Who believes in evolution?

[Illuvatar]

I, for one, am a strong supporter

[HLGStrider]

I am curious about how one can be a supporter of Evolution. By selectively breeding chimpanzees? ;) You can support legislation. You can support another person. You can support a political canidate. Can you support scientific theories? You can believe in them. You can look for evidence to support it, and if so I guess you are sort of supporting it.


Definition of supporter: A person or thing that supports (the definition of supports I'll get into later. It's long). 2. an adherent, follower, backer, or advocate. 3. A jockstrap. 4. a garter. 5. either of two human or animal figures flanking and supporting an escutcheon.

Now, I think we can rule out 3, 4, and 5 now. Two is the best bet. . .but even then, all of those things that suggest action. Is a person a supporter of the Law of Gravity if they believe in it?

Personally, I see evolution as a theory which I don't believe in but don't really have the ability to argue against. However, I know that there are many reputable scientists who don't believe in it. They can argue against it for me and do better at it.

I believe in the Intelligent Design Theory. I don't think I support it, however. Theories are only supportable by evidence.

[Arlina]

I disagree with the theories of evolution. Scientist have tried to find proof, but none has come up that backs up their theories. I'm not informed in the subject of evolution much, but I do know, however, everything the scientist have found so far haven't supported their theores. Therefore, how could evolution be true if it's only a theory (or should I say a hypothoesis) with no support? Scientist try to find reasoning for everthing, but they don't have PROOF for their theories. That's the main word here: PROOF. We were put on this world by God, believe it or not; take it or leave it.

[Gothmog]

I disagree with the theories of evolution. Scientist have tried to find proof, but none has come up that backs up their theories. I'm not informed in the subject of evolution much, but I do know, however, everything the scientist have found so far haven't supported their theores. Therefore, how could evolution be true if it's only a theory (or should I say a hypothoesis) with no support? Scientist try to find reasoning for everthing, but they don't have PROOF for their theories. That's the main word here: PROOF. We were put on this world by God, believe it or not; take it or leave it.
This is an interesting point. You say that you are not informed in the subject of evolution much. Yet you are so well informed that you know everthing that the scientists have found and also know that each and every discovery has failed to support their theories! I wish I was so Ill informed about it.

[Eriol]

Science can't produce proof. I know many people think that it can, but it can't. Sorry about that. There is no theory -- none -- that was "proven".

Scientific theories are the best explanations we have for a set of phenomena. Why are they the best? Why don't we keep the old theories if none of them is proven?

The criteria are:


Predictive power
Experimental repeatability
Falsifiability
Simplicity (the smallest number of entities is to be preferred, a principle known as "Occam's razor", stated by William of Occam, a 13th century monk).

A scientific theory must make predictions. That rules out many philosophical systems.

A scientific theory must be "repeatable", i.e., observers must be able to reach the same conclusions from the same data. That rules out many kinds of personal experience (such as mystical experiences).

A scientific theory must be falsifiable, else it will be pointless. If there is no experiment that can prove that a theory is false, then the theory is useless. This was the argument used by Sir Karl Popper to rule out Marxism and Fruedian psychology as scientific theories... there is no experiment that can falsify them since a contrary result is always reinterpreted as being predicted by the theory in a new clothing.

A scientific theory must have the smallest number of entities possible. For instance, when Copernicus offered the heliocentric system, the great argument for its use was that it simplified astronomy enormously, by reducing the number of entities. The epicycles of Ptolemaic astronomy were needless once you put the sun in the center of the system. Note, the argument was not whether the sun is actually in the center of the system or not! The argument for the heliocentric system was that it was simpler, and that it did fit the observations. It was only a few decades later that people started to take the theory as a fact and to believe that the sun was indeed in the center of the system.

A theory supplants another when it fits those criteria better than the old one. The other side of this principle is that there must be a theory that fits the criteria better than the old one, or the current theory -- no matter how flawed -- is the best theory we can offer.

And another caveat is that the new theory must be also scientific. "God did it" is not a scientific theory; as can be seen by checking it against the criteria. I don't mean that it is false to say that God did it; heck, I'm a Christian and I believe He did :). No, I mean it is unscientific; and that therefore it is not an argument against evolution.

Now to criticize Evolution as "not proven" is not correct since this applies to all scientific theories. To criticize Evolution, you must show that it breaks one of the criteria above (I hope I haven't missed any :)). As you see, there is nothing pertaining to "truth" or "proof" there.

If I were to play Devil's Advocate here and attack Evolution I know where I would start. I think it would not be the same spot that it will be chosen by creationists in this thread :). I think creationists will focus on the predictive power and on the experimental repeatability, while I would focus on the falsifiability... but I'll leave this to other posters :D.

[Eliot]

I very strongly believe the Universe was created by the Christian God. In my very humble opinion, I can't believe some people would be stupid enough to believe the Universe evolved to its present form.

"To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I confess, absurd in the highest degree."

--Charles Darwin

[Gothmog]

I very strongly believe the Universe was created by the Christian God. In my very humble opinion, I can't believe some people would be stupid enough to believe the Universe evolved to its present form.

"To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I confess, absurd in the highest degree."

--Charles Darwin
Can you please explain just why anybody who does believe in this theory is stupid?

Words of two syllables or less please ;)

[Eliot]

I never said everybody who believes in Evolution is stupid. I just said in my very humble opinion they are. ;) :D

I've also been raised as a Christian. That should explain everything. I've been taught since I was 3 or 4 that the Universe was created by God in 6 days. I found out what Evolution was when I was like.....9 or 10 or something. I found the theory stupid then, and I find it stupid now.


P.S.

I can't figure out how to put a link to another URL into my signature. I see you've put one in yours, Gothmog. Could you help me?

