Why creationists can never convince me that evolution is false.

[public hermit]

It boils down to a gap in knowledge and understanding of the science of biology and evolution.

I've spent a couple decades learning about biology and evolution. This has included taking University courses, reading various evolution textbooks, pop-sci books, published research papers, and other sources. During this time I've developed a particular level of knowledge and conceptual understanding of the process of evolution and the evidence which supports it.

In debating creationists, I find that 99% of the time said creationists don't share that level of knowledge and understanding. Typically, I find the creationist level of understanding of the process of evolution to be... lacking. For example, when creationists speak of evolution as happening to individuals (as opposed to populations) or wonder how organisms could "decide" to evolve (as though it was a conscious process), there is a clear gap in the creationist conceptualization of how the process works.

In debate creationists will argue against those misconceptions. But since those misconceptions are not equivalent to my own conceptual understanding and knowledge, they aren't arguing against the science of evolution as I understand it. They're simply arguing against a strawman of their own creation.

If a creationist wanted to convince me that evolution is false, the first step would be developing an equivalent level of knowledge and understanding. Let's first show that we are talking about the same thing, then we can start having a debate about it.

By not taking that step to equivalent knowledge and understanding, creationists will never bridge that gap. Consequently creationists will never convince me that evolution is false, because creationists are never arguing against my understanding of it.

Addendum

Further to the above, I also observe fundamental gaps in the understanding of the purpose and function of science as a whole. If one rejects science in terms of epistemology, then there is a bigger gap than mere debate over ideas in science. That speaks to a fundamental difference in the philosophical view of knowledge and the nature of the universe.

I know this is asking a lot (mostly because no matter how you respond it won't make a difference to the creationist folks), but could you give salient examples of things a properly prepared creationist should know that you do?

My motives are selfish because I will learn, but perhaps other selfish people, like me, are reading. Thank you.

 

[pitabread]

I know this is asking a lot (mostly because no matter how you respond it won't make a difference to the creationist folks), but could you give salient examples of things a properly prepared creationist should know that you do?

My motives are selfish because I will learn, but perhaps other selfish people, like me, are reading. Thank you.

Sure, I'd be happy to.

First a disclaimer: this is strictly from my own experience and I'm not a professional biologist, just an enthusiastic amateur. Anyone looking for a more comprehensive understanding of biology would likely need to broaden this list quite a bit.

What I found helped me the most, was the following:

• Basic understanding of cellular biology, including different functions of cells and cellular reproduction.
• Basic understanding of physiology of biological organisms.
• Understanding of genetics including DNA/RNA organization, transcription, translation, gene expression, mutation, etc.
• Understanding of population genetics and evolutionary mechanisms, including how different mechanisms impact gene pools.
• Understanding of reproductive methodologies (esp. in regards to the genetics involved).
• General understanding of different ecological niches and different types of organisms that inhabit them. I think one is especially relevant in learning about the different types of bio-forms that exist and how species can occupy different ecological niches.
• Understanding of how populations of organisms interact relative to each other (e.g. predator-prey relationships, symbiosis, parasitism).
• Familiarity with species concepts and modes of speciation (e.g. allopatric, sympatric).
• Basic understanding of phylogenetics and how phylogenetic trees are constructed.
• Basic understanding of paleontological concepts and the history of life on Earth.

In terms of learning this, I have a thread I started with various educational sources for biology and evolution: Educational resources for learning about biology and evolution

In university I took a course very similar to the Genetics and Evolution course in that list. I also was concurrently reading through the 3rd Edition textbook Evolutionary Biology by Douglas J Futyama.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I will post one but really its fancy talk about something they cannot explain, the bunch is only one amazing aspect of the mantis. the eye is beyond evolution understanding, suggestions?

