Well the theory of evolution and its processes excludes any form of guiding hand or God. It really is a theory that is there to explain the existence of life as we know it without having to resort to a creation story. So if you believe that the current theory of evolution is a good description of the way it actually happened, then you are saying that there was no guiding hand in the process. One can't really believe that evolution occurred (which excludes a designer, or guiding hand, or God) and also believe the earth was created in some way. However if you decide to believe that God used processes that fit within the theory of evolution to create the world then you really are subscribing to a hybrid theory. Evolution is a way to explain the earth without a creator. Whether it's a good explanation, or believable is another question without an easy answer for most people.
Well after reading the article what comes to mind is that considering how old this bone is, we can all be pretty sure that the authors put together a story that would not fit what actually happened if we could have been there to see it.
For example, if you find a transitional fossil that is half bird and half mammal then you have disproven evolution.
Now we both know this scenerio is unlikely. Do you really believe that this hypothetical situation would disprove evolution? You called it a transitionary fossil, that in itself indicates a shoehorn of the evidence into an evolutionary framework. Anyway, if this evidence did indeed show up it would be fairly easy to reswizzle evolution to fit this new piece of evidence, it would be a major reswizzle, but not impossible. It would just simply change thinking on how birds evolved. There is alot of contrary evidence though to this hypothetical evidence as we both know, so the weight of the argument for a reptile/bird link is still so strong that this new evidence would be ignored as crack pot science, at least until a few fossils were found. I don't see how this would disprove evolution.
Anyway as I have written many times. I am mostly interested in the question of the existence of God as it relates to science and not an argument on evolution vs. creationism. Which is what you seem to want to deal with.
Anyway, that said, I will go back and read more of your links. I have gone through all this about 10 years ago, when I was a 'believer' in evolution, so I guess it won't hurt to reread. I might add some more criticism to some of these. We will see.
nathanh, this is not really for you. I am just putting some of my thoughts down here for posterity. I don't expect any interesting insight from you really, but maybe you will surprise me. Likely you will just get pissed off and go on some tirade again. Oh well.
The study of the naturalistic origins of life is called abiogenesis, and while scientists have not developed a clear explanation of how life might have developed from non living material, that has no impact on evolution. Even if life did not begin naturally but was started due to the intervention of some divine power, evolution would still stand on the evidence as our best explanation so far for how that life has developed.
I am using this link
for the quote. Interesting how this is from an 'about page' on atheism. The article goes on to say how it is reasonable to see overlap and a relationship between evolution and abiogenisis. I agree with this, and is what I have done with my posts thus far. Now what I don't agree with, but is asserted on this page, is that the events that lead up to the creation of life have no baring on the theory of evolution. If for instance we determined that some intelligent hand was behind the development of life, then It seems to me that this would call into question the reality of the self-driving and perpetuating mechanisms that make up evolution. It would at least, I feel, force a major reevaluation of our understanding of natural selection and speciation. I don't see how it would not. Now we are not likely ever to know how life began without a reasonable amount of uncertainty about the truth. There is much more work left to be done with research in this area.
Will we ever be able to prove that an intelligent designer was not involved? I doubt it. In the end we are all forced to make a faith decision to determine what we believe. I don't see science ever answering this question for us, well at least in my lifetime, which is all that is really important for decisions regarding faith. After I'm gone, it won't really matter to me what science discovers.
Who is being close minded? My basic premise from this series of posts that you are not willing to discuss is that evolution is generally not possible to disprove. It is supported by this whole diatribe of yours. What would convince you that God was involved, if hypothetically he was?
All evidence will be interpreted with the apriori assumption that evolution occurred. You already established it is considered fact by the scientific community. I can't think of any evidence other then an actual signature by God that would change your mind or the mind of any evolutionist. Actually, even if there was an undeniable signature there would be people like yourself that would deny it, and explain it away. The only thing that seems to adjust someone's view on the origins of life is belief in God. Evidence doesn't seem to be involved. This isn't an argument; it's an observation.
I would love to know your educational background. I suppose you won't tell me? Actually, I don't think I would be able to trust you anyway if you decided to tell me.
And I've made a serious blunder in trying to reason with you
You call this reasoning with me? I don't see it. You have resorted to some name calling, and derisive writing, built your own straw man and appeal to popularity based arguments against some of the ideas in my posts, and after all this, all that I can say about you is that you seem to be upset. Why are you upset? Why does it matter to you if I hold to ideas that are contridictory to yours? You have already writen me off as an ignorant, uneducated, imbicile, so I think its time for you to go and do something useful with your time. You are right this is pointless, but the blame isn't solely on me.
