I'm not speaking out of ignorance here. About five years ago, I argued just as vehemently in favor of creationism. (Once a fundie, always a fundie, I guess, even if you change your mind.) I don't know where I learned that evolution is an evil, Satanic attack on Christian truth, possibly from my parents, possibly from the ICR. I was, naturally, completely ignorant of the actual facts, as were all my creationist buddies. Actually, I didn't abandon my creationism until well after I abandoned my religion, to show you the extent of the hold that the "evolution is unproven/impossible" idea had on me. But it was the facts that changed my mind. And I have kept following the debate. So I know what I am talking about, and I well recognize that everything I know might be wrong.
That's why I try to base my beliefs, now, on observable evidence rather than simply what I've been told is true. True, I have not studied biology in any depth. I have not studied paleontology. I don't know what all the evidence is that underlies my beliefs. But I know enough to know that there is enough evidence in favor of evolution that it is extremely unlikely to be wrong. The details of how it works will be argued for the rest of time, probably. That doesn't mean didn't happen. It's still happening.
I also know that there is no evidence in support of creationism. If you have some, or if you have a creationist theory that explains the observed facts, feel free to present it. I'd love to see it.
He just sees the world differently from the way you see it.
That he does. In fact, he sees it in a way that implies a rather high amount of paranoia and self-loathing.
The logic is:
I know God created the world pretty much the way it is now, 6000 years ago, because I was brought up to believe that or told that by someone.
This contradicts pretty much everything about the earth that is measurable.
Therefore, God must be lying to us in nature! I'm right, no matter what the scientists say, and I can trust what God says [i.e. what I've been told by persons other than God] rather than what I can find out for myself, because God is on my side and the scientists are all deceived by Satan.
This was not exactly my logic, but it is close. Frankly, I was never entirely comfortable with believing that hundreds of thousands of people who have studied the evidence are all deceived, or are all conspiring to hide the truth, when they have no reason to do so.
Please avail yourself of the many resources on the Internet (talkorigins.org is the best) and in print to learn about the evidence for the historical fact of evolution.
So, AC, have you at least skimmed the document I linked to earlier? Have you read at least the section I specifically linked to? Or have you read some equivalent statement of the evidence for evolution? I see no indication that you have. If you have, please say so. If not, I am forced to conclude that you are arguing out of ignorance.
"Creationist" as I am using the term does not mean "a person who believes God created the world." It means a person who refuses to accept the evidence that evolution has occurred, and believes firmly in a literal interpretation of Genesis Chapter 1 (but not Chapter 2). It's practically a tautology to say that they let dogma interfere with reality.
If a person believes God created the world, but also realizes that there is a huge amount of evidence for evolution and an old universe which cannot simply be ignored, that person is not ignorant, nor are they considered a creationist in the usual meaning of the word, and my comments do not apply to them.
Well, if they recognize the evidence but believe God or Satan has planted it there to tempt the faithful, they probably need medication. And believe it or not, there are a sizable number of people who believe this.
How do you define evolution then? And what exactly do you define as the "modern synthesis" that explains it?
I am not a trained scientist, so I may be describing this inaccurately. Here is a better definition.
Evolution as I understand the term means that life
began on Earth four billion or so years ago, and has branched out through descent with modifications up to its present form, with most of the changes happening in the last half a billion years. Or so.
The Modern Synthesis, again in my own probably wrong words, is the integration of the ideas in Darwin's Origin of Species with modern
genetics, and includes evolutionary forces such as natural selection, genetic drift, and many kinds of mutations. Here is (again) a better definition. You may get tired of all these links to talkorigins.org. But there is an immense amount of information there.
...does that mean I "have no business practicing medicine"?
I believe this is a valid point of view, and, like I said, shouldn't disqualify you from anything. Holding this opinion means that you are not wilfully ignorant; you do not ignore the evidence, you merely find the usual explanation to be insufficient, and you have an alternative (or additional) explanation.
So, you should research it for yourself, which apparently you have not done. Please read the document I linked to in the post you responded to. We have seen evolution in action; and it can be inferred from the fossil record, which consists of more than three data points.
Everything you said could be adequately explained by saying that "God did it."
What does that explain? After that statement is made, I have no better understanding of the phenomena. On the contrary, the theory of evolution explains *why* those phenomena are the way they are.
Ergo, the pie evolved from the fig newton. . . . That's a perfectly valid hypothesis.
No, it isn't. That's similar to assuming dolphins evolved from sharks, based on their similar body structure. This is not, however, the case, because dolphins and sharks are also very different.