[Gothmog]

I understand that you are a Christian. So is Eriol. Try talking to him about it on This Thread (http://www.thetolkienforum.com/showthread.php?t=14234) :). Elessor II would probably like to see you on it as well. ;)

As for the Link in my Sig I had to write in the tags by hand.

Hope that helps.

[Elessar II]

I understand that you are a Christian. So is Eriol. Try talking to him about it on This Thread . Elessor II would probably like to see you on it as well.

Indeed I would, any help from a fellow creationist would be appreciated!

[Arlina]

This is an interesting point. You say that you are not informed in the subject of evolution much. Yet you are so well informed that you know everthing that the scientists have found and also know that each and every discovery has failed to support their theories! I wish I was so Ill informed about it.


Excues me for miss wording what I had said. I didn't mean for it to sound the way it did, so please forgive me for my error...

"So God created humankind in his image,
in the image of God he created them;
male and female he created them." Genesis 1:27

((for anyone who cares))

[HLGStrider]

I used to read a lot of Intelligent Design Theory books. . .a lot of which were very good, though the majority of the were written in a simplified manner (I went through my science stage at about 11, so most of them were not high level. . .Although I did continue reading them up until I was seventeen or so everytime one fell into my lap, at this point I didn't have enough of an interest to seek them out), so I know how evolution is usually countered in these books.

One: the chance of it all, the incredible amount of design in the universe pointing to something more than a chaotic begining. This is not a problem for anyone who believes in Theistic Evolution where God would actually be guiding the process, as I believe Eriol does.

Two: for a Christian and only a Christian (or for a follower of Islam and only a follower of Islam using the Q'oran.), when arguing with a fellow Christian about it, the main arguement is that the Bible states this, that Christiainity isn't much without the Bible, and therefore, if you disbelieve the Bible what's the point of Christianity. However, there are believers in metaphorical translation of the Old Testament. I believe this has included such great Christian thinkers as C. S. Lewis. Therefore, I believe you can be a Christian and believe in Evolution at the same time. I just believe you'll be in for a shock when God says, "I'm sorry, son, but you were wrong. I made earth the old fashioned way." Of course, I also believe I'll be told I'm wrong about some of the ways I've interpeted the Bible. No human will ever get it all right.

Three: The lack of evidence. Normally this includes a long section dealing with former evidences of evolution that have since been disproven. A lot of these are very funny. I mean, the missing links that turn out to be much less than such. Nebraska Man, for instance, is probably the funniest. Hailed as man's ancestor for about five years, it was finally proven to be the skeletal remnents of a pig. Generally, studying this left me with the feeling that any "proof" of evolution will eventually be rejected and put asside as it is disproven.

Four: Genetic problems with it. I have seen this gone into in depth, and truthfully, I didn't come away with enough of an understanding that I can talk about it here.

Fifth: Dating problems. These involve some of the methods used to date fossils. None of them seem very trustworthy.

There are other methods, but those are the most used.

[Gothmog]

Arlina
Certainly I forgive your error :). It was only my wish to point out the danger of making such strong statements. But I do suggest that you read This Thread (http://www.thetolkienforum.com/showthread.php?t=14234) As the two members who started the thread are both Christians. :)

[Eriol]

Point 1: It is a mistake to talk about "odds" in a sample of one. Everything is wildly against the odds. I am the result of the fertilization of my mother's egg with one out of 100 million spermatozoans. (10 to the eighth power). Each spermatozoan is different from the other, and so the chance that I would be here (and not someone with a different genetic makeup) is 1/100000000. Let's be conservative and ascribe 30 years for each generation. In 3000 years that's 100 generations. The chance that I would be here is then 1/(10 to the eighth power)to the hundredth power, which is a number too small to be written here, but I'll try: 0,000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 001.

So, considering only the spermatozoans in the last 3000 years (not the entirety of history even if we accept a Young Earth scenario) and disregarding other matters of probability (such as the chance that my father would meet my mother -- and the same process happening for each of my ancestors), my existence is so against the odds that I shouldn't exist :D. And this applies to every human being.

There are two ways to face this argument and solve the problem. If you are a believer, you say that God governed history so that everything would concur to your birth. But then the same argument applies to Evolution. If you are a non-believer, you must realize that the notion of "odds" presupposes repeatable observations. We talk about "odds", properly, when we discuss cards, dice, lottery tickets, etc. etc. To talk about odds in non-repeatable observations -- such as stock markets or even horse races -- is misleading and, in the last analysis, plain wrong.

Since we don't have "repeatable universes", we can't discuss the odds of the universe being what it is. It's a given; including all the minute chances (such as my existence, and that of everyone else).

Point 2: It is only of concern for believers, and as Elgee said, it is circumvented by interpretation. We'll only find out who's right about it when it is no longer important enough for us to worry about it :).

Point 3: The frauds and mistakes should not be used as "lack of evidence" without considering the non-frauds and non-mistakes. Paleontology is a very delicate science (as is obvious once you think of what these guys are doing... digging up minutely fragmented bones of animals which died millions of years ago). Even so, the amount of evidence for evolution is indisputable. That assumes, of course, that one has looked into it :). We have intermediate forms (though creationists deny that, I don't know why), we have biogeographical evidence, we have genetic evidence, we have biochemical evidence...

As J.B.S. Haldane said, "nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of Evolution".

Point 4: I don't know what kind of problems you're talking about, Elgee.

Point 5: They are extremely trrustworthy in that they are based on atom physics, something which can't be tampered. The problem is not in the theoretical framework, is that samples can and often are contaminated. But "often" does not mean "always". There are uncontaminated samples. And they give those very old ages. To refute an uncontaminated sample that gives an age of some billion years (like the Greenland rocks, they're very much uncontaminated) one must refute Radioactivity.