You have not done much to indicate to me that you really understand what you believe to be true. It is a problem when you hold the writings of anyone in such high regard that you are not willing to analyze them with a critical mind. Mr. Gould was not infallible. If you yourself have an education I hope they taught you to think critically, and to avoid fallacious argument.
This is a definition of the word creationist:
Belief in the literal interpretation of the account of the creation of the universe and of all living things related in the Bible.
The liar part is unfair I think. I never said that I held to a literal translation of the bible. Although you probably imagine that I am ignoring reality, I am trying to highlight to you how reality, in terms of origin science, might still be quite different then what scientist currently hold to. If you think all the answers have been found then you don't understand the science. I do believe in God though, so I hope you see how impossible it is for me to hold to any theory that undermines this belief. For me there must be other explanations that include God. As you see, it comes down to a question of belief in the end. Mr. Gould was an atheist, so he had to hold to a system that did not involve God, or his view of reality would contain contradictions. I am no different except that I believe in God.
I have read these attacks against creation 'science'. My argument regarding chance does not ignore the concepts of natural selection, but natural selection does not explain how inorganic materials combined in a series of events to form life. There are other explanations needed, and out there to review. The sources you quote also simplify the real issues, and in no way offer proof that we evolved. They actually do a disservice to science. The fact that researchers hold certain aspects of evolution to be fact is not right, that is my point. I have read and enjoyed many of Stephen J. Gould essays, and the argument quoted here is not necessarily valid just because Mr. Gould wrote it. In my opinion the assumption that life came to be without the guiding hand of a designer is impossible to be convinced of. I am not necessarily talking about natural selection, or adaptation, or aspects of speciation, so much as the part of the theory that says that these mechanisms involve and are reliant on a series of chance occurrences. They are. I have listened to and read a number of arguments for evolution and it still seems to me that so much more needs to be explained. Science has a long way to go. I guess I'm still talking, but I never said I was a creationist. I also never claimed any authority in the subjects that I am talking about. I have more authority then you probably think I do, but nevertheless, I am not claiming in these posts to be an expert. It is important that all lay people be encouraged to think critically about ideas, even if if they are said to be fact.
Evolution is a science. It says nothing about the existence of God.
Is there a point in debating this? Probably not, but I will state that I disagree with this point of view. Evolution is a theory with many components developed as an explanation of why and how we exist. It may be routed in and supported by scientific inquiry, but it is still an origin story, just as creation is an origin story. Evolution is an theory that explains how life originated from chance occurrences. This implicitly excludes the existence of an intelligent designer or God. It does not need to be stated openly (often it is), but it is what is implied. There is an assumption made, that there is no God, and without it the theory would be rendered meaningless. Anyone that says otherwise is denying reality, or wants to avoid the debate.
Evolution is most certainly 'improvable'
I think you were saying that it is possible that evolution can be disproved, and this is what makes it valid as a scientific theory. I agree that certain mechanisms within evolution have the potential to be disproved, but I can not see how it would be possible to disprove a fundamental component of evolution - that chance occurrences led to the development of organic molecules, protein precursors, and so on to the first living organism, unless an intelligent designer stood up and let us all know that we were wrong. This hasn't happened yet and probably won't happen anytime soon.
In fact there is a lot of evidence that says that chance occurrence could not have led to the development of life, that the probabilities are just too astronomical. Scientists must wrestle with this, and try to come up with mechanisms that lower the probabilities down to something manageable. I don't think that they have addressed this issue all that well as of yet. The theory of evolution is constantly in flux, but at its route, it is still a way of explaining the development of life from chance occurrences. This will never change and is a component of the theory that can not be disproved.
If a creationist feels that there is scientific evidence to support their ideas that the world was created by God then let them do their work. In reality it is no different then the evolutionist working to support the theory that life developed by a series of chance occurrences, or without god, or whatever way you want to say it. It is all the same, they are both based on assumptions. I think you can fairly say that Darwin did not come to the initial theory by first assuming that there isn't a God, but he understood the implications of his ideas, as it relates to belief in God.
