Slashdot Mirror
Correcting Misperceptions About Evolution
Beagle writes "The science of evolution is often misunderstood by the public and a session at the recent AAAS meeting in Boston covered three frequently misapprehended topics in evolutionary history, the Cambrian explosion, origin of tetrapods, and evolution of human ancestors, as well as the origin of life. The final speaker, Martin Storksdieck of the Institute for Learning Innovation, covered how to communicate the data to a public that 'has such a hard time accepting what science is discovering.' His view: 'while most of the attention has focused on childhood education, we really should be going after the parents. Everyone is a lifelong learner, Storksdieck said, but once people leave school, that learning becomes a voluntary matter that's largely driven by individual taste.'"
I agree. When media whores like Dawkins can't go five minutes without rambling something about how science disproves all religions in their entirety and that people who still believe in those them are the cause of everything from war to famine to bad breath, its no wonder the public and science aren't mixing so well, especially in this field. I happen to be a religious person, and I consider myself educated in science fairly well, but when I see books like 'The God Delusion,' I've gotta wonder how a religious person not versed in science would react to that. Not well, I'm guessing. Then when I read people's comments on Slashdot about how Christians (or whoever) are teh stupid for believing in the 'invisible man in the sky,' as many so eloquently put it, I wonder how many of them parrot that crap to people they meet offline, because being an asshole tends to be counterproductive. They make scientists look bad, they make atheists look bad.
The problem, IMO, is that some people see it as an us-them situation. They see themselves, then they see scientists as arrogant know-it-alls. That doesn't just affect evolutionary science, it affects all ares of science. Defusing that would be a start, but first everyone has to grow up, chill out, and (in the case of assholes) shut up, especially with the whole anti-religious shtick.
I keep hearing statements like this from evolutionists. Now, I personally accept the Creation hypothesis, not because of blind religious belief, but because I believe the physical supports it. The question is not whether evolution is possible (given enough time and luck, anything is possible), but whether it actually happened. I think that the physical facts, such as the massive quantities of rapidly-buried fossils, the Grand Canyon, the mitochondrial DNA studies performed at Berkeley in 1987 [1], and the existence of comets (to name a few) are better explained by the Creation and Global Flood hypothesis than the Evolutionary theory. If the evidence actually supports the Evolutionary theory as many scientists claim, I would like to see the facts. Surely, nobody is expected to believe evolution simply "because science said so." Where can I find this conclusive physical evidence? Evidence that is only compatible with an evolutionary origin of the universe? Does anybody know of some good books on the subject?
[1] Rebecca L. Cann et al., "Mitochondrial DNA and Human Evolution," Nature, Vol 325, 1 January 1987, pp. 31-36
Also see Ann Gibbons, "Calibrating the Mitochondrial Clock," Science, Vol. 297, 2 January 1998, p. 29 for evidence that our common female ancestor lived approximately 6500 years ago. I'm not making this stuff up; the sources cited are evolutionists.
I read most of the posts in this thread. I counted only two instances of posters referring to evolution as a theory. It appears as if most of you, dare I say, regard the Theory of Evolution as the word of...God.
Excuse me? One speaker in the article blatantly states "Humans evolved, period." This is a bold and (imho) arrogant statement considering that the origin of species and the origin of life are both fields of forensic science. Not in technical terms but in terms of; nobody here was at the scene and all that remains is some artifacts that we can investigate. Now, I was raised in a creationist home, but was also put through school and watched many documenataries where evolutionary thought is force fed. Having said that, at least I have considered both. If I was not brought up in a creationist home, then when am I given the chance to consider creationism? Many of the facts and arguments for creationism are dismissed outright, without investigating the evidence. Having said that, how many of you have read the bible? Many dismiss it as a "moral" book that should not be referenced in the scientific realm. However, many of the statements in this book have scientific implications. Therefore they should be investigated for validity, not just within the context of Evolution, origin of species, origin of life etc, but in the context of all evidence available to us. The public realm ridicules creationism because the general thought is that it is out-moded. The source of this ridicule is from the same people who have not truely investigated the statements put forward by creationists. The bible has strong historical evidence behind it and once again if statements within this book have scientific implications, then I beleive they should be given the time of day. Presently they are not. After all, there is a large resistance to evolution, mainly from creationists but also from others. Even though it is being force fed to kids in school, many still choose to dismiss evolution. This alone is reason enough to not dismiss alternatives outright, but atleast give them the time of day.
Except Intelligent Design isn't Creationism -- it's contradictory to the idea of a young earth theory. ID says that God or someone else was behind evolution, which is at odds with the 6000 year old Earth idea.
Genesis 1:31 "God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning--the sixth day."
Please explain to me then why it is clearly outlined in the first chapter of the bible that there are seven seperate days? Are each of these "a long time" and are they all of different length? Reading the text literally in either Hebrew or English does not give the slightest indication of that.
So please explain to me then, why is it clearly outlined that each seperate day has a different purpose? These days are sequential, they are not concurrent. The general scientific view of the origin of species, the origin of the universe and the origin of life is that all these things are happening at the same time. Man and mammals all evolved concurrently and continue to evolve, who knows when another intelligence species will popup at any time, right?
Please explain to me why there would be millions of years of death before the first man of today? For a God that is perfect, surely a world that is "very good" (as mentioned in Genesis 1:31) would not have millenia of death, suffering, disease and killing as science entails?
Protestants had a fundamental problem with the way that the Catholic church interpreted the bible. They didn't start a new branch of denominations for the fun of it.
There was no need for that last statement, we can argue this and be civilised aswell.
Genesis 1. If interpreted literally, like it is within the protestant church, implies that Earth and it's life was created in 6 days and on the 7th day, God rested. Regardless of whether other people interpret it metaphorically or whatever, this is a serious claim.
Such a claim should be investigated and not rejected at its face value. That is all that I am trying to say. As I said before, since the origin of species is a forensic science, you must keep all the doors open. Many claim that the evidence for evolution is overwhelming. However, many scientists and normal people alike disagree.
These things alone should be reason enough to atleast investigate intelligent design (or atleast that the world was created rapidly). The question is, if the world was created so quickly, is science capable of explaining such things? How could you determine such a thing in experiments?
Can I leave you with the following extract from the bible?
2 Peter 3:3-9 - (referring to the second coming of Jesus)
'They will say, "Where is this 'coming' he promised? Ever since our fathers died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation." 5But they deliberately forget that long ago by God's word the heavens existed and the earth was formed out of water and by water.'
Disagree. An investigator would most likely have witnessed several 100mph crashes before with his own eyes. I doubt anyone here has witnessed an intelligent species evolve from a previously un-intelligent species. Macro-evolution has never been witnessed.
Each and every day we convict people "Beyond Any Reasonable Doubt" in a court of law, based upon forensic science.
That is determined by a jury and currently the vote is not unanimous.
Oh come on. Well over a hundred years and hundreds of thousands of people.... you seriously imagine there is ANY such evidence that HASN'T been investigated to death and properly rejected?
Obviously there is, scientists with evolutionary biases and scientists with new-earth creationist biases are still having heated debates.
Genesis is Hebrew Old Testament. It was written in poetry and symbolism.
poetry (from dictionary.com)
1. literature in metrical form
2. any communication resembling poetry in beauty or the evocation of feeling
Of course it's poetry, that doesn't mean it can't be read literally.
...are trying to take it as a literal science textbook and trying to produce...It's not a science textbook. But it does make statements that, if true, have implications on science.
The world has not exhaustively ruled the young-earth theory incorrect.