For one thing, pies and Fig Newtons don't reproduce. That makes it rather difficult for them to evolve. If they did reproduce, and there were no evidence of bakers, I would say that it's plausible that the pie evolved from the newton. Or perhaps the newton evolved from the pie. The jelly donut would seem to be a completely different species. I'd want to know that there were more than two confectionary fossils before coming to that conclusion, though.
But we have never observed one order of life evolving into an entirely different order of life,
If my understanding is correct, this is not believed to ever have happened the way I assume you imagine it. Instead, through speciation, and over a huge amount of time, the descendants of some primitive species have become different orders of life.
True, using the word "creationist" there was a mistake on my part.
But the four scientists I researched did in fact believe in macroevolution. I didn't find any record of the nitty gritty details of their beliefs. But if someone is a researcher into the early history of life on earth, does that mean they believe that evolution has not occurred?
Well, you are probably right. But I still wouldn't want a creationist, shamanist, or Christian Scientist doctor, even if [sh]e's perfectly competent. Call it prejudice if you like, but these people let their dogma interfere with their observation of reality.
So if some believes in a god, and believes that that god created life, that person is ignorant?
No, I didn't say that. That is not the definition of creationism. It is quite possible to believe in God and at the same time also be informed about scientific facts. If someone refuses to investigate the vast body of evidence for evolution and prefers instead to take comfort in a myth with no evidence at all, *that* person is ignorant. You should investigate the actual evidence before assuming that I'm just talking out of my ass. I didn't make this stuff up.:-)
What if God did make the world in 6 days?
If so, then he has deliberately planted evidence to make it look like he didn't.
Ah, very good. I did actually realize that there are scientists who think there is more to evolution than the modern synthesis includes. There are plenty. There are few if any who believe in a young earth.
James Valentine is apparently one of the discoverers of HOX genes. He seems to have an idea called the "Cell-Type Hypothesis" which I can't find any information about. Not a creationist.
Google could find nothing about Stanley Awamril. But Stanley Awamrik is a researcher on the early history of life on earth. Not a creationist.
Philip Signor I found less about, but judging by this book he's not a creationist.
Peter Sadler published a paper with this incomprehensible abstract. References here and here (PDF) indicate that he is (drum roll) not a creationist.
I didn't research further. Really, is this the best you can come up with?
At first I thought it must be cut and pasted from somewhere on the web, but searching on key phrases doesn't reveal anything.
Note that this anonymous message embodies everything I've said about creationists: It offers no evidence in support of creationism, and even predicts (accurately, no doubt) that there will be none, because God presumably says so, although there is not even any evidence given of that. It consists almost entirely of challenges to evolution. It includes a section attacking the legitimacy of the scientific method and declaring that science is done by peer pressure. (Not a conspiracy theory, but close.)
Note, again, that no evidence, at all, is given in support of creationism.
I especially like the smokescreens... "centuries" compared to "a meager few billions of years".
I will not try to answer each of those points. Instead, I will refer you to the actual evidence for evolution.
There are several facts that have convinced me that evolution has occurred:
The most important, to me, is the fact that all life can be organized into coherent groups based on many different criteria such as body chemistry and anatomy, and changing the criteria doesn't change the groups. All insects have six legs. All mammals have hair. All animals have eyes, a mouth, a digestive system, blood, a heart, bilateral symmetry, breathe oxygen, et cetera. All flowering plants are vascular. All citrus trees are flowering plants. All conifers are *not* flowering plants, but are also vascular. For a better example here (part of the previous link).
Also, there is the geographical distribution of these groups of animals and plants. They are different everywhere in the world, and in fact, many places that have been isolated for a long time have entire groups of animals and plants that only exist there.
The fossil record consists of fossils which only exist in certain strata, and more developed forms typically are not found before less developed forms. Humans, for example, are not found more than a couple of million years ago. Dinosaurs are not found more recently than 65 million years ago.
The age of the earth can be calculated by many independent methods. They agree, within a certain margin of error. This is not evidence for evolution per se, but a very old earth is a requirement of evolution.
Do the research for yourself. But if you persist in refusing to accept science as a valid source of knowledge, to bring this back on topic, I won't support your right to get a recommendation from a professor toward a license to practice medicine. I'll bet you're terrified.:-)
I believe there are some flaws in this study, but I don't think it's due to the placebo effect. I frankly don't know how to respond to it, except that if God were intervening in this situation I don't think he'd do it this way. That of course is not a scientific objection.:-)
Yes, I agree. To say, without the context in your post, that "science is a way of validating knowledge" implies that the knowledge came from some nonscientific source (i.e., the Bible, your imagination, overheard on the bus, whatever), and you use science to prove that you're right, and that's what I was disagreeing with. In my understanding, you can use science to investigate these sources of knowlege, but using science to validate them seems to be wrong.