In the end how can you say that evolution is a fact? These real world examples you mention don't prove anything, they may support the theory, but that is entirely different. There are so many aspects of evolution that still need to be explained. I am not convinced thus far. You are probably right that many researchers work under the assumption that it is fact. Unfortunately, this assumption forces them to interpret the evidence a certain way. This goes into another criticism of evolutionary science I think, and I am not really as well versed as I should be to go much further.
Evolution and Creation share the same problem. They are both improvable. Evolution fundamentally is a way to explain life and the origin of man without intelligent design. Regardless of the weight of evidence to support evolution available now or at any point in the future it is unlikely that it will ever be possible to prove that God was not involved. In reality it comes down to a metaphysical discussion on the existence of God, and both are not scientific. People who do not want to believe in God tend to believe in Evolution, and those who believe in God tend to believe in some kind of intelligent design. Some people feel it is reasonable to straddle the fence between the two competing ideas, but I personally have given up on that strategy. It is either or for me.
Slashdot Mirror
Well the theory of evolution and its processes excludes any form of guiding hand or God. It really is a theory that is there to explain the existence of life as we know it without having to resort to a creation story. So if you believe that the current theory of evolution is a good description of the way it actually happened, then you are saying that there was no guiding hand in the process. One can't really believe that evolution occurred (which excludes a designer, or guiding hand, or God) and also believe the earth was created in some way. However if you decide to believe that God used processes that fit within the theory of evolution to create the world then you really are subscribing to a hybrid theory. Evolution is a way to explain the earth without a creator. Whether it's a good explanation, or believable is another question without an easy answer for most people.
Well after reading the article what comes to mind is that considering how old this bone is, we can all be pretty sure that the authors put together a story that would not fit what actually happened if we could have been there to see it.
Nathan, I knew I would find you here. Getting a good laugh out of this. It looks like you got your work cut out for you in this debate. Good luck.
Now we both know this scenerio is unlikely. Do you really believe that this hypothetical situation would disprove evolution? You called it a transitionary fossil, that in itself indicates a shoehorn of the evidence into an evolutionary framework. Anyway, if this evidence did indeed show up it would be fairly easy to reswizzle evolution to fit this new piece of evidence, it would be a major reswizzle, but not impossible. It would just simply change thinking on how birds evolved. There is alot of contrary evidence though to this hypothetical evidence as we both know, so the weight of the argument for a reptile/bird link is still so strong that this new evidence would be ignored as crack pot science, at least until a few fossils were found. I don't see how this would disprove evolution.
Anyway as I have written many times. I am mostly interested in the question of the existence of God as it relates to science and not an argument on evolution vs. creationism. Which is what you seem to want to deal with.
Anyway, that said, I will go back and read more of your links. I have gone through all this about 10 years ago, when I was a 'believer' in evolution, so I guess it won't hurt to reread. I might add some more criticism to some of these. We will see.
Will we ever be able to prove that an intelligent designer was not involved? I doubt it. In the end we are all forced to make a faith decision to determine what we believe. I don't see science ever answering this question for us, well at least in my lifetime, which is all that is really important for decisions regarding faith. After I'm gone, it won't really matter to me what science discovers.
Who is being close minded? My basic premise from this series of posts that you are not willing to discuss is that evolution is generally not possible to disprove. It is supported by this whole diatribe of yours. What would convince you that God was involved, if hypothetically he was?
All evidence will be interpreted with the apriori assumption that evolution occurred. You already established it is considered fact by the scientific community. I can't think of any evidence other then an actual signature by God that would change your mind or the mind of any evolutionist. Actually, even if there was an undeniable signature there would be people like yourself that would deny it, and explain it away. The only thing that seems to adjust someone's view on the origins of life is belief in God. Evidence doesn't seem to be involved. This isn't an argument; it's an observation.
I would love to know your educational background. I suppose you won't tell me? Actually, I don't think I would be able to trust you anyway if you decided to tell me.
You call this reasoning with me? I don't see it. You have resorted to some name calling, and derisive writing, built your own straw man and appeal to popularity based arguments against some of the ideas in my posts, and after all this, all that I can say about you is that you seem to be upset. Why are you upset? Why does it matter to you if I hold to ideas that are contridictory to yours? You have already writen me off as an ignorant, uneducated, imbicile, so I think its time for you to go and do something useful with your time. You are right this is pointless, but the blame isn't solely on me.