Another problem is that sedimentary rocks are not good for dating. But fossils are only formed in sedimentary rocks. So what the paleontologists must do is to date from igneous rocks that are found nearby the sedimentary rocks. But this is risky in the sense that the fossils may have been formed elsewhere and have been moved there by earth movements. So yes, dating of fossils is a risky business... the risk is not in the dating itself, though, but in the attribution of a given date to a given fossil. The date is good.

[HLGStrider]

3. I have heard the opposite. I've heard it stated often, and there are scientists who make a living out of looking into it and disbelieve. I feel fine about trusting them.

4. I wish I could understand them.

5. Again, I have repeatedly heard the opposite.

Scientists look at the same data and seem to always get two different answers. I think it is wrong to assume that the evolutionists who look at the data and assume evolution are correct and the others incorrect simply because evolution is the accepted theory.

[jejeje]

Im definitely not an expert on theology, but i am quite interested.
There may not be much proof to say that everything was created by evolution, but i am pretty sure that there is evidence to say that the earth was not created 4000 years ago.
Im an atheist by the way, and think evolution is pretty much a sound theory, unlike the idea of god (no offense) which is pretty dumb if you think about it for a while

[omnipotent_elf]

I am stumped by the suggestions that evolution has no evidence

ever heard of the following techniques
*comparative embryology
*comparative anatomy
*biogeography
*biochemistry
*paleantology
*DNA-DNA Hybridisation


each of these are proven techniques.
These are techniques which people like Darwin actually used to prove the theory.

[HLGStrider]

unlike the idea of god (no offense) which is pretty dumb if you think about it for a while
Which makes me very curious about your thinking process, how did you arrive at this, because during all the religious debates on this forum (there used to be a lot), I never once saw anything close to a logical arguement against God, definitely nothing that shoke my faith in him.

comparative embryology
My science book listed embryology as a rejected theory. It said it was based on homogenous appearances that generally fall apart on closer examination, like the assertation that human embryos have gills, which really happen to be facial muscles when they develop further.

comparative anatomy
Which is a double edged sword. A lot of animals have things in common with animals that no evolutionist in his right mind would suggest they are related to. Humans have the most in common with pigs, if you think anatomically. I think it was the horse that our eye is most like.

paleantology
This used to be my science of choice, and so I know there are plenty of very exacting creationist paleantologists. Paleantology is actually one of the most rewarding fields for a creationist scientist.

The other three I don't know much about.

[Eriol]

Im an atheist by the way, and think evolution is pretty much a sound theory, unlike the idea of god (no offense) which is pretty dumb if you think about it for a while

:D

Tell that God is a pretty dumb idea if you think about it to the likes of Einstein, Newton, Galileo, Kepler, Louis Pasteur (among scientists) or Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Spinoza, Descartes, Leibniz, Kierkegaard (among philosophers)... all of those guys were pretty sure that there was a God.

No offense, but to the idea that "the idea of God is a pretty dumb idea" is, well, a rather undeveloped idea ;). You should think about it.

[Bombadillo]

well, I don't believe in god, but i am interested in religion.

And I strongly believe in evolution.

Scientist try to find reasoning for everything, but they don't have PROOF for their theories. That's the main word here: PROOF. We were put on this world by God, believe it or not; take it or leave it.

its funny but i don't know a single piece of evidence that there is a god...
at least there are some hints that evolution could be right.

Evolution is IMO the only theory that supports the things known to us today, it may not be entirely true and some aspects of the theory will change in the future, but it is the best theory.

and what do the people who don't believe in evolution make of the legs in a pythons skeleton, and the legs on a whale??

If god made everything, why make legs that are not even visable from the outside?

[Eliot]

its funny but i don't know a single piece of evidence that there is a god...

Go look in a mirror. You really think you started off as some slime in a swamp, or even started off as a monkey??? :eek: :confused:

at least there are some hints that evolution could be right.

There are MANY hints that there is an All-Powerful Supreme God ruling this planet.

[Eriol]

Go look in a mirror. You really think you started off as some slime in a swamp, or even started off as a monkey??? :eek: :confused:

:(

Although I am both a Christian and an Evolutionist, I strongly disagree with any depiction of the "opposing" field as irrational or dumb...

I just thought I'd state my disagreement now.

[Ponte]

I strongly believe in evolution.

Go look in a mirror. You really think you started off as some slime in a swamp, or even started off as a monkey??? :eek: :confused:


I personally do not see anything strange with this since the earth (according to what I believe) have existed for 4.6 billion years and because life has existed for more then 3.5 billion years, and this is a long time with very long time for evoultion to work. I really don't have a problem thinking that I started off as a monkey since IMHO monkeys are very similar to us.

[Bombadillo]

Go look in a mirror. You really think you started off as some slime in a swamp, or even started off as a monkey??? :eek: :confused:
well actually yes, I believe that my ancesters where monkeys and even further back lived in the sea (or a swamp for that matter)
I can't see why it shouldn't. It weren't people who lived in the swamps, but some primitive form of life. I can't imagine that looking in a mirror would change my point of opinion :confused:

There are MANY hints that there is an All-Powerful Supreme God ruling this planet.

Could you give me a few? I really know none... And could you please answer my python question, I'm really interested.

[Eliot]

Well Ponte, I don't believe the Earth has existed for billions of years. I meant no offense with my statement to anyone who believes in Evolution. I'm entitled to my own opinion. I just thought since some were letting out their opinions, I would go ahead let mine be known.

[Eliot]

well actually yes, I believe that my ancesters where monkeys and even further back lived in the sea (or a swamp for that matter)
I can't see why it shouldn't. It weren't people who lived in the swamps, but some primitive form of life. I can't imagine that looking in a mirror would change my point of opinion :confused:

Go ahead and believe what you want. I really don't care.

