Evolution

[Gallifrey]

Re: Evolution

Now, evolution of life from nothing is a bit more problematic, as there are no fossils to look to for evidential support.

Now, I have yet to be convinced by any theory that things like an eye could evolve from random chance, or indeed, that any species could have evolved from random chance. I believe that creation was guided and evolution directed. How that was accomplished is of no importance to my daily practice and not particularly relevant to my beliefs.

There aren't fossils but we do have tangible evidence. What is generally accepted is this: before life started, the Earth's seas were filled with methane and ammonia. When lighting struck that sea - which it often did, because the atmosphere of early Earth was chaotic - those molecules fused to create organic compounds. Organic compounds fused to form single-cell bacteria... and the rest is history.

We know this works because we replicated that scenario in a laboratory and we did create organic compounds (amino acids and nucleotides, the building blocks of proteins and DNA) from nonliving materials. It's been done and seen by human eyes. So, yeah. Fossils aren't the only kind of physical evidence.

This is what I don't understand: it's your prerogative, of course, to believe that randomness does not exist, but then you have to explain why people are born with genetic defects. If there is no randomness, why are people afflicted with defects?

EDIT: Wow, um, I think a few people in this thread really misunderstand what evolution is and what the theory even says...

[Celtic Tiger]

Re: Evolution

There aren't fossils but we do have tangible evidence. What is generally accepted is this: before life started, the Earth's seas were filled with methane and ammonia. When lighting struck that sea - which it often did, because the atmosphere of early Earth was chaotic - those molecules fused to create organic compounds. Organic compounds fused to form single-cell bacteria... and the rest is history.

We know this works because we replicated that scenario in a laboratory and we did create organic compounds (amino acids and nucleotides, the building blocks of proteins and DNA) from nonliving materials. It's been done and seen by human eyes. So, yeah. Fossils aren't the only kind of physical evidence.

No, fossils are not the only kind of physical evidence, but again, doing something in a lab that yields results that happen to fit the theory proves that the theory is possible, but does not equate to observing it as it happened at the time and does not equate to physical evidence. The ability to support the theory with experiments in a lab is not the same as physical evidence, but the ability to support one's theory is vital in science.

Note: I'm not disputing the theory or saying that I don't accept it (works just fine for me); I'm only saying that achieving the end result in a lab by recreating the environs of early Earth to the best of our knowledge and ability supports the hypothesis by proving that it was possible, but is not itself evidence that happened that way.

One of the traps that Evangelicals often fall into is saying that because evolution is a "theory," it has no more scientific credibility than the Genesis account.

It is a trap because they have, at that point, made the Genesis account no more credible than the theory that they are trying to compete with. By reducing Evolution to being 'just a theory' and placing the Genesis account alongside it as equally valid, they are also placing every other creation myth on equal ground, which of course, they don't want to acknowledge.

[JamesByrne]

Re: Evolution

I'm sorry. This is what most of this sounds like:
REALITY is not part of my belief system.

What?

Its popular to use theory as the foil for religion but neither is 'reality'. For example if we asked George Lemaitre (priest who came up with the expansion of the universe theory and the theory of the big bang) what defines his reality religion or astrophysics what would he say? A man who was both a priest and an astrophysicist his whole life and didnt see a conflict in it? Hed probably tell us to feck off in flemish for asking a stupid question imo [priests are grumpy ime, probably frustration]. Religion and Astrophysics arent necessarily mutally exclusive but they arent the same thing at all. Science and theology cant be used to support or undermine each other any more then you can get your imaginary friend to pick you up from the airport. Theyll show up but theyll forget the car. Apples and Oranges

[Gallifrey]

Re: Evolution

No, fossils are not the only kind of physical evidence, but again, doing something in a lab that yields results that happen to fit the theory proves that the theory is possible, but does not equate to observing it as it happened at the time and does not equate to physical evidence. The ability to support the theory with experiments in a lab is not the same as physical evidence, but the ability to support one's theory is vital in science.

Note: I'm not disputing the theory or saying that I don't accept it (works just fine for me); I'm only saying that achieving the end result in a lab by recreating the environs of early Earth to the best of our knowledge and ability supports the hypothesis by proving that it was possible, but is not itself evidence that happened that way.

One of the traps that Evangelicals often fall into is saying that because evolution is a "theory," it has no more scientific credibility than the Genesis account.

It is a trap because they have, at that point, made the Genesis account no more credible than the theory that they are trying to compete with. By reducing Evolution to being 'just a theory' and placing the Genesis account alongside it as equally valid, they are also placing every other creation myth on equal ground, which of course, they don't want to acknowledge.

But Genesis is not a theory. For it to be considered a "theory" it must have some scientific evidence. Genesis is barely even a hypothesis. Evolution is pretty much a law.