How Mantis Shrimp Evolved Many Shapes with Same Powerful Punch

The team took careful measurements and calculated each specimen’s ability to transmit muscular force and motion to the part of the claw that swings out to smash or spear their prey -- a mechanical property known as kinematic transmission.When the researchers mapped their measurements onto the mantis shrimp family tree, they discovered that certain parts of the claw were more strongly associated with changes in strike mechanics than others -- enabling the other parts to evolve relatively independently without compromising the mantis shrimp’s award-winning wallop.“This research sheds new light on how these amazing movements evolved,” Anderson said. It suggests that mantis shrimp claws were able to evolve so many shapes because their mechanical properties are more affected by changes in some parts than others -- a pattern the researchers call “mechanical sensitivity.”The results appear in the Feb. 25 issue of the journal Proceedings of the Royal Society B. This research was supported by a grant from the National Science Foundation (IOS-1149748).

It really seems like they *DO* understand this aspect of mantis shrimp evolution despite your claim that it's just "fancy talk" to cover up their failures.

Thanks for the blurb, it was quite interesting, even though I disagree with your assessment of it.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Sure, I'd be happy to.

First a disclaimer: this is strictly from my own experience and I'm not a professional biologist, just an enthusiastic amateur. Anyone looking for a more comprehensive understanding of biology would likely need to broaden this list quite a bit.

What I found helped me the most, was the following:

• Basic understanding of cellular biology, including different functions of cells and cellular reproduction.
• Basic understanding of physiology of biological organisms.
• Understanding of genetics including DNA/RNA organization, transcription, translation, gene expression, mutation, etc.
• Understanding of population genetics and evolutionary mechanisms, including how different mechanisms impact gene pools.
• Understanding of reproductive methodologies (esp. in regards to the genetics involved).
• General understanding of different ecological niches and different types of organisms that inhabit them. I think one is especially relevant in learning about the different types of bio-forms that exist and how species can occupy different ecological niches.
• Understanding of how populations of organisms interact relative to each other (e.g. predator-prey relationships, symbiosis, parasitism).
• Familiarity with species concepts and modes of speciation (e.g. allopatric, sympatric).
• Basic understanding of phylogenetics and how phylogenetic trees are constructed.
• Basic understanding of paleontological concepts and the history of life on Earth.

In terms of learning this, I have a thread I started with various educational sources for biology and evolution: Educational resources for learning about biology and evolution

In university I took a course very similar to the Genetics and Evolution course in that list. I also was concurrently reading through the 3rd Edition textbook Evolutionary Biology by Douglas J Futyama.

One that helped me with my understanding (which is not based on years of detailed study as you did) was the understanding of the development process in multicellular animals. Know that we grow from a single cell and that small, early differences can have big impacts on things like body plans made it easier to understand things that get called "macroevolution".

 

[zoidar]

It boils down to a gap in knowledge and understanding of the science of biology and evolution.

I've spent a couple decades learning about biology and evolution. This has included taking University courses, reading various evolution textbooks, pop-sci books, published research papers, and other sources. During this time I've developed a particular level of knowledge and conceptual understanding of the process of evolution and the evidence which supports it.

In debating creationists, I find that 99% of the time said creationists don't share that level of knowledge and understanding. Typically, I find the creationist level of understanding of the process of evolution to be... lacking. For example, when creationists speak of evolution as happening to individuals (as opposed to populations) or wonder how organisms could "decide" to evolve (as though it was a conscious process), there is a clear gap in the creationist conceptualization of how the process works.

In debate creationists will argue against those misconceptions. But since those misconceptions are not equivalent to my own conceptual understanding and knowledge, they aren't arguing against the science of evolution as I understand it. They're simply arguing against a strawman of their own creation.

If a creationist wanted to convince me that evolution is false, the first step would be developing an equivalent level of knowledge and understanding. Let's first show that we are talking about the same thing, then we can start having a debate about it.

By not taking that step to equivalent knowledge and understanding, creationists will never bridge that gap. Consequently creationists will never convince me that evolution is false, because creationists are never arguing against my understanding of it.

Addendum

Further to the above, I also observe fundamental gaps in the understanding of the purpose and function of science as a whole. If one rejects science in terms of epistemology, then there is a bigger gap than mere debate over ideas in science. That speaks to a fundamental difference in the philosophical view of knowledge and the nature of the universe.