Could you give me a few? I really know none... And could you please answer my python question, I'm really interested.

It's obvious you don't want God in your life. You don't want an authority like Him. Even if I had proof of God, you probably still wouldn't believe. Now I'm in a fix. I didn't really mean to say what I did. I know God exists, Bombadillo. I know. There is no way whatsoever to prove it though. Please go easy on me Bombadillo, OK? It's tough being a Christian when everything you do and say is rejected, made fun of, etc.

Eriol, you know that God exists, right? I mean, you actually feel him, right?

Oh, I don't know how to answer the Python question. I really don't know much about animals or science or whatever. Quit giving me a hard time.

[Bombadillo]

I'm sorry you feel this way eliot..

Is there someone else who would like to answer the python question?

[Eriol]

Eriol, you know that God exists, right? I mean, you actually feel him, right?


Yes, but I don't think that those who don't know God are irrational or dumb... Don't worry Eliot, there are more important things than the debate on Evolution x Creation. Even if you are losing the battle (of the python) I think you will win the war :D.

And now, in the interest of good neighborhood policy, I'll add some jokes I found on this page (http://www.christian-thinktank.com/comic.html).

How many Intelligent Designers does it take to change a light bulb?
Looks like I'll never know--I asked some to do this simple task, and they started talking about how this 'simple task' was actually composed of many, many sub-tasks, each of which ITSELF was composed of many, many sub-sub-tasks, each of THESE of which was ITSELF composed of many, many sub-sub-sub-tasks, each of THESE...I think they are up to 10^5 "subs" now...a living fractal, how kewl...(wish I could see them better in this darkness, though).

How many Richard Dawkinses does it take to change a light bulb?
I doubt we'll never know. Seems he was hospitalized with multiple injuries in a mountaineering accident recently. Was climbing some mountain somewhere, when a nearby bird sneezed, the minute sound vibrations of which moved a tiny piece of grass one-half millimeter, which shifted a micro-breeze a tiny fraction, which blew a cubic centimeter of dirt out from under a rock, accidentally setting off a catastrophic avalanche. Freakish accident, really--the chances of that happening were 1 in 10^18th or something like that...But I guess it was inevitable....I guess we really shouldn't be surprised by it, after all...

How many Richard Dawkinses does it take to change a light bulb?
According to his computer simulation, it only takes twelve of his cells--but he said I would have to be really, really patient.

How many Natural Selectionists does it take to change a lightbulb?
Well actually, we won't even TRY to change the bulb. We will simply stop using the room that has the burned out bulb, and start using only rooms with FUNCTIONING bulbs. That way, over time, ....

How many evolutionists does it take to change a light bulb?
Only one (to aim the x-ray machine) but the bulb changes very, very slowly

How many Creation Scientists does it take to change a light bulb?
Two: one to change it quickly, and one to point out that no transitional forms occurred at all.

How many Quantum physicists does it take to change a lightbulb?
Depends on the room size--you need to fill the room first with blind-folded scientists. Then, upon a signal, they all remove the blindfolds and look toward the general area of the 'old' bulb. Then, when the waveform collapses, whoever is CLOSEST to the newly 'congealed' bulb, grabs it, and WITHOUT blinking, makes the change. Also, this procedure MAY required one additional physicist to remove a dead cat from the room

How many skeptics does it take to change a light bulb?
Actually, they won't do it--they have no sense of urgency about the situation--they aren't sure they're really in the dark...

The last one is my favorite :D. There are others in the site.

[Bombadillo]

and i will furthermore, If i may eriol, a oute from you from the other evolution debate, which i am now reading with great interest...


Evolution is not contradicted by the Bible. It explains a lot of our observations of the natural world. Why not accept it? Because most Christians believe that Evolution entails that "there is no God"?

Well, "most Christians" are wrong in that. They are following the rhetoric of the extreme materialists. Evolution does not force us to disbelieve in God. This is quite obvious if you study it in depth, and even if you don't study it... for science (ANY science) studies only the natural world, by definition. It can't explain (or explain away) the supernatural. It can't overthrow metaphysics. If any scientists claim that, they simply don't understand metaphysics -- or science .

I totally agree with that. As you said it is not my intention to deny a god, i just don't believe in him, but if i say'd i don't believe in jellyfish, it is no proof that it doesnt exist.

actually I don't know any proof of the non existence of god either.

[HLGStrider]

and what do the people who don't believe in evolution make of the legs in a pythons skeleton, and the legs on a whale??

The same thing I make of that arguement that listed supposedly useless organs in the human body and claimed that they were remenents of a system we used to use when we were not so developed and no longer used and that they would be naturally selected away (sorry for the long explanation. I forget the technical term). The original list included our thyroid gland and a bunch of other organs and glands that science at the time couldn't discern a use for but later found to be vital for our survival (I think there are still a few Organs that are considered this, however, like the appendix and some bones like the lowest part of our tail bone).

We may not know what purpose these bones serve now, but that doesn't mean they don't serve one. . .and we weren't just built for service. We were built for wonder.

[Turin]

I would like to announce that I don't believe in evolution ;). It is also my understanding that on his death bed Charles Darwin admited that evolution was a false theory.

[Helcaraxë]

I disagree with the theories of evolution. Scientist have tried to find proof, but none has come up that backs up their theories. I'm not informed in the subject of evolution much, but I do know, however, everything the scientist have found so far haven't supported their theores. Therefore, how could evolution be true if it's only a theory (or should I say a hypothoesis) with no support? Scientist try to find reasoning for everthing, but they don't have PROOF for their theories. That's the main word here: PROOF. We were put on this world by God, believe it or not; take it or leave it.


