138 replies to this topic

[Wolf O'Donnell]

Frankly, I dislike these evolution arguments because they tend to be very, very circular and tend to involve a lot of explaining terms to people. It just goes to show how bad science education is that people can find Evolution controversial, seeing as it is one of the least controversial fields in science you can find. In fact, I've found that the most scientifically controversial fields that evoke the most arguments amongst scientists tend to be from physics; which just goes to show how more exciting I initially thought it was.

Evolution is a scientifical fact, not a mere hypothesis.

Oh dear. Not the last time I checked. You see, evolution relies on mutations in the cells of the body. And according to most science texts I've read, mutations cause information in the genes to be lost.

The majority of mutations cause information in the genes to be changed, not lost. Besides, where did you get the idea that gain of information = gain of new organs or functions? This is not true. Take, for example, the genes required to make a wing. Do you know what the genes are? They're the same genes required to make an arm or a leg. The only difference, of course, being how long they're expressed for.

A mutation is a mutation. Mutations are errors. The fact that people heterozygous with the mutated allele are somewhat immune to malaria doesn't mean they wont have defeciencies in other places. Most cases of heterozygote advantage have anemia to go along with their immunity. Helpful much? Nope.

Well, if you have malaria that kind of means you'll be dead very, very soon. A little bit of anaemia is nothing compared to being dead.

Now, there is not a single piece of empirical proof for Creationism or ID. The Bible is not empirical proof.

[arunma]

Evolution might be true (or rather, it is true), but I think it's more important for people to know that "scientifical" isn't a word.

[wisp]

It really appalls me that this needs to be debated at all. Even just four or five years ago when I was in high school, I still saw grey area on the evolution issue. Part of this stemmed from the fact that "intelligent design" was required to be mentioned in science classes, and all that was said was that an intelligent force could possibly have created the universe. I had been so convinced by the prayer club at school that evolution and God were not compatible that I thought this could not refer to evolution which was set in motion because a deity caused or allowed it to happen. I would get uppity and defensive when evolution was mentioned as do apparently many people in this forum, because I didn't think I could reconcile my faith with science. Looking at it now, I see no real discrepancy between any notions of God which seem realistic to me and the scientific fact of evolution.

Whether or not the world was created because a deity caused the start of evolution... it's really pretty undeniable that evolution did, in fact, occur.

Edited by wisp, 21 May 2007 - 10:41 PM.

[Wolf O'Donnell]

Evolution might be true (or rather, it is true), but I think it's more important for people to know that "scientifical" isn't a word.

He's Spanish. Give him a break!

[Arturo]

Then what is the translation of the latin term scientificus?

[Wolf O'Donnell]

Then what is the translation of the latin term scientificus?

Scientificus? My Latin dictionary doesn't have that term.

[Arturo]

I suppose that it's because it's just a word that comes from scientia or whatever. But I know no Latin, so meh.

I didn't invent it. It's in the Spanish official dictionary:

http://buscon.rae.es...

Never mind, according to Word Reference it should be "Scientific".

Thanks to arunma and Wolf, then

If I ever invent non-existant words (something I do too often), just tell me, okay?

Edited by Arturo, 22 May 2007 - 04:49 AM.

[Showsni]

If I ever invent non-existant words (something I do too often), just tell me, okay?

"Non-existant" isn't a real word. It's "non-existent."

[vodkamaru]

[Arturo]

If I ever invent non-existant words (something I do too often), just tell me, okay?

"Non-existant" isn't a real word. It's "non-existent."

Which is even worse, because I looked it up ebcause I wasn't sure whether it had an "a" or and "e", and nevertheless, I misspelled it.

Great.

[Raien]

I think the answer is very simple.

If God made the world, then he made science. Therefore, any advancement in scientific understanding helps explain how God made the world. This is why I don't like people waving the Bible around as the explanation for creation, because it was obviously not written with the advanced understanding of science that we have today.

Religion explains "why" the world/humanity was made, but not how. Science explains "how" the world/humanity was made, but not why.

[vodkamaru]

If God made the world, then he made science.