This is a definition of the word creationist:
The liar part is unfair I think. I never said that I held to a literal translation of the bible. Although you probably imagine that I am ignoring reality, I am trying to highlight to you how reality, in terms of origin science, might still be quite different then what scientist currently hold to. If you think all the answers have been found then you don't understand the science. I do believe in God though, so I hope you see how impossible it is for me to hold to any theory that undermines this belief. For me there must be other explanations that include God. As you see, it comes down to a question of belief in the end. Mr. Gould was an atheist, so he had to hold to a system that did not involve God, or his view of reality would contain contradictions. I am no different except that I believe in God.
I have read these attacks against creation 'science'. My argument regarding chance does not ignore the concepts of natural selection, but natural selection does not explain how inorganic materials combined in a series of events to form life. There are other explanations needed, and out there to review. The sources you quote also simplify the real issues, and in no way offer proof that we evolved. They actually do a disservice to science. The fact that researchers hold certain aspects of evolution to be fact is not right, that is my point. I have read and enjoyed many of Stephen J. Gould essays, and the argument quoted here is not necessarily valid just because Mr. Gould wrote it. In my opinion the assumption that life came to be without the guiding hand of a designer is impossible to be convinced of. I am not necessarily talking about natural selection, or adaptation, or aspects of speciation, so much as the part of the theory that says that these mechanisms involve and are reliant on a series of chance occurrences. They are. I have listened to and read a number of arguments for evolution and it still seems to me that so much more needs to be explained. Science has a long way to go. I guess I'm still talking, but I never said I was a creationist. I also never claimed any authority in the subjects that I am talking about. I have more authority then you probably think I do, but nevertheless, I am not claiming in these posts to be an expert. It is important that all lay people be encouraged to think critically about ideas, even if if they are said to be fact.
Is there a point in debating this? Probably not, but I will state that I disagree with this point of view. Evolution is a theory with many components developed as an explanation of why and how we exist. It may be routed in and supported by scientific inquiry, but it is still an origin story, just as creation is an origin story. Evolution is an theory that explains how life originated from chance occurrences. This implicitly excludes the existence of an intelligent designer or God. It does not need to be stated openly (often it is), but it is what is implied. There is an assumption made, that there is no God, and without it the theory would be rendered meaningless. Anyone that says otherwise is denying reality, or wants to avoid the debate.
I think you were saying that it is possible that evolution can be disproved, and this is what makes it valid as a scientific theory. I agree that certain mechanisms within evolution have the potential to be disproved, but I can not see how it would be possible to disprove a fundamental component of evolution - that chance occurrences led to the development of organic molecules, protein precursors, and so on to the first living organism, unless an intelligent designer stood up and let us all know that we were wrong. This hasn't happened yet and probably won't happen anytime soon.
In fact there is a lot of evidence that says that chance occurrence could not have led to the development of life, that the probabilities are just too astronomical. Scientists must wrestle with this, and try to come up with mechanisms that lower the probabilities down to something manageable. I don't think that they have addressed this issue all that well as of yet. The theory of evolution is constantly in flux, but at its route, it is still a way of explaining the development of life from chance occurrences. This will never change and is a component of the theory that can not be disproved.
If a creationist feels that there is scientific evidence to support their ideas that the world was created by God then let them do their work. In reality it is no different then the evolutionist working to support the theory that life developed by a series of chance occurrences, or without god, or whatever way you want to say it. It is all the same, they are both based on assumptions. I think you can fairly say that Darwin did not come to the initial theory by first assuming that there isn't a God, but he understood the implications of his ideas, as it relates to belief in God.
In the end how can you say that evolution is a fact? These real world examples you mention don't prove anything, they may support the theory, but that is entirely different. There are so many aspects of evolution that still need to be explained. I am not convinced thus far. You are probably right that many researchers work under the assumption that it is fact. Unfortunately, this assumption forces them to interpret the evidence a certain way. This goes into another criticism of evolutionary science I think, and I am not really as well versed as I should be to go much further.
That was supposed to be unprovable. I am new here and I haven't been able to figure out how to edit.
Evolution and Creation share the same problem. They are both improvable. Evolution fundamentally is a way to explain life and the origin of man without intelligent design. Regardless of the weight of evidence to support evolution available now or at any point in the future it is unlikely that it will ever be possible to prove that God was not involved. In reality it comes down to a metaphysical discussion on the existence of God, and both are not scientific. People who do not want to believe in God tend to believe in Evolution, and those who believe in God tend to believe in some kind of intelligent design. Some people feel it is reasonable to straddle the fence between the two competing ideas, but I personally have given up on that strategy. It is either or for me.