The question is not whether you believe in God, or whether you believe in creation. The question is whether you are educated about the facts your practice is based on and whether you believe the scientific method to be valid. Most young-earth "God said it, I believe it, that settles it" creationists do not, or else they believe in a giant conspiracy among scientists to cover up the truth.
The key word there is "believe". The theory of evolution is based on evidence, and therefore is not blindly adhered to. Well, some people certainly do adhere to it blindly, but the evidence is there for anyone to study. This is in direct contrast to creationism, which presents little to no evidence and consists mostly of attacking evolution.
Science is not a way to validate knowledge. The process of science is a method of gaining and explaining facts. You can confirm data. You can invalidate a theory. But if you have some knowledge, I think it is going about things the wrong way to try to use science to validate your preexisting knowledge. Maybe someone with a better understanding of the theory of science can clarify this.
I am certainly intolerant of creationists, and other people who make no attempt to educate themselves and prefer to just believe whatever they're told. This stems directly from the period of time in which I was a creationist.:-)
I did. And it's your post that misses the point. If someone accepts, based on the evidence, that evolution has occurred, but does not believe that the modern synthesis is sufficient to explain it, I believe that is still a scientific (if unusual) point of view and certainly shouldn't disqualify anyone from being a doctor. But those people aren't the ones under discussion.
The people under discussion get their ideas on cosmology and the origins and history of the earth from their church, or the ICR, or their parents, and rarely directly from the Bible although they'll claim this is the case. They refuse to accept that science is a valid source of knowledge, and they feel threatened by it, because they don't believe their religion could be true if it's possible to gain knowledge directly from nature, rather than from God. They often confuse astronomy with evolution. They are rarely informed about the evidence for any scientific theory, least of all evolution. They have no business practicing medicine.
I never said creationists were stupid or evil. What they are is ignorant. Deliberately so. They absolutely do not admit the possibility that the ideas they blindly adhere to might be wrong.
The reason is, if someone deliberately ignores data about the real world in favor of a story they believe their religion demands, they may apply that "methodology" to medicine as well. Would you want someone who believes disease is caused by bad humours or demons to be your doctor? Creationists generally do accept the germ theory of disease, but it's the same idea. If their religion contradicts what is actually wrong with a patient, they'll be a dangerous doctor.
Slashdot Mirror
You should really read it, or something like it. There's a lot you don't know.
:-)
Here's the link again: http://talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
No one has to know.
That's why I try to base my beliefs, now, on observable evidence rather than simply what I've been told is true. True, I have not studied biology in any depth. I have not studied paleontology. I don't know what all the evidence is that underlies my beliefs. But I know enough to know that there is enough evidence in favor of evolution that it is extremely unlikely to be wrong. The details of how it works will be argued for the rest of time, probably. That doesn't mean didn't happen. It's still happening.
I also know that there is no evidence in support of creationism. If you have some, or if you have a creationist theory that explains the observed facts, feel free to present it. I'd love to see it.
He just sees the world differently from the way you see it.
That he does. In fact, he sees it in a way that implies a rather high amount of paranoia and self-loathing.
The logic is:
This was not exactly my logic, but it is close. Frankly, I was never entirely comfortable with believing that hundreds of thousands of people who have studied the evidence are all deceived, or are all conspiring to hide the truth, when they have no reason to do so.
Please avail yourself of the many resources on the Internet (talkorigins.org is the best) and in print to learn about the evidence for the historical fact of evolution.
So, AC, have you at least skimmed the document I linked to earlier? Have you read at least the section I specifically linked to? Or have you read some equivalent statement of the evidence for evolution? I see no indication that you have. If you have, please say so. If not, I am forced to conclude that you are arguing out of ignorance.
"Creationist" as I am using the term does not mean "a person who believes God created the world." It means a person who refuses to accept the evidence that evolution has occurred, and believes firmly in a literal interpretation of Genesis Chapter 1 (but not Chapter 2). It's practically a tautology to say that they let dogma interfere with reality.
If a person believes God created the world, but also realizes that there is a huge amount of evidence for evolution and an old universe which cannot simply be ignored, that person is not ignorant, nor are they considered a creationist in the usual meaning of the word, and my comments do not apply to them.