What? What do you mean "god made science?" What do you think the word science means? Are you saying that god created the scientific method and handed it down to humanity like prometheus did with fire? If thats the case, then I think that's pretty rediculous. Do you mean the laws of the universe? I'm just really confused when you guys say god created science. I see science as a human method for experimenting, observing, and verifying the laws and nature of our reality. When you say "god created science" I see that as saying that god made a manmade method, something like saying god made teacups. It just doesn't jive.

Our sun created the earth.

Edited by vodkamaru, 22 May 2007 - 03:25 PM.

[Reflectionist]

If God made the world, then he made science.

What? What do you mean "god made science?" What do you think the word science means? Are you saying that god created the scientific method and handed it down to humanity like prometheus did with fire? If thats the case, then I think that's pretty rediculous. Do you mean the laws of the universe? I'm just really confused when you guys say god created science. I see science as a human method for experimenting, observing, and verifying the laws and nature of our reality. When you say "god created science" I see that as saying that god made a manmade method, something like saying god made teacups. It just doesn't jive.

Well, I don't know how you could get this confused, but of course he didn't mean God created the man made things.

God created everything we know about science. God created it's processes through other processes. Set the wheels in motion, whatever.

If you really and TRULY didn't get that, then that's cool, but it did sound like you were just looking for a small discrepancy to put God down with.

[vodkamaru]

God created everything we know about science. God created it's processes through other processes. Set the wheels in motion, whatever.

If you really and TRULY didn't get that, then that's cool, but it did sound like you were just looking for a small discrepancy to put God down with.

This isn't about trying to put down god or say that god doesn't exist. Stop assuming that I'm trying to disprove god with every post. I'm trying to understand you guys with the words you're using. "God created everything we know about science" is still ambiguous. Does that mean god created everything we know about architecture, engineering, and philosophy? Are you saying that since god created the universe, he's then credited with any other creation in the universe?

[wisp]

Okay, this is just turning into a pedantic argument now.

If God created the world, then these processes that we observe scientifically and the laws that we discover through science and math must have also been set in place by God. I don't really see how this is confusing.

Speaking of philosophy... well that is not an empirical field so it doesn't really belong in this conversation about evolution and scientific things.

The assumption is that the mathematics and the science and the formulas that go into creating architecture or engineering or whatnot... of course they were discovered by humans, but the humans were using the brains given to them by God to study and understand why God's creation (note: I say creation as in something that was made, not a reference to Creationism)..

I really dont know a better way to say this..

Edited by wisp, 22 May 2007 - 04:55 PM.

[MikePetersSucks]

Evolution is a fact. Hell, you could observe it (on a much smaller scale) if you check your garden every morning and see what the bugs are up to. The only controversy is whether or not God is responsible.

[vodkamaru]

If God created the world, then these processes that we observe scientifically and the laws that we discover through science and math must have also been set in place by God. I don't really see how this is confusing.

So you're using the word science to mean the fundamental laws of the universe. Thats what I'm confused about. I see science as a means to learn the laws. Not the laws themselves.

[arunma]

Then what is the translation of the latin term scientificus?

If I ever have a dog, I'm naming it Scientificus.

[arunma]

OK, now as to this issue itself. It's pretty much undeniable that evolution is a genuine, observable phenomenon (though it can't be observed by looking at bugs in the garden...sorry Mike). However, it's also important for us to look at certain individuals' motivation for emphasizing evolution so vigorously. It seems to me that some people view science as a sort of secular manifesto, and treat it as though it were a religion. Evolution then becomes the creation myth of this religion. If I may make a supposition: people usurp the role of religion with science because they are uncomfortable with the implications of the existence of a God, specifically God as defined in Christianity. To be even more specific: some people, who don't want to go to hell, believe that they can make the impending doom of death disappear by denying the existence of a supernatural being who requires them to believe in his Son. In short, some people embrace the non sequitor, "evolution is true, therefore I won't go to hell for not believing in Jesus."

I encourage people to not have this view on evolution.