Actually, that is completely incorrect. Evidence has been found that supports evolution. Empirical evidence, meaning that it is gained through observation and experimentation. Now, whether evidence makes a theory correct is another matter entirely. You say "we were put on this world by God, believe it or not." Odd that you provide no proof in your defense. In truth, I think Christianity is a buch or self-righteous bogus that was made up by people because they wanted to believe that they had a kind parent looking down on them from above. But that's just my opinion.
I know God exists, Bombadillo. I know.

So you've had a divine experience? How do you know that this isn't really your subconscious speaking to you, not God? I'm not trying to bash Christianity, I just believe it is incorrect. You know none of us will ever agree.


MB

[HLGStrider]

It is also my understanding that on his death bed Charles Darwin admited that evolution was a false theory
No. My siblings science book (my mom changed ciriculum between my highschool science and theirs) had a section on the history of Darwin's theory . . .or more accurately the history of Darwin. This story was started by someone who claimed to be at Darwin's side at his death, but Darwin's daughter who was by record there, denies that this woman was there at the time. . .and it is more likely that the daughter is telling the truth than the other woman, it seems.

Empirical evidence, meaning that it is gained through observation and experimentation
What sort of experiment? The only one I ever heard of was an experiment on the founding of life through DNA where they attempted to synthesize some, but if you read up on the experiment, they only managed a gelatinous blob of enzymes that for various reasons would never be able to become more. Also, the methods used in this experiment were totally opposite what would've been in real life. It was more of the scientists making life than life making itself, due to all the tricks they had to pull to get those few protiens.

Unless you are discussing micro-evolution, which I believe is scientific law, not theory, and a great deal different from macro-evolution.

[Jesse]

I am curious about how one can be a supporter of Evolution. By selectively breeding chimpanzees? ;) You can support legislation. You can support another person. You can support a political canidate. Can you support scientific theories? You can believe in them. You can look for evidence to support it, and if so I guess you are sort of supporting it.


Definition of supporter: A person or thing that supports (the definition of supports I'll get into later. It's long). 2. an adherent, follower, backer, or advocate. 3. A . 4. a garter. 5. either of two human or animal figures flanking and supporting an escutcheon.

Now, I think we can rule out 3, 4, and 5 now. Two is the best bet. . .but even then, all of those things that suggest action. Is a person a supporter of the Law of Gravity if they believe in it?

Personally, I see evolution as a theory which I don't believe in but don't really have the ability to argue against. However, I know that there are many reputable scientists who don't believe in it. They can argue against it for me and do better at it.

I believe in the Intelligent Design Theory. I don't think I support it, however. Theories are only supportable by evidence.

HGLStrider, have you ever heard of God Inspired Evolution? Why couldn't a God make man out of monkeys? He still could do it in the 6 days 7 nights thing in Genesis. Evolution is fact. When I look at my brother's dog, I notice many similarities between him and a wolf. Is that just my imagination or is it years of evolution?

[Bombadillo]

a piece of evidence for tevolution? that is the forming of mutations in species,
after breedeing fruitflies for about 10 years there were however few, fruitflies with a totally different appearance then their ancestors (they had red eyes instead of black)

Mutation is the main foundation of the evolution theory and it has been proven.

[Barliman Butterbur]

I would like to announce that I don't believe in evolution ;). It is also my understanding that on his death bed Charles Darwin admited that evolution was a false theory.

If you're serious about that last, then I want to know your source.

Lotho

[Khôr’nagan]

Charles Darwin most certainly did not say that Evolution is a false theory, not ever. And it's not. A theory is only false when there is overwhelming evidence against it that lead to no other possible conclusion but that the theory is untrue. And that is certainly not the case with Evolution. Indeed, there is an overwhelming amount of evidence leading to, with little variation, the conclusion that Evolution is true. And no scientist has ever said that Evolution is untrue, because anyone who says that cannot be a scientist, regardless of their profession. The uttermost important thing that makes someone a scientist is the fact that they either believe or disbelieve something based on it's evidence. And since saying that evolution is untrue goes against an incredibly vast amount of evidence that is irrifutable, were a scientist to say that, he would be saying that he refuses to believe in something regardless of any amount of evidence that says it's true, and that's against the very heart of what makes a person a scientist.

Now I have to go, but I'll post again later.

[Eliot]

So you've had a divine experience? How do you know that this isn't really your subconscious speaking to you, not God? I'm not trying to bash Christianity, I just believe it is incorrect.

I know it wasn't my subconscious. It's something unexplainable. I know your not trying to bash Christianity, and it's fine if you believe it's incorrect.

You know none of us will ever agree.

That's obvious. ;) :D

[Elessar II]

In truth, I think Christianity is a bunch or self-righteous bogus that was made up by people because they wanted to believe that they had a kind parent looking down on them from above.

Well that's funny, because I believe that evolution is a bunch of humanistic bogus that was made up by people who just couldn't face the fact that there is a God in heaven who is in control of their lives.

[Eliot]

Well that's funny, because I believe that evolution is a bunch of humanistic bogus that was made up by people who just couldn't face the fact that there is a God in heaven who is in control of their lives.

Exactly my thoughts. :o

[Eriol]

Folks, let's remind ourselves that there is truth on both sides of the fence... or so I believe, since I'm stuck right at the middle of it :D. Or more precisely, I'm stuck at both sides of it.

[Helcaraxë]

Well that's funny, because I believe that evolution is a bunch of humanistic bogus that was made up by people who just couldn't face the fact that there is a God in heaven who is in control of their lives.


"In control of their lives"? Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it a fundamental concept of Christianity that humans are in control of their own lives? It's called free will. ;)

MB

[Eliot]

Well, as a Christian, you're supposed to completely devote your life to God.

But, yes, every human, even Christians, has a free will.