Well, if they recognize the evidence but believe God or Satan has planted it there to tempt the faithful, they probably need medication. And believe it or not, there are a sizable number of people who believe this.
I am not a trained scientist, so I may be describing this inaccurately. Here is a better definition.
Evolution as I understand the term means that life began on Earth four billion or so years ago, and has branched out through descent with modifications up to its present form, with most of the changes happening in the last half a billion years. Or so.
The Modern Synthesis, again in my own probably wrong words, is the integration of the ideas in Darwin's Origin of Species with modern genetics, and includes evolutionary forces such as natural selection, genetic drift, and many kinds of mutations. Here is (again) a better definition. You may get tired of all these links to talkorigins.org. But there is an immense amount of information there.
I believe this is a valid point of view, and, like I said, shouldn't disqualify you from anything. Holding this opinion means that you are not wilfully ignorant; you do not ignore the evidence, you merely find the usual explanation to be insufficient, and you have an alternative (or additional) explanation.
Okay, so?
So, you should research it for yourself, which apparently you have not done. Please read the document I linked to in the post you responded to. We have seen evolution in action; and it can be inferred from the fossil record, which consists of more than three data points.
Everything you said could be adequately explained by saying that "God did it."
What does that explain? After that statement is made, I have no better understanding of the phenomena. On the contrary, the theory of evolution explains *why* those phenomena are the way they are.
Ergo, the pie evolved from the fig newton. . . . That's a perfectly valid hypothesis.
No, it isn't. That's similar to assuming dolphins evolved from sharks, based on their similar body structure. This is not, however, the case, because dolphins and sharks are also very different.
For one thing, pies and Fig Newtons don't reproduce. That makes it rather difficult for them to evolve. If they did reproduce, and there were no evidence of bakers, I would say that it's plausible that the pie evolved from the newton. Or perhaps the newton evolved from the pie. The jelly donut would seem to be a completely different species. I'd want to know that there were more than two confectionary fossils before coming to that conclusion, though.
But we have never observed one order of life evolving into an entirely different order of life,
If my understanding is correct, this is not believed to ever have happened the way I assume you imagine it. Instead, through speciation, and over a huge amount of time, the descendants of some primitive species have become different orders of life.
True, using the word "creationist" there was a mistake on my part.
But the four scientists I researched did in fact believe in macroevolution. I didn't find any record of the nitty gritty details of their beliefs. But if someone is a researcher into the early history of life on earth, does that mean they believe that evolution has not occurred?
Well, you are probably right. But I still wouldn't want a creationist, shamanist, or Christian Scientist doctor, even if [sh]e's perfectly competent. Call it prejudice if you like, but these people let their dogma interfere with their observation of reality.
No, I didn't say that. That is not the definition of creationism. It is quite possible to believe in God and at the same time also be informed about scientific facts. If someone refuses to investigate the vast body of evidence for evolution and prefers instead to take comfort in a myth with no evidence at all, *that* person is ignorant. You should investigate the actual evidence before assuming that I'm just talking out of my ass. I didn't make this stuff up. :-)
What if God did make the world in 6 days?
If so, then he has deliberately planted evidence to make it look like he didn't.
Right. None of those people (the ones I googled for, anyway) reject biological macroevolution.
Ah, very good. I did actually realize that there are scientists who think there is more to evolution than the modern synthesis includes. There are plenty. There are few if any who believe in a young earth.
James Valentine is apparently one of the discoverers of HOX genes. He seems to have an idea called the "Cell-Type Hypothesis" which I can't find any information about. Not a creationist.
Google could find nothing about Stanley Awamril. But Stanley Awamrik is a researcher on the early history of life on earth. Not a creationist.
Philip Signor I found less about, but judging by this book he's not a creationist.
Peter Sadler published a paper with this incomprehensible abstract. References here and here (PDF) indicate that he is (drum roll) not a creationist.
I didn't research further. Really, is this the best you can come up with?
Wow, that took a while to read and recover from.
:-)
At first I thought it must be cut and pasted from somewhere on the web, but searching on key phrases doesn't reveal anything.
Note that this anonymous message embodies everything I've said about creationists: It offers no evidence in support of creationism, and even predicts (accurately, no doubt) that there will be none, because God presumably says so, although there is not even any evidence given of that. It consists almost entirely of challenges to evolution. It includes a section attacking the legitimacy of the scientific method and declaring that science is done by peer pressure. (Not a conspiracy theory, but close.)