[SOAP]

OK, now as to this issue itself. It's pretty much undeniable that evolution is a genuine, observable phenomenon (though it can't be observed by looking at bugs in the garden...sorry Mike). However, it's also important for us to look at certain individuals' motivation for emphasizing evolution so vigorously. It seems to me that some people view science as a sort of secular manifesto, and treat it as though it were a religion. Evolution then becomes the creation myth of this religion. If I may make a supposition: people usurp the role of religion with science because they are uncomfortable with the implications of the existence of a God, specifically God as defined in Christianity. To be even more specific: some people, who don't want to go to hell, believe that they can make the impending doom of death disappear by denying the existence of a supernatural being who requires them to believe in his Son. In short, some people embrace the non sequitor, "evolution is true, therefore I won't go to hell for not believing in Jesus."

I encourage people to not have this view on evolution.

This is pretty much what I believe. Yet whenever evolution is brought up, or anything scientic for that matter, I get accused of not being a "true believer" just because I agree with science. Like the other day, my friends and I were talking about the rain, and they said I didn't believe in God if sense I didn't believe God just "thinks up" the rain as opposed to water cycle. What!? Also, it takes all my strenth to hold my tongue everytime they talk about how the Earth is 6,000 yaers old and how there's some big athiest conspiracy trying to cover up the "truth." Then again, I live in the bible belt, it comes with the terriotory.

[wisp]

I think you only think that because of your Christian beliefs... some people, perhaps, are like that... but for most who you said are afraid of going to hell.. most of them really dont believe in God, or at least don't believe in hell... so there's really no point in trying to cling to science to avoid going to a place they really dont believe in.

Edit: this is in response to Arunma's post..

Edited by wisp, 22 May 2007 - 09:43 PM.

[Doopliss]

OK, now as to this issue itself. It's pretty much undeniable that evolution is a genuine, observable phenomenon (though it can't be observed by looking at bugs in the garden...sorry Mike). However, it's also important for us to look at certain individuals' motivation for emphasizing evolution so vigorously. It seems to me that some people view science as a sort of secular manifesto, and treat it as though it were a religion. Evolution then becomes the creation myth of this religion. If I may make a supposition: people usurp the role of religion with science because they are uncomfortable with the implications of the existence of a God, specifically God as defined in Christianity. To be even more specific: some people, who don't want to go to hell, believe that they can make the impending doom of death disappear by denying the existence of a supernatural being who requires them to believe in his Son. In short, some people embrace the non sequitor, "evolution is true, therefore I won't go to hell for not believing in Jesus."

I encourage people to not have this view on evolution.

Personally, I believe that it is impossible for science to either prove or disprove God's exsitence. I don't believe in God, but I can trust science when it comes to explaining the things that we perceive through senses. However, science has no influence at all on my beliefs about things that I consider out of science's reach. Therefore, I would never use evolution to disrpove Jesus' divinity. I think that there are more people who think as I do on this topic.

For the word scientific, what about the English translation of the French word scientifique?

[Wolf O'Donnell]

If I may make a supposition: people usurp the role of religion with science because they are uncomfortable with the implications of the existence of a God, specifically God as defined in Christianity. To be even more specific: some people, who don't want to go to hell, believe that they can make the impending doom of death disappear by denying the existence of a supernatural being who requires them to believe in his Son. In short, some people embrace the non sequitor, "evolution is true, therefore I won't go to hell for not believing in Jesus."

I encourage people to not have this view on evolution.

I suppose, but it's likely to be a very small number. I'm not one of them. My atheism has nothing to do with Evolution or any known scientific subjects. The scientific method does help define my atheism, but not support it.

What I find really strange about the Creationist point of view is how it tends towards the pagan ideas of a god behind everything. A god for rain, a god for creation and so on. Except, of course, with Creationism there's only one God for everything. It's a very antiquated idea and I don't see much merit to it, or Christian/Islamic merit to it either.

For the word scientific, what about the English translation of the French word scientifique?

Apparently, Google says that means scientist. But according to my Collins Pocket French dictionary, it also means scientific and science student. Possibly it all depends on the context.

[Arturo]

The same happens with the word "científico" in Spanish, which means both scientist and scientific.