[Celtic Tiger]

Re: Evolution

But Genesis is not a theory. For it to be considered a "theory" it must have some scientific evidence. Genesis is barely even a hypothesis.

Depends on how you use the word theory, as not all uses equate to science, but that isn't the point that I was making. I don't consider Genesis to be theory any more than you do and it isn't even a hypothesis; it is creation myth, which is a distinct category.

People who hold to the thought that Genesis provides a literal account of the creation of the world, an account that cannot be mistaken in any way, because they also hold that the Bible is inerrant, want to discredit evolution by saying 'it's just a theory.' The problem is that they end up with egg on their face because all of their support boils down to 'the Bible says so' and refuse to admit that there is egg on their face.

This is a disservice to Genesis, which was never intended as a scientific account of creation, but as a means of crediting God with creation of both the land of humanity, and of relating key points about man's relationship with God and how sin disrupts that relationship.

Evolution is pretty much a law.

No argument there. As I said in a previous post, evolution can be observed in the natural world and is induced by breeders (Africanized bees anyone?), so in concert with the fossil record, it is reasonable to extrapolate evolution on a macro scale.

[thalassa]

Re: Evolution

There is a bit of a difference between using religious ideas as a substitute for biological evolution (or as an explanation for it) and personal wonderings as to the possibilities of a common origin between religious ideas and the laws of the universe and the mechanics of nature. Particularly when one isn't doing it from a scientific perspective.

[JamesByrne]

Re: Evolution

What gets me about the creationism v bio evolution is the creationists have no background in biology and the biologist has no background in theology so theyre both debating theings they arent qualified to discuss. I dont think dawkins has a leg to stand on compared to the creationists, atleast they dont know any better, he should. Even his books are unqualified journo writing, entertaining and even mind broadening but feck sake. If you go on tv and preach stentorian from the mount I expect something a bit weightier from you then that. What am I supposed to do take his word for it over the creationists word cos hes a good writer? So is steven king but I dont see him chewing peoples asses out on international media.

[Gallifrey]

Re: Evolution

What gets me about the creationism v bio evolution is the creationists have no background in biology and the biologist has no background in theology so theyre both debating theings they arent qualified to discuss.

Obvious ridiculous fallacy is obvious. This is just a huge sweeping generalization, isn't it? You've basically just insinuated that all creationists are stupid and uneducated and all biologists are atheists. I can tell you, I'm personally related to several prominent biologists, and all of them are catholic...

I dont think dawkins has a leg to stand on compared to the creationists, atleast they dont know any better, he should.

No leg to stand on except for the obvious fossil evidence and the fact that everything about the evolutionary model works and there is currently no evidence to the contrary and the fact that without microevolution nothing we know about immunology or dog breeding would make sense, right?

Even his books are unqualified journo writing, entertaining and even mind broadening but feck sake.

Did you just say "Dawkins is unqualified to write about evolution"?

If you go on tv and preach stentorian from the mount I expect something a bit weightier from you then that. What am I supposed to do take his word for it over the creationists word cos hes a good writer? So is steven king but I dont see him chewing peoples asses out on international media.

Now a scientific law is equivalent to fiction, and also all creationists are not only stupid and uneducated but poor writers as well? I honestly am not sure what you are trying to say, JamesByrne... except that you make a lot of ridiculous generalizations...

[Zephyranth]

Re: Evolution

What I'm wondering at this point in time is why the people who do not necessarily find it important to link evolution to their religious beliefs, or do not believe in it at all, believe that they can do so?
It's just something I can't fathom, because choosing to ignore it is pretty much just as good as saying that you don't believe in it... And in my opinion, not believing in it is simply foolish...

[Gallifrey]

Re: Evolution

What I'm wondering at this point in time is why the people who do not necessarily find it important to link evolution to their religious beliefs, or do not believe in it at all, believe that they can do so?
It's just something I can't fathom, because choosing to ignore it is pretty much just as good as saying that you don't believe in it... And in my opinion, not believing in it is simply foolish...

Well, I think you can "believe" in it (and I don't really see science as something to believe in, because reality doesn't change depending on if it is believed in or not - and while some of the more circumstantial extrapolations are debatable I think in general evolution is about as solid as gravity) and not necessarily have to connect it to spiritual beliefs. That doesn't mean you're ignoring it entirely - that's going a step further.

[MaskedOne]

Re: Evolution

What I'm wondering at this point in time is why the people who do not necessarily find it important to link evolution to their religious beliefs, or do not believe in it at all, believe that they can do so?
It's just something I can't fathom, because choosing to ignore it is pretty much just as good as saying that you don't believe in it... And in my opinion, not believing in it is simply foolish...