[Helcaraxë]

Well, as a Christian, you're supposed to completely devote your life to God.

But, yes, every human, even Christians, has a free will.

That's a somewhat contradictory statement, even if Christians are only supposed to devote their lives to God, even though they don't have to. If you have free will but your not really supposed to use it, what's the point?

MB

[HLGStrider]

HGLStrider, have you ever heard of God Inspired Evolution? Why couldn't a God make man out of monkeys? He still could do it in the 6 days 7 nights thing in Genesis. Evolution is fact. When I look at my brother's dog, I notice many similarities between him and a wolf. Is that just my imagination or is it years of evolution?
It's micro evolution. And I addressed God inspired evolution in one of my posts, read up. Obviously he could do it, but I don't believe he would. I don't see why God would choose to create man in a way that requires death so frequently.

If I breed dogs I can eventually create a new breed. I can even create a breed that cannot interbreed with other breeds. However, the result is still a canine. You can make a wolf into a dog. . .but you can't make a dog into a cat. Mirco vs macro. Read up on it.

Evolution is not fact.

that is the forming of mutations in species,
after breedeing fruitflies for about 10 years there were however few, fruitflies with a totally different appearance then their ancestors (they had red eyes instead of black)
Micro-evolution again. Did they ever turn into dragon flies?

Mutation is the main foundation of the evolution theory and it has been proven.
Proven that mutation exists? Obviously, and mutation normally kills, maims, or renders sterile what it mutates. Out of one million mutations, or more, one will be good. Normally the good will also bring bad.

And no scientist has ever said that Evolution is untrue, because anyone who says that cannot be a scientist, regardless of their profession.
This is a very unresearched opinion.

That's a somewhat contradictory statement, even if Christians are only supposed to devote their lives to God, even though they don't have to. If you have free will but your not really supposed to use it, what's the point?
I don't agree with the statement "God controls your life." I'd prefer God leads the life of those who choose to follow him. . .and it is a choice. You choose to follow. Christians aren't only supposed to devote to God, however. You have to devote to family if you have family, which most people do, render onto Ceaser which means devote a little to your country, and support yourself, which means devoting yourself to a job, but all of that has to take second place to God.

[HLGStrider]

I'm curious, does anyone here know what I'm talking about when I bring up micro-vs-macro-evolution, because everytime someone challenges me with proof of evolution it is proof of micro-evolution which is something I earlier stated I believed in. . .

Eriol, you're a biologist. Can you define it so that I make sense? Or you make sense and make me look like I'm making sense. . .

[Khôr’nagan]

Originally posted by HLGStrider
This is a very unresearched opinion. Indeed! But that makes it no less true than if it were. Now, as I was saying, the very fabric of a scientist is based upon the principle that something is either true or untrue based upon the evidence that support and hinder it. And therefore any scientist who refuses to believe that something is either true or untrue regardless of whatever evidence that supports or hinders it is not a true scientist at heart. They can say they're a scientist and act like a scientist and look like a scientist, but if they can't come to accept that something they believe to be false would actually be true completely disregarding all evidence, then they do not stand for what it means to be a scientist: And that is to base all knowledge upon evidence and nothing else. And thus if someone disregards evidence, they don't have what it takes to be a true scientist. I true scientist would be impartial to whatever the truth is, and would simply treat it as one would treat math. For them, 1 + 1 = 2 is like saying humans are contain carbon. But if they suddenly discovered evidence that irrefutably means that 1 + 1 = 3, or humans don't contain carbon, they don't care about what makes sense; if the evidence has been proved true and can indicate nothing other than the absense of carbon in the human body, no previous assumption would matter to them. They would simply cross out "2" as the answer and write "3." In other words, to a true scientist, evidence means everything. And therefore dismissing evidence alltogether about something goes completely against what it means to be a true scientist, and the person therefore is not a true scientist. I myself am very much so considering a future in science; I have been watching Stephen Hawking videos since I was 5 (though I didn't truly understand them until 8), so needless to say I've had an interest since very early on. I am a firm believer in evolution, though as I have said elsewhere, god could have easily caused evolution, but still evolution happened.

I cannot personally see how anyone could not believe it took place, although I'm not so arrogant as to think I know better or that everyone thinks the same way, so I understand that the way others see the evidence leads them to other conclusions. And as far as I am concerned (for the moment, anyway), whether someone believes in it or not doesn't matter. What matters is the world today, and its troubles and needs. It won't matter if people believe in evolution or not if we're all dead, now will it? Therefore I would not even begin to criticize or argue with someone about their beliefs of evolution, since the world now has more pressing concerns to be dealt with, and people should look rather to cease pain and suffering before they come to debate the fine points of scientific theory. Of course, at least for many of us, we must spend what time we have before becoming adults to enjoy what we enjoy, and if that is to argue about evolution, then so be it! But I've got some homework to do, and must now say fairwell.

[HLGStrider]

But that makes it no less true than if it were.And why do you believe it is true?
The why is very important.

they don't care about what makes sense; Again, a very unresearched opinion.

I myself am very much so considering a future in science;I hope you learn to research the opposing side before you do. . .and research it well.

And as far as I am concerned (for the moment, anyway), whether someone believes in it or not doesn't matter.It does matter if it isn't true. It does matter if one reads data using this as the basis, when this is wrong. A lot of data to supposedly proved evolution is looked at under the premesis of evolution being true. For instance, fossils are dated often by what fossils they are found next to and where that fossil appears on the evolutionary tree.

. What matters is the world today, and its troubles and needs
Isn't this a bit of a red herring?

and people should look rather to cease pain and suffering before they come to debate the fine points of scientific theory
If I say that I have given to a charity in the past that reduced pain and suffering am I capable of continuing this debate in your opinion? If not do I have to leave?