[arunma]

I think you only think that because of your Christian beliefs... some people, perhaps, are like that... but for most who you said are afraid of going to hell.. most of them really dont believe in God, or at least don't believe in hell... so there's really no point in trying to cling to science to avoid going to a place they really dont believe in.

Edit: this is in response to Arunma's post..

Yes, but many of these people still believe in their minds that they could very well be wrong, thus they (mis)use evolution and other science to try and convince themselves that they'll be all right. And this is a most egregious use of science.

What I find really strange about the Creationist point of view is how it tends towards the pagan ideas of a god behind everything. A god for rain, a god for creation and so on. Except, of course, with Creationism there's only one God for everything. It's a very antiquated idea and I don't see much merit to it, or Christian/Islamic merit to it either.

Actually that particular creationist belief is not pagan. There are numerous Biblical references to God's role in all natural processes. There are also similar references in the Old Testament Apocrypha (the book of Baruch, I believe).

[Wolf O'Donnell]

Yes, but many of these people still believe in their minds that they could very well be wrong, thus they (mis)use evolution and other science to try and convince themselves that they'll be all right. And this is a most egregious use of science.

And these people admit that to you?

Are you sure it's not that they use it to justify their beliefs in arguments, just like you would use X and Y to justify your beliefs in Z? It's still wrong, if used on its own without other evidence to back it up and it assumes 100% Biblical literacy, which is an unwarranted assumption... Still, what is there to suggest they still might believe in God and Hell?

[Vertiboy]

Before I start, let me say that I am a born-again Christian (not a perfect one). I see nothing wrong with teaching evolution in science class and excluding intellegent design. Why? It is science class. I want to learn about the conclusions that science has come to in science class. The issue isn't whether or not it is right. It is about the fact that evolution is science's answer for how we came to be. If I were to take a class called Christanity class or faith class, then I wouldn't mind hearing about creationism or ID.

As much as I believe that some higher being created everything, be it through starting evolution or some other means (I can't say that I am 100% sure about how we came to be), science and faith are undeniably two separate fields. Science explains our existence through evolution, and faith explains our existence through creationism or ID.

If I am taught creationism in science class, then I won't complain because even if I weren't a Christian, any little mention of some kind of god would not offend me. If I am not taught creationism in science class, then so be it. It is more a matter of faith than science.

[Khallos]

Not sure you could ever describe Evolution as scientific fact, the nature of science if hypothesis. We may be damn sure, but unless things are theorems and have been proved, what remains are theories (such as evolution) and are judged to be true simply due to observation, not fact.

So in my opinion those who hold up The Origin of Species or the Descent of Man as if it were their Bible, and for some reason are stuck to their overused and misused word, "science" to answer everything, I think it's no better than someone holding up the Bible and claiming everything else is lies and is test our faith. Some people to combat the irrational religion, wield science like their own faith and to be honest it does them no good.

None the less I believe in evolution (there I go, making science sound like my faith), as well, there seems to be enough evidence for it in my eyes. The survival of creatures with certain mutations, while others without died out helps reinforce the fact of this theory. Still, evolution is a pretty passive thing and maybe we make too big a deal of beneficial accidents, but it's natures way of ensuring at least a handful of a population may survive.

[Jumbie]

I've never ever doubted the validity of evolution, but I was surprised to see that there are actually a lot of discrepancies with it, which many scientists have encountered. For example, even Darwin had his doubts some time. Check this link for quotes.

[wisp]

I do wonder more about the circumstances surrounding some of the quotations... it's unclear as to what they are referring sometimes. Speaking of "no evidence of transitional whatever in the fossil record" could have originally been referring to large changes that would affect skeletal structure or, perhaps, it could've been taken out of context. What if its original context was in reference to changes that would affect the appearance and functionality of the animal, but not necessarily the skeletal structure itself.

Also, the newest quotation I saw on the page was from 1999, there were two or three from 1996, a couple more from the early '90s, and the rest were all from the 1980s and before. I'd wonder if there had been any more recent discoveries that would help to explain some of these things.