Ignoring it is relatively easy, the primary ingredients of my path don't really change whether life evolved, a single deity made everything a couple millennia ago and left evidence of older life as a practical joke or we're all computer programs (well several things might be impacted if we're all computer programs but not enough to radically alter the key components). How the universe came to be and how life spread through Earth are interesting questions but they don't modify any of my current plans, needs, oaths obligations etc. That said, evolution is a useful concept to understand so provided that it continues to serve as a useful guide for biology, I accept it on one level or another. It just really isn't anywhere near the top of my list of concerns and manufacturing a theological crisis for myself when most of the Forces that I believe in would theoretically be quite capable of using it as a tool of creation isn't on my list of entertaining ways to spend an evening. End result when working with it is useful, I do so, otherwise, I've got other more immediate concerns than the mechanics of Biology.

[JamesByrne]

Re: Evolution

Obvious ridiculous fallacy is obvious. This is just a huge sweeping generalization, isn't it? You've basically just insinuated that all creationists are stupid and uneducated and all biologists are atheists. I can tell you, I'm personally related to several prominent biologists, and all of them are catholic...

Creationism is not a part of catholicism and I did make the point a few posts ago that a priest pioneered the big bang theory and the expansion of the universe theory.

No leg to stand on except for the obvious fossil evidence and the fact that everything about the evolutionary model works and there is currently no evidence to the contrary

Dawkins is not an archeologist he cant comment on fossil evidence. There are plenty of alternate theories for everything all disciplines are diverse.

Did you just say "Dawkins is unqualified to write about evolution"?

Dawkins is not qualified to discuss theology like the creation because he has no Qualifications. If he discusses archaeology or theology hes going outside his discipline and no academic will do that. That he does is an embarassment to his profession.

Now a scientific law is equivalent to fiction, and also all creationists are not only stupid and uneducated but poor writers as well? I honestly am not sure what you are trying to say, JamesByrne... except that you make a lot of ridiculous generalizations...

Dawkins opinions are not 'scientific law'. Hes a nutter who writes journo style books that are not peer reviewed and do not have proper citations to allow you to research what he writes... and he preaches at people like jeremy kyle talking to a chav or Jerry springer talking to a jersey shore type. If he was what he pretends to be he wouldnt be discussing anything without a qualification in theology and all his books would be published by the university press so they could be properly assessed by his peers and not just appealing to the lowest common denominator. No offense intended but when an academic does what he does, thats what he has in mind.

[Witcher]

Re: Evolution

You don't need a degree in theology to discredit the idea that the Genesis story is literally true. Luckily, this is a minority viewpoint nowadays amongst educated Christians. If you're dealing with a hardcore young earth creationist then you don't even need a high school diploma to shoot down the idea that the earth is 6,000 years old let alone a piece of paper from a divinity school.

And you don't need to be an archeologist to discuss fossil evidence. Biologists do it all the time, regardless of their field, because fossil evidence is examined and used in all schools of the life sciences. Dawkins' popular science books are not peer reviewed because they are popular science books. If he writes articles on memetic theory in a journal, then yes, they are peer reviewed. His background is in zoology and he has published extensively in that field, within the confines of a truly scientific milieu.

You may need a degree in theology to discuss Karl Barth's concepts of predestination or Luther's ideas of the atonement and its role in salvation but you sure as hell don't need it to knock down anti-evolution wingnuts.

[thalassa]

Re: Evolution

<---has a degree in biology

<---quite interested in religion

<---doesn't mix religion and science with alcohol or politics

[Medusa]

Re: Evolution

<---has a degree in biology

<---quite interested in religion

<---doesn't mix religion and science with alcohol or politics

Ok you'd be the perfect one to ask. So Dumuzi and I were talking about this earlier. I'm going to ramble because I'm sure I can't get my exact point across....


If someone says that science (evolution for example) is not a concern to their religion...I think this:
I have a belief system. It's based on XYZ. Science (and the proovable explanation of the things around me) is no concern to my religion. I also believe my religion to be true. How can you have a religion and not base it on true stuff? Does this make sense? I'm sure it doesn't. I'm just really iffy on somone's actual belief in the reality of their religion if they can't even reconcile reality (and science) into it.

For example. Christians like to do the whole Creationsism and thrown out evolution. Science shmience. What's that for. We have Jesus!

Islam on the other hand includes science in their religion. Now it might not all flow in the end (to me) but they are saying this is reality. And this is our religion that involves reality. In essense our religion is real.

Sorry. Made no sense. Question time.
Thal do you reconcile your scientific knowledge with your religion? As in do you say yeah this science stuff over here makes sense and fits into my religious beleifs. Or is it more like there is this science stuff. But that has nothing to do with what I actually spiritually believe. Both are different. One is fact and the other is....not.

Help a sick girl out here.