Why I Don't Believe In Atheism's Creation Myth

[brinny]

Contrary to what a lot of people believe, Darwin did not invent the theory of evolution. All he did was add one idea -- natural selection -- as the mechanism for how evolution happened. He took an idea that already existed and added something new to it.

That's how all science works, basically: you take what the guy before you wrote, you douoble check it to see if it works, and if it does, you add something new to it, and if it doesn't, you toss it out and replace it with something that does.

That's all Darwin did in 1859. Since then, scientists have been doing it to Darwin... and then doing it to the people who did it to Darwin, and then doing it to the people who did it to the people... et cetera, et cetera, you get the idea.

So, you tell me -- how important is Charles Darwin himself except as a whipping-boy for creationists?

who invented it?

 

[Nathan Poe]

who invented it?

It's not the kind of thing that any "one" person came up with.

Scientists back in the day had long suspected that evolution happened -- Fossils were a big part of that. Bits and pieces of animals which no longer existed posed questions that needed answers.

Mary Anning, for instance, was from a family of fossil hunters, and is credited with discovering the first ichthyosaur when she was only about 12 years old -- back in 1811, when Darwin was still in diapers.

Of course, some fossils were found that looked nothing like modern creatures, some were found that looked a little like modern creatures, some were found that looked a lot like modern creatures... you get the idea. Those fossils, when arranged in chronological order, showed a definite pattern.

So the idea that these creatures were related to each other was nothing new or uncommon. Nor was the idea that somehow the older creatures changed into the more recent ones. What was missing was an explanation for how and why those creatures were changing. And that's the piece that Darwin added -- natural selection.

So Darwin added something new to what was already generally accepted, and then people added to him, and then people -- well, you get the idea.

 

[brinny]

Originally Posted by brinny
who invented it?

It's not the kind of thing that any "one" person came up with.

Scientists back in the day had long suspected that evolution happened -- Fossils were a big part of that. Bits and pieces of animals which no longer existed posed questions that needed answers.

Mary Anning, for instance, was from a family of fossil hunters, and is credited with discovering the first ichthyosaur when she was only about 12 years old -- back in 1811, when Darwin was still in diapers.

Of course, some fossils were found that looked nothing like modern creatures, some were found that looked a little like modern creatures, some were found that looked a lot like modern creatures... you get the idea. Those fossils, when arranged in chronological order, showed a definite pattern.

So the idea that these creatures were related to each other was nothing new or uncommon. Nor was the idea that somehow the older creatures changed into the more recent ones. What was missing was an explanation for how and why those creatures were changing. And that's the piece that Darwin added -- natural selection.

So Darwin added something new to what was already generally accepted, and then people added to him, and then people -- well, you get the idea.

Surely, in the history of evolution theory, someone was the genesis of the thought/theory...it started somewhere

 

[Nathan Poe]

Surely, in the history of evolution theory, someone was the genesis of the thought/theory...it started somewhere

You could trace the idea -- or something vaguely resembling it -- as far back as ancient times. The Greek philosopher Empedocles (490-430 BC) seemed to suggest something sort of like natural selection for the origin of life.

On the other hand, Aristotle was a staunch opponent of evolution, arguing instead for what's been known as the "fixity of species." So the debate on evolution is nothing new under the Sun.

Aristotle has long since been proven wrong -- even without Darwin -- but it means "evolution" goes back at least as far as ancient Greece, and probably further.

Ideas, like creatures, evolve. And the further back we go, the less recognizable it is. For all we know, the idea of "evolution" might have started with a caveman who realized he stood up a little straighter and was a little less furry than his grandfather.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

who invented it?

The earliest name to show up when it comes to (some sort of ) evolution is generally one Anaximander, sometime in the BCs. More relevant to the times of Charles Darwin is probably Jean Baptiste Lamarck, though. But you might wish to take a look these two Wiki articles as they spill a few more details:
Evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
History of evolutionary thought - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

(No, need to read all that in full, I guess, though.)

 

[brinny]

The earliest name to show up when it comes to (some sort of ) evolution is generally one Anaximander, sometime in the BCs. More relevant to the times of Charles Darwin is probably Jean Baptiste Lamarck, though. But you might wish to take a look these two Wiki articles as they spill a few more details:
Evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
History of evolutionary thought - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

(No, need to read all that in full, I guess, though.)

thanks for the link....i couldn't help but notice....Charles Darwin....he was unfortunate appearing...was he an unhappy person?

 

[Nathan Poe]

thanks for the link....i couldn't help but notice....Charles Darwin....he was unfortunate appearing...was he an unhappy person?

Probably no more or less so than anyone else.

 

[brinny]

Originally Posted by brinny
thanks for the link....i couldn't help but notice....Charles Darwin....he was unfortunate appearing...was he an unhappy person?

Probably no more or less so than anyone else.

never mind, didn't everyone look that serious in pictures back then?

 

[Lord Emsworth]

thanks for the link....i couldn't help but notice....Charles Darwin....he was unfortunate appearing...was he an unhappy person?

You mean the grim look on the photo that you'll see if you follow the first link (link)?

I suppose in Victorian England photography was serious business.

 

[JusSumguy]

Why you think slandering people you don't know and whose actual motivations you haven't a clue about is a good idea I don't know, but it sure isn't a godly one.

you are making assumptions here, it appears....it ruins your post.

So was I..... I apologize for that.

I really don't think the two should be separated. ToE just begs questions from OoL.

Any ToE conclusion begs the question ---> But where did it all start in the first place?

And no matter how much you would like to separate the two. No matter how frustrated you get from having to face that question... There it is again.

I understand that science has separated the two. But they aren't separate. If the ToE was put in the can. No more argument, it would still beg the question ---> But where did it all start in the first place?

