an adherence to uniformitarianism is not, per se, a rejection of the possibility of a global catastrophe. That is a lay person's misunderstanding often associated with the term.

Uniformitarianism is the affirmation that causes have effects and that in the natural world, similar causes have similar effects, so that when we find similar effects, we can deduce similar causes. From a Christian perspective, this is an affirmation that God made the universe to operate on rational and understandable principles of cause and effect. And that both ordinary and extraordinary events are subject to the same principles of physics, such that they will leave evidence of their occurrence.

artybloke · Jul 26, 2004

Buzz_Lightyear said:
Hello there,

I disagree. Why are there scientific Laws that distinguish a fact from simply a theory?

A fact is an event or thing that has been observed.

A theory is an explanation of that fact that best fits the facts.

Speciation has been observed to occur. It is therefore a fact.

The Theory of Evolution is the best-fit explanation for that fact.

A Law is just another word for a theory.

lucaspa · Jul 26, 2004

vossler said:
Here you go...

Hutton, J., Theory of the Earth, Transactions of the Royal Society of Edinburgh, 1785;

Incomplete citation. Where is the title and page numbers? Your source didn't give you those? How do you know they actually read such an old manuscript?

The problem is that Hutton had evidence prior to this. You didn't quote the entire paper, did you? Hutton had seen geological formations showing the result of processes that he was observing in real time. For instance, in that paper or others of the same time, Hutton had observed an eroded sandstone that had a metamorphic rock layer on top of it! Now, sandstone was inferred to be the result of compression of sand -- deposition of which everyone could see as a result of erosion. Erosion of sandstone was also observed. Metamorphic rock was inferred to be heated and compressed sedimentary rock.

Now, even if Hutton had thrown this out as a theory, there were any number of geologists that could test it and, if he was truly wrong, show that. They tried, especially Werner and Jameson, over the next 30 years. And failed. Hutton's ideas prevailed because the data backed them and falsified the alternatives. Remember, the people reluctanctly admitting Hutton was correct were his opponents, including Christian ministers.

This idea that Hutton was dogmatic is simply a projection of the weakness of Flood Geologists on their opponents. Modern Flood Geologists are every bit as dogmatic as you hate. Look at the oath for both the ICR and AiG. No evidence against the literal interpretation of the Bible can be accepted. Talk about dogmatic! People in glass houses really shouldn't throw stones.

I suggest CC Gillespie's Genesis and Geology

lucaspa · Jul 26, 2004

United said:
My previous comments about the DEGREE of proof still stand. I am not questioning the evidences of evolution. Only that after studying them (in detail and with an open mind), I have not been persuaded that it is a proven theory in anything like the same way I have been persuaded of other scientific proven theories. Who knows, that may change down the track when more evidence comes to light. But until then, I will keep an open mind...

Can I ask what you have studied about evolution "in detail"? When I see creationists make that statement, it usually means they have read only creationist materials.

Have you read Origin of the Species?
Have you read any evolutionary biology textbook? Such as Futuyma's Evolutionary Biology?
Have you gone to PubMed and done a search using the term "evolution"? There are over 160,000 articles on evolution in the National Library of Medicine database since 1965. Each is data/observations.

If you have not done all of these, how can you claim to have studied the issue "in detail"?

fragmentsofdreams · Jul 26, 2004

artybloke said:
A fact is an event or thing that has been observed.

A theory is an explanation of that fact that best fits the facts.

Speciation has been observed to occur. It is therefore a fact.

The Theory of Evolution is the best-fit explanation for that fact.

A Law is just another word for a theory.

Actually, Law is usually used to refer to a mathematical relation, especially empirically derived relations. Therefore, laws are less complete than theories. Theories are collections of laws as well as an explaination of where the laws come from.

lucaspa · Jul 26, 2004

Buzz_Lightyear said:
This is why I have respect for science as despite what people might think it is honest. My main gripe however is with the folks who treat evolution as a fact, which actually discredits science.

Laws are really very well supported theories. Theories that no one had found exceptions to. As Lewis pointed out, Newton's Laws of Motion did turn out to have exceptions! Which is why they were replaced with Special Relativity.

Now, I have a thread on Laws, theories, etc. in this forum. Common ancestry and descent with modification have been observed so many times that we do accept them as (provisionally) fact. Just like we accept the theory of round earth or the theory of gravity as fact for the same reason. For all intents and purposes, gravity is fact. Now, we argue about theories to explain them. But apples didn't suspend themselves in midair while people debated whether Newton's theory of gravity or Einstein's better gravity.