[Barliman Butterbur]

... I addressed God inspired evolution in one of my posts... I don't see why God would choose to create man in a way that requires death so frequently.

Evolution is not fact.

Then what's been going on here for the last several billion years???

I don't agree with the statement "God controls your life." I'd prefer God leads the life of those who choose to follow him. . .

There's an even more basic question preceding: There are many of us for whom it first needs to be settled that God even exists.

Lotho

[Eriol]

I cannot personally see how anyone could not believe it took place, although I'm not so arrogant as to think I know better or that everyone thinks the same way, so I understand that the way others see the evidence leads them to other conclusions.

(Emphasis mine)

The problem with the purely objectivist view of science that you explained, Khôr'nagan, is that there are no purely objective human beings. It is, by your definition of a scientist, impossible to be a scientist. And there is also the fact that evidence ALWAYS points in different directions. And there is also the fact that the evidence-collecting apparatus is theory-laden and therefore already biased to a certain conclusion.

This is not a denial of science's usefulness, it is a list of its shortcomings. It is very powerful, but it is not perfect. In the case at hand, it is a known fact that most biologists are evolutionists; and that therefore the evidence is full of evolutionary assumptions. Both sides of the controversy acknowledge that; evolutionists don't have to apologize for it. We have to do research, to collect evidence, and we have to use our theories to design the "evidence-collecting" methods and experiments. This is surely frustrating to a creationist, but it's how things are. No one forbids a creationist from developing experiments and collecting evidence based on a creationist theory. The point is, most evidence we have was collected by evolutionists, described by evolutionists, analyzed by evolutionists, and published by evolutionists. That there is a bias in research is obvious.

This does not happen in biology only, it is a constant in science. The difference between biology and, for instance, particle physics is that biologists deal with much more complex beings, and therefore the evidence points in many different directions. The "underdeterminacy of data" -- the fact that many interpretations fit the same set of data -- is a constant in science, as long as feeble human beings are collecting it. But biological data are more "underdetermined" than physical data related to particles. Even in physics there are some fields with disputing theories, just as we see in biology, only they are far less controversial. We don't have a perfectly satisfactory fluid theory, for instance (as far as I know). We DO have a perfectly satisfactory theory of optics, and you see the result of that: no one does research in "classical optics" anymore. It is no longer a scientific field (in the sense that "scientists work at it"). It's a technological field; we use it to build telescopes and mirrors with perfect assurance.

Where there is research, there is doubt.

[Eriol]

I'm curious, does anyone here know what I'm talking about when I bring up micro-vs-macro-evolution, because everytime someone challenges me with proof of evolution it is proof of micro-evolution which is something I earlier stated I believed in. . .

Eriol, you're a biologist. Can you define it so that I make sense? Or you make sense and make me look like I'm making sense. . .

Micro- x Macro- Evolution is this. Both sides of the controversy agree that there is mutation and variation and that animal species change over time (this was not agreed upon before Darwin, however). But there is disagreement over whether a lineage in change can cross the species boundary and become a new species. As Elgee said, creationists believe that no matter how much breeding you take, you can't make a dog become a cat.

Well, strictly speaking, according to evolutionary theory there is no fixed specific boundary. There are species; they are clearly defined in nature by the old biological definition, "two populations that can interbreed and produce fertile offspring belong to the same species". So if we have two animals who can't interbreed and produce fertile offspring, they don't belong to the same species. Simple and empirical.

(I'll skip the cases of asexual organisms and microscopic organisms for simplicity)

But we know that the breeding barriers are just as malleable by mutation and natural selection as any other trait. We can produce a Great Dane (and a Chihuahua) out of a Wolf over some thousands of years; there are many traits that were changed by selective breeding there. But the breeding barriers are traits, themselves. Let me list a few breeding barriers:

1. Premating mechanisms:

a- habitat isolation
b- temporal isolation (different reproductive periods)
c- behavioral isolation (the sexes are not attracted to each other)
d- mechanical isolation (incompatibility of reproductive organs)
e- (in plants) different pollinators
f- gametic isolation (the gametes of one species do not survive or fertilize the opposite gamete after copulation)

2. Postmating mechanisms

a- Hybrid inviability
b- Hybrid sterility
c- Hybrid breakdown (reduced viability of subsequent generations of hybrids)

Lots of different ways to create a species. All of those traits are genetically-based. And therefore they are subject to mutation and natural selection. It is NOT a matter of phenotipical (physical) similarity; two very similar populations may belong to different species.

Once speciation has occurred, the two gene pools are disjointed, and the two populations can no longer exchange genes. The "diluting factor" is over. And great change is possible. This is what would be called "macro-evolution" -- the diverging of two lineages which were once a single lineage, and the associated change in appearance.

Evolutionary theory can account for macro-evolution quite easily. Speciation has been observed. The concept of speciation deals a blow to the notion that species boundaries are inviolable.

But creationists are right when they say that a dog can't become a cat; this is also asserted by evolutionists. Evolution does not work backwards. It always works with past changes, and never "backtracks" those changes. Dogs and cats once shared an ancestor which was neither a dog nor a cat; he had what we call "primitive traits". When the two lineages diverged (by speciation), then each evolved in a different "direction", according to its habitat and niche and other factors. Evolution does not claim that a dog became a cat, or that a cat became a dog; it claims that the primitive ancestor diverged into the two lineages.

[Bombadillo]

There's an even more basic question preceding: There are many of us for whom it first needs to be settled that God even exists.

this is not the point of argument here.

there is a very good book about the evolution theory in dutch.
its called cheese and the evolution theory.

It has great examples of evolution and a chapter about how god does not rule out evolutionism. I will translate some parts of that book over the time and post them here, those who can read dutch, i know there are very very few, should read this book, its written by bas haring.