What if an angel of the Lord, visited you one night and told you you were wrong about evolution?

 

[pitabread]

What if an angel of the Lord, visited you one night and told you you were wrong about evolution?

I would have a lot of questions for them.

On a related note, I do experience hypnopompic hallucinations on a semi-regular basis. So if such an experience really did happen, I'd chalk it up to that. (This is also why I think a lot people's nighttime experiences with angels, demons, ghosts, aliens, etc., are likely just similar types of hallucinations.)

It would be a lot better for said angel to visit me during the day when I was fully lucid.

 

[zoidar]

I would have a lot of questions for them.

On a related note, I do experience hypnopompic hallucinations on a semi-regular basis. So if such an experience really did happen, I'd chalk it up to that. (This is also why I think a lot people's nighttime experiences with angels, demons, ghosts, aliens, etc., are likely just similar types of hallucinations.)

It would be a lot better for said angel to visit me during the day when I was fully lucid.

Sorry about my post not really fitting the OP. I think your OP is reasonable. There needs to be an equal understanding on things like what science teaches about evolution for it to be a good discussion. I just know the basics of evolution, nothing I feel the need to prove or disprove

 

[AV1611VET]

I just know the basics of evolution, nothing I feel the need to prove or disprove

Which, in your opinion, would get an evolutionist to respect a creationist more? one who knows evolution inside-out, but denies it? or one who doesn't know a thing about evolution, and denies it?

 

[pitabread]

Which, in your opinion, would get an evolutionist to respect a creationist more? one who knows evolution inside-out, but denies it? or one who doesn't know a thing about evolution, and denies it?

I know this wasn't directed at me, but definitely the former. Todd Wood is a prime example. His knowledge of evolution allows him to at least be honest* about the science of it (e.g. The truth about evolution), even though he rejects it for religious reasons. I can at least respect him for his position.

The latter is just a position based on ignorance. I don't see how or why anyone would respect that.

(* On a related note, it also depends on whether one's representation of evolution is duplicitous or not, regardless of their knowledge. Deliberately misrepresenting the science of evolution, as many professional creationist organizations do, is not something worthy of respect, regardless of their level of knowledge.)

 

[pitabread]

Sorry about my post not really fitting the OP. I think your OP is reasonable. There needs to be an equal understanding on things like what science teaches about evolution for it to be a good discussion. I just know the basics of evolution, nothing I feel the need to prove or disprove

I think it's a fair question to ask what would it take to change my mind.

Let's say hypothetically, life was created supernaturally and some supernatural being showed up to tell me this.

I would have specific questions for them, including what the biological markers were to indicate design in an organism versus naturally evolved features (morphological, genetic, whatever). I would also ask for the patterns of discontinuity between organisms to delineate lineages back to the originally created organisms. And if there weren't such patterns evident, I would be asking why the heck not.

 

[AV1611VET]

I know this wasn't directed at me, but definitely the former. Todd Wood is a prime example. His knowledge of evolution allows him to at least be honest* about the science of it (e.g. The truth about evolution), even though he rejects it for religious reasons. I can at least respect him for his position.

The latter is just a position based on ignorance.

So either way, evolution is being rejected for religious reasons ... right?

If so, why do you care if they're knowledgeable or not; if it's their religion that's keeping them from embracing it?

As Paul puts it ...

1 Corinthians 2:1 And I, brethren, when I came to you, came not with excellency of speech or of wisdom, declaring unto you the testimony of God.
2 For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified.

 

[pitabread]

If so, why do you care if they're knowledgeable or not; if it's their religion that's keeping them from embracing it?

You specifically asked what would garner respect.

Also, for creationists that claim to reject evolution but don't understand it, are they really rejecting it? As I said in the OP, I find creationists mostly are arguing against strawmen versions of evolution based on misconceptions. In that context, creationists aren't actually rejecting the real science.

 

[AV1611VET]

I would have specific questions for them, including what the biological markers were to indicate design in an organism versus naturally evolved features (morphological, genetic, whatever). I would also ask for the patterns of discontinuity between organisms to delineate lineages back to the originally created organisms. And if there weren't such patterns evident, I would be asking why the heck not.