It won't go away.

And I truly believe that it makes it easier to view it this way.

God told us what happened. Yet the reasoning is that if we accept OoL into the ToE it means that we must confront the unanswerable question, which keeps leading us back to God, darn it... Unless we separate the two.

The separation is political. Not scientific. Some powerful guys were uncomfortable. And why? I BELIEVE that they want to use the ToE as a tool to dismount God. But it will never work with that nagging question in the way.

Now we're not denying God, we're just looking at how it all happened, right?

In archeology, the acceptance of whatever comes down the road, has been a boon for science. And God.

Don't deny it... It's just a conundrum. Cuz I absolutely guarantee you that God started it all. And guided the rest. If he used ToE to finish it off, so be it. But the two are one in the same.

 

[sfs]

never mind, didn't everyone look that serious in pictures back then?

Yes, pretty much. Partly out of custom, partly because photographic exposures took so long. Your initial reaction may not be wrong, however: if the caption to that photo is correct, it was taken the year (1851) that his ten-year-old daughter Annie died. Darwin was a devoted father, and he was consumed by anxiety about her health before her death, and devastated when she died. And also plagued by guilt -- he was worried inbreeding, caused by marriage to his cousin, might have contributed to her illness. (Unlikely, since she probably died of tuberculosis.)

 

[Pete Harcoff]

The separation is political. Not scientific. Some powerful guys were uncomfortable. And why? I BELIEVE that they want to use the ToE as a tool to dismount God. But that will never work with that nagging question in the way.

This is a conspiracy theory you've invented out of thin air. By going down this road, you've basically given up the debate.

The reality is while there is some overlap between the ToE and the origin of life, the existing ToE works well at explaining what it does without being dependent on the origin of life. It's similar to how Newton's Theory of Gravity, while it was useless for things like planetary orbits, it still worked well explaining falling objects here on Earth.

It's about realizing and accepting certain scope limitations within a given scientific theory. Scientists have this figured out. But some creationists just don't get it.

 

[sfs]

So was I..... I apologize for that.

Thanks.

I really don't think the two should be separated. ToE just begs questions from OoL.

Any ToE conclusion begs the question ---> But where did it all start in the first place?

Perfectly reasonable question, and it's one that should be raised by any curious person. It's just not part of evolution as a field of science. Evolutionary biology is also not concerned with questions about where the Earth came from, or how carbon and oxygen were formed. Those are also valid questions, but irrelevant to the study of changes to life over time.

I understand that science has separated the two. But they aren't separate. If the ToE was put in the can. No more argument, it would still beg the question ---> But where did it all start in the first place?

Science separates them because, as I said, they are different kinds of question requiring different methods that are studied by different kinds of scientists. The origin of life is basically a field for chemists, while evolutionary biology is a field for biologists, geneticists and paleontologists.
There is virtually no overlap in the techniques used to study the two sets of question.

God told us what happened. Yet the reasoning is that if we accept OoL into the ToE it means that we must confront the unanswerable question, which keeps leading us back to God, darn it... Unless we separate the two.

I'm sorry, but that's just wrong. Scientists, whether believing or nonbelieving, are not at all worried by OoL questions, and I've never encountered anyone who feared that they might lead to God. OoL as a scientific field has a few clues and some interesting ideas, but very little data and no firm conclusions. Those of us who study evolution aren't afraid of OoL, but we do get pretty tired of hearing evolution, which has abundant and very strong evidence for it, dismissed because of a tenuous connection to a different field where little is known. If somebody accepts the reality of common descent, then fine, let's go on to talk about the origin of life. If you're rejecting common descent, however, that's what we should be talking about, because that's where the evidence is. OoL is just a distraction.

 

[brinny]

Yes, pretty much. Party out of custom, partly because photographic exposures took so long. Your initial reaction may not be wrong, however: if the caption to that photo is correct, it was taken the year (1851) that his ten-year-old daughter Annie died. Darwin was a devoted father, and he was consumed by anxiety about her health before her death, and devastated when she died. And also plagued by guilt -- he was worried inbreeding, caused by marriage to his cousin, might have contributed to her illness. (Unlikely, since she probably died of tuberculosis.)

awwwww sooooo sorry..i had no idea.

 

[Agonaces of Susa]

The earliest name to show up when it comes to (some sort of ) evolution is generally one Anaximander, sometime in the BCs.

That is correct.

Evolution is an ancient hypothesis.

"He [Anaximander] said that mankind was at the beginning very like another animal, to wit, a fish." -- Hippolytus, priest, 2nd century

 

[brinny]

That is correct.

Evolution is an ancient hypothesis.

"He [Anaximander] said that mankind was at the beginning very like another animal, to wit, a fish." -- Hippolytus, priest, 2nd century

a fish?

 

[Nathan Poe]

That is correct.

Evolution is an ancient hypothesis.

"He [Anaximander] said that mankind was at the beginning very like another animal, to wit, a fish." -- Hippolytus, priest, 2nd century

And if there hadn't been something to it, wouldn't it have been thrown into the trashcan millenia ago?

 

[Agonaces of Susa]

a fish?

That is the evolutionist claim. According to them your grandmother was a fish.

 

[Agonaces of Susa]

And if there hadn't been something to it, wouldn't it have been thrown into the trashcan millenia ago?

In fact it was but it seems certain types of people like to spend their time dwelling in the trash can.

"...it is sufficient to assume only one movent, the first of unmoved things, which being eternal will be the principle of motion to everything else." -- Aristotle, Physics, Book VIII, 350 B.C.

 

[Nathan Poe]

That is the evolutionist claim. According to them your grandmother was a fish.

Actually, Ag, my grandmother was an Italian.

brinny, it's up to you where you want to get your scientific info from.