Note, again, that no evidence, at all, is given in support of creationism.
I especially like the smokescreens... "centuries" compared to "a meager few billions of years".
I will not try to answer each of those points. Instead, I will refer you to the actual evidence for evolution.
There are several facts that have convinced me that evolution has occurred:
The most important, to me, is the fact that all life can be organized into coherent groups based on many different criteria such as body chemistry and anatomy, and changing the criteria doesn't change the groups. All insects have six legs. All mammals have hair. All animals have eyes, a mouth, a digestive system, blood, a heart, bilateral symmetry, breathe oxygen, et cetera. All flowering plants are vascular. All citrus trees are flowering plants. All conifers are *not* flowering plants, but are also vascular. For a better example here (part of the previous link).
Also, there is the geographical distribution of these groups of animals and plants. They are different everywhere in the world, and in fact, many places that have been isolated for a long time have entire groups of animals and plants that only exist there.
The fossil record consists of fossils which only exist in certain strata, and more developed forms typically are not found before less developed forms. Humans, for example, are not found more than a couple of million years ago. Dinosaurs are not found more recently than 65 million years ago.
The age of the earth can be calculated by many independent methods. They agree, within a certain margin of error. This is not evidence for evolution per se, but a very old earth is a requirement of evolution.
Do the research for yourself. But if you persist in refusing to accept science as a valid source of knowledge, to bring this back on topic, I won't support your right to get a recommendation from a professor toward a license to practice medicine. I'll bet you're terrified.
Now I know I'm being trolled. :-)
Such as this you mean?
No, seriously, who are these scientists and what is this evidence? Kent Hovind doesn't count.
http://www.reproductivemedicine.com/Features/2001/ 2001Sep.htm
This is possibly what he was referring to: http://www.jreprodmed.com/abs/jrm1137.htm
:-)
I believe there are some flaws in this study, but I don't think it's due to the placebo effect. I frankly don't know how to respond to it, except that if God were intervening in this situation I don't think he'd do it this way. That of course is not a scientific objection.
Yes, I agree. To say, without the context in your post, that "science is a way of validating knowledge" implies that the knowledge came from some nonscientific source (i.e., the Bible, your imagination, overheard on the bus, whatever), and you use science to prove that you're right, and that's what I was disagreeing with. In my understanding, you can use science to investigate these sources of knowlege, but using science to validate them seems to be wrong.
The question is not whether you believe in God, or whether you believe in creation. The question is whether you are educated about the facts your practice is based on and whether you believe the scientific method to be valid. Most young-earth "God said it, I believe it, that settles it" creationists do not, or else they believe in a giant conspiracy among scientists to cover up the truth.
I'll take you up on this flamewar. Every fossil is a transitional form. Hah!
The key word there is "believe". The theory of evolution is based on evidence, and therefore is not blindly adhered to. Well, some people certainly do adhere to it blindly, but the evidence is there for anyone to study. This is in direct contrast to creationism, which presents little to no evidence and consists mostly of attacking evolution.
Science is not a way to validate knowledge. The process of science is a method of gaining and explaining facts. You can confirm data. You can invalidate a theory. But if you have some knowledge, I think it is going about things the wrong way to try to use science to validate your preexisting knowledge. Maybe someone with a better understanding of the theory of science can clarify this.
:-)
I am certainly intolerant of creationists, and other people who make no attempt to educate themselves and prefer to just believe whatever they're told. This stems directly from the period of time in which I was a creationist.
The people under discussion get their ideas on cosmology and the origins and history of the earth from their church, or the ICR, or their parents, and rarely directly from the Bible although they'll claim this is the case. They refuse to accept that science is a valid source of knowledge, and they feel threatened by it, because they don't believe their religion could be true if it's possible to gain knowledge directly from nature, rather than from God. They often confuse astronomy with evolution. They are rarely informed about the evidence for any scientific theory, least of all evolution. They have no business practicing medicine.
Can you name one?
I never said creationists were stupid or evil. What they are is ignorant. Deliberately so. They absolutely do not admit the possibility that the ideas they blindly adhere to might be wrong.
The reason is, if someone deliberately ignores data about the real world in favor of a story they believe their religion demands, they may apply that "methodology" to medicine as well. Would you want someone who believes disease is caused by bad humours or demons to be your doctor? Creationists generally do accept the germ theory of disease, but it's the same idea. If their religion contradicts what is actually wrong with a patient, they'll be a dangerous doctor.