[Barliman Butterbur]

(Emphasis mine)
... most biologists are evolutionists; and that therefore the evidence is full of evolutionary assumptions. Both sides of the controversy acknowledge that; evolutionists don't have to apologize for it. We have to do research, to collect evidence, and we have to use our theories to design the "evidence-collecting" methods and experiments. This is surely frustrating to a creationist, but it's how things are. No one forbids a creationist from developing experiments and collecting evidence based on a creationist theory. The point is, most evidence we have was collected by evolutionists, described by evolutionists, analyzed by evolutionists, and published by evolutionists. That there is a bias in research is obvious.

So where are the creationists who dive into this mountain of evolutionist evidence to rigorously refute it? ;):)

Lotho

[Eriol]

So where are the creationists who dive into this mountain of evolutionist evidence to rigorously refute it? ;):)

Lotho

Oh, they are around, here and there, trying their best to do that. But they can't overcome what I called "the underdeterminacy of data". (That's an ugly name). Evolution, as all science, can't be "rigorously refuted"; and neither can Creationism. The best we can say is that there is more evidence on one side than on the other (in this case, Evolution ;)).

But in the end I don't think this is strictly a scientific debate... it is much more of a sociological phenomenon. I have posted my ideas about this side of the controversy elsewhere in the forum. Atheists hijacked evolution, and theists felt they had to debunk evolution to maintain theism as intellectually respectable. Alas, both sides are wrong :(.

[HLGStrider]

Then what's been going on here for the last several billion years???
Meaning you think that since the universe has been around for billion years there would have to be some evolution going on because time obviously creates evolution somehow?
I missed the point to this statement.

There's an even more basic question preceding: There are many of us for whom it first needs to be settled that God even exists.
If God doesn't exist you sort of have to believe in evolution, I suppose, but there were atheists before Evolution and there will be after it.

So where are the creationists who dive into this mountain of evolutionist evidence to rigorously refute it? Would you prefer house addresses or phonenumbers? How long do you have?

[Barliman Butterbur]

Meaning you think that since the universe has been around for billion years there would have to be some evolution going on because time obviously creates evolution somehow?
I missed the point to this statement.

Time has something to do with it, but genetics and natural selection operating over time is the main thing. If you think it's a matter of time, then you don't understand evolution.

If God doesn't exist you sort of have to believe in evolution, I suppose, but there were atheists before Evolution and there will be after it.

Would you prefer house addresses or phonenumbers? How long do you have?

Evidently you sink to sarcasm because you have nothing else to offer. I have all the time in the world, give me names, house addresses AND phone numbers.

Lotho

[Elessar II]

So where are the creationists who dive into this mountain of evolutionist evidence to rigorously refute it?

Well, there may be some "evidence" supporting evolution, but you have to remember evolution is still a theory, and that even the most revered evolutionist can't prove conclusively that evolution is true. You also have to remember that there is a lot of evidence against evolution, and that evolution has contradicted and recontradicted itself over the past century.
And although I have done a lot of study into the evolutionary theory, I have come to the conclusion that six-day creation designed by God is truth, while the man-made theory of evolution is false.

[Barliman Butterbur]

...there is a lot of evidence against evolution...

Post checkable examples, please.

Lotho

[Barliman Butterbur]

Oh, they are around, here and there, trying their best to do that. But they can't overcome what I called "the underdeterminacy of data". (That's an ugly name). Evolution, as all science, can't be "rigorously refuted"; and neither can Creationism. The best we can say is that there is more evidence on one side than on the other (in this case, Evolution ;)).

But in the end I don't think this is strictly a scientific debate... it is much more of a sociological phenomenon. I have posted my ideas about this side of the controversy elsewhere in the forum. Atheists hijacked evolution, and theists felt they had to debunk evolution to maintain theism as intellectually respectable. Alas, both sides are wrong :(.

As always, you put up an interesting post! :) However, you'll have to do better than "they are around here and there..." How about some names of real people, and their research?

So far, the evolutionists seem to have the hard evidence that can be shown to anyone who cares to look into it. I'd to see what the creationists have offered on their side, because I'm curious as to what they have to say.

Lotho

[Eriol]

Well, there may be some "evidence" supporting evolution, but you have to remember evolution is still a theory, and that even the most revered evolutionist can't prove conclusively that evolution is true.

It's a "theory", just as Gravity, Aerodynamics, Quantum Mechanics... all "theories". You are mixing the technical and the layman senses of the word "theory". Theories are all that science has to offer, and yet we don't see people saying "Gravity is just a theory", or "Electricity is just a theory".

And none of these theories -- none -- can be "proven conclusively". Not even the most revered Gravitationist can prove conclusively that Gravity is true. If you want absolute proof, you'll have to stick with mathematics ;). Science does not work with absolute proof. Hey, don't look at me, I didn't make these rules :D.

You also have to remember that there is a lot of evidence against evolution, and that evolution has contradicted and recontradicted itself over the past century.

As happens in all branches of science. Evolution is not unlike any other field of research. However, if we are going to tally contradictions, you may rest assured that Creationism has much more. If we apply the same rules to both field, of course...

I would not call them "contradictions", because just as "proof", "contradictions" are strictly outside the realm of science. I'd call them "inconsistencies", that may be explained with additional data. A contradiction may never be explained. It is simply false. There is no contradiction in either Evolutionism or Creationism.

And although I have done a lot of study into the evolutionary theory, I have come to the conclusion that six-day creation designed by God is truth, while the man-made theory of evolution is false.

And I bet that if you had looked at Evolution with the prior belief that God could have worked through Evolution -- say, if the Bible had said "and God let the animals develop their many species through mutation and natural selection" (an odd phrase for old Moses :)) -- you would have come to the conclusion that evolution