Just so, the plants and animals on the earth now arose thru evolution -- descent with modification. That's fact for all intents and purposes. Whether birds descended from dinos or earlier reptiles or whether neandertals were a subspecies of H. sapiens or were a separate species or whether the fossil record shows most speciation in the past was allopatric doesn't change the fact that humans and birds have evolved from earlier species.

I'm sorry, but by all the common usages of the term, evolution is fact.

Now, if evolution is being taught as atheism, then you can object! Both the evolutionists here and at the National Center for Science Education will help you correct that mistake.

Ron21647 · Jul 26, 2004

Buzz_Lightyear said:
Hello DA,

Your link actually states that gravity is actually a scientific law and not just a theory. Thought I'd point that out.

I just read the article and it is both. (although the article doesn't go into detail on it). A law is a simple fairly well proven fact.

The "law of gravity" they are referring to would be that two masses attract each other in proportion to the product of their mass and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them. Period. It doesn't say how or why, it just says how much.

Einstein's Theory of General Relativity takes gravity to a whole other level. In adition to the above, it states that the force of gravity is indististinguishable from constant acceleration, and that light passing near a massive object will be bent by the gravity.

The major difference to a law and a theory would be the amount of material they cover. Usually a law states a simple observation and is able to be written as a single (or small group) of formulas. A theory is much more complex.

Both are believed to be true, because they explain the known observations and have not been falsified, even though the attempt has been made to do so.

Ron

Ron21647 · Jul 26, 2004

vossler said:
Please bring it on I love to be educated about things I'm not educated on.

All I ask is that you keep it simple, a simple mind like mine can only digest so much.

Here is an article that may help. It is a little technical in places, but if you at least try to get an overview of what is being said, it should help explain evolution.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

If you have any specific questions, please ask.

Ron

Ron21647 · Jul 26, 2004

United said:
<snip>

The degree of proof for evolutionary theory should not be compared to that associated with fundamental physics as has previously been mentioned. Evolutionary theory is the best that science can provide at this point but like it or not it has some issues. I have designed large structures and massive complicated machines using the theories of physics. Heaven help me if there was a single issue with these theories!

I have no problems with the belief in evolution there is some evidence to support it. But I do have a problem with die hard belief that evolution is proven. It is a theory in progress, but has a long way to go before it deserves the level of confidence given to it in some of these posts.

Just asking for a little balance!

Not meaning to be disrespectful, but which scientific theories do you use in your work? Nuclear physics, relativity and quantum mechanics? Or Newton's laws of force and motion?

With the background you claim, you must know that things are proven only in mathematics. Science doesn't work that way. In science you have theories that are believed true only until falsified.

Ron

United · Jul 29, 2004

gluadys said:
Just a query. Do you think this may be because biology is much less open to mathematical precision than physics?

It seems that, in general, the scientists most skeptical of evolution are those whose main field of study is physics and engineering. I am just wondering if the beautiful mathematical symmetries which often attract people to physics also leaves a less mathematical science like biology apparently less certain from their perspective.

Hi gluadys,

Thanks for your response - your question is fair. Certainly physics relies heavily on computation, but the common concepts of observation and the scientific method remains central. Also, my previous comments were not directed to Biology in general - only to the origins and development of life. But I will keep in mind your comments.

lucaspa said:
Can I ask what you have studied about evolution "in detail"? When I see creationists make that statement, it usually means they have read only creationist materials.

Have you read Origin of the Species?
Have you read any evolutionary biology textbook? Such as Futuyma's Evolutionary Biology?
Have you gone to PubMed and done a search using the term "evolution"? There are over 160,000 articles on evolution in the National Library of Medicine database since 1965. Each is data/observations.

If you have not done all of these, how can you claim to have studied the issue "in detail"?

Hi Lucaspa
I can understand your comments - it is easy for people to form a one sided view if they only read the creation science articles. My use of the words "in detail" were intended to mean that that I have read widely in evolutionary text books and articles. I will continue to do so & encourage others to do the same if they have an interest in this area - but stress that it should be done with an open and balanced mind (and I am not just referring to creationists!)