What if this "angel of the Lord" didn't know the answers to your questions.

But he says, "I'm not here to discuss this. Come with me."

And he takes you back in time and shows you all the kinds in Genesis 1 coming into existence at once?

 

[pitabread]

What if this "angel of the Lord" didn't know the answers to your questions.

But he says, "I'm not here to discuss this. Come with me."

And he takes you back in time and shows you all the kinds in Genesis 1 coming into existence at once?

I would ask them to bring some professional biologists along for the ride to do DNA sampling.

Or failing that, I'd take along a notebook and supplies to collect my own samples for later study.

 

[AV1611VET]

You specifically asked what would garner respect.

Fair enough.

Also, for creationists that claim to reject evolution but don't understand it, are they really rejecting it?

I certainly am.

As I said in the OP, I find creationists mostly are arguing against strawmen versions of evolution based on misconceptions. In that context, creationists aren't actually rejecting the real science.

And I disagree; since I think that a viable reason for rejecting evolution (or anything) is believing its antithesis.

If you tell me there's a horse outside my window, and I say it's a cow, and you know for a fact it is a horse, but I say I think it's a cow because I heard it MOO (we'll say my hearing is bad); in my opinion, I have a valid reason for believing you're wrong, even though, in reality, I'm the one that's wrong.

 

[AV1611VET]

I would ask them to bring some professional biologists along for the ride to do DNA sampling.

Or failing that, I'd take along a notebook and supplies to collect my own samples for later study.

What would you be looking for that's different?

Any attempts to concatenate the DNA found in that tiger, with the DNA found in Adam's house cat would yield negative results.

The DNA might be 95.6% the same, but there's no link between them.

They both came out of the ground at the same time -- miles apart.

And for that matter, the house cat could have come out first.

 

[pitabread]

If you tell me there's a horse outside my window, and I say it's a cow, and you know for a fact it is a horse, but I say I think it's a cow because I heard it MOO (we'll say my hearing is bad); in my opinion, I have a valid reason for believing you're wrong, even though, in reality, I'm the one that's wrong.

I don't think this analogy really applies in this instance.

A more appropriate analogy would be me saying there is a horse outside your window and then you tell me that's impossible because horses don't exist. And when I ask you to just come at the horse, you refuse to do so.

That is how I feel most discussions with creationists about evolution unfold.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Any attempts to concatenate the DNA found in that tiger, with the DNA found in Adam's house cat would yield negative results.

Concatenation is stringing things together in sequence, not a comparison of them. All you would have is one long string containing all of the DNA of both.

Even your own DNA isn't in one long string, but rather 47 different ones that are physically separate and not concatenated together.

 

[pitabread]

Any attempts to concatenate the DNA found in that tiger, with the DNA found in Adam's house cat would yield negative results.

The phrase "concatenate the DNA" makes no sense in this context. I've notice you've using the term concatenate with the word DNA a lot, but it's confusing and I don't think it's conveying your intended meaning here.

What would you be looking for that's different?

What I am interested in would be comparing the relative DNA starting points and looking for specific genetic markers to indicate discontinuities between different lineages. As I said, if those discontinuities didn't exist, then I'd be really interested to know why not. I imagine this would involve a deeper investigation into the process by which the genomes of these species were created.

I'd also be really curious about molecular clocks and the amount of relative divergence since the species were created. If the starting points for various lineages were created at the same time, the molecular clocks should more or less line up. If they didn't, it would again raise a whole lot of questions.

 

[AV1611VET]

I don't think this analogy really applies in this instance.

A more appropriate analogy would be me saying there is a horse outside your window and then you tell me that's impossible because horses don't exist. And when I ask you to just come at the horse, you refuse to do so.

That is how I feel most discussions with creationists about evolution unfold.

On a much lighter note, pita, did you see that OP from Split Rock about two creationists (Dad & I) taking a commercial flight?

It is absolutely hilarious, and he has us pegged down to a tee!