Ron21647 said:
With the background you claim, you must know that things are proven only in mathematics. Science doesn't work that way. In science you have theories that are believed true only until falsified.
Ron

Hi Ron,
Perhaps you misunderstood my my previous comments. I purposely used inverted commas with the term "proven" to avoid this confusion. I have no problems with your definitions.

vossler · Jul 29, 2004

Ron21647 said:
Here is an article that may help. It is a little technical in places, but if you at least try to get an overview of what is being said, it should help explain evolution.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

If you have any specific questions, please ask.

Ron

Thanks Ron,

Here's a quote from the article you cited:

In this essay, universal common descent alone is specifically considered and weighed against the scientific evidence. In general, separate "microevolutionary" theories are left unaddressed. Microevolutionary theories are gradualistic explanatory mechanisms that biologists use to account for the origin and evolution of macroevolutionary adaptations and variation. These mechanisms include such concepts as natural selection, genetic drift, sexual selection, neutral evolution, and theories of speciation. The fundamentals of genetics, developmental biology, molecular biology, biochemistry, and geology are assumed to be fundamentally correctespecially those that do not directly purport to explain adaptation. However, whether microevolutionary theories are sufficient to account for macroevolutionary adaptations is a question that is left open.

Therefore, the evidence for common descent discussed here is independent of specific gradualistic explanatory mechanisms. None of the dozens of predictions directly address how macroevolution has occurred, how fins were able to develop into limbs, how the leopard got its spots, or how the vertebrate eye evolved. None of the evidence recounted here assumes that natural selection is valid. None of the evidence assumes that natural selection is sufficient for generating adaptations or the differences between species and other taxa. Because of this evidentiary independence, the validity of the macroevolutionary conclusion does not depend on whether natural selection, or the inheritance of acquired characaters, or a force vitale, or something else is the true mechanism of adaptive evolutionary change. The scientific case for common descent stands, regardless.

Now remember I'm not a scientist (KISS principle, just so there isn't any offense taken KISS = Keep It Short & Simple ), reading the bolded area tells me that the rest of what I'm going to read isn't going to pass the "smell test" for me to even remotely consider it fact. If what is to follow doesn't address the fundamental question of how then why is it, evolution, so highly regarded? Help me to see this through your eyes.

Thanks

lucaspa · Jul 29, 2004

vossler said:
Thanks Ron,

Here's a quote from the article you cited:

Therefore, the evidence for common descent discussed here is independent of specific gradualistic explanatory mechanisms. None of the dozens of predictions directly address how macroevolution has occurred, how fins were able to develop into limbs, how the leopard got its spots, or how the vertebrate eye evolved. ... The scientific case for common descent stands, regardless.

Now remember I'm not a scientist (KISS principle, just so there isn't any offense taken KISS = Keep It Short & Simple ), reading the bolded area tells me that the rest of what I'm going to read isn't going to pass the "smell test" for me to even remotely consider it fact. If what is to follow doesn't address the fundamental question of how then why is it, evolution, so highly regarded? Help me to see this through your eyes.

Thanks

Because the issues of how is separate from the issue of whether it happened. Notice the ellipses I put in to put the last sentence closer to the part you have trouble with. The article is going to show evidence for common ancestry. Period. Not evidence for natural selection. The two are separate.

Let's look at this from the pov of criticism of creationism. You have probably seen atheists criticize creationism because there is no mechanism of creation. IOW, creationism doesn't tell exactly how God either spoke things into existence or exactly how He formed animals from the dust. But you don't think you need an exact how God zapped things into existence to know that God did, in fact, zap them into existence, do you?

Same thing here. Evolution is "descent with modification". This means that the descent part -- common ancestry -- isn't dependent on a particular how they were modified. As long as they were modified, we will be able to see common ancestry. And the evidence for common ancestry is what is being shown. Whether the modification was natural selection, genetic drift, acquired characteristics, or God tinkering with DNA, it doesn't matter. What is being shown is that all life comes from common ancestry, not separate creations.

Is that clearer? Put another way, separate claims are taken separately.

What is the general opinion today regarding creation vs. evolution?

Dark_Adonis

Guest

Senior Veteran

Self-proclaimed reincarnation of Eugene V. Debs

Senior Veteran

God Made Me A Skeptic

Active Member

Regular Member

Legend

Legend

Well-Known Member

Legend

Legend

Critical loyalist

Legend

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Active Member

Senior Veteran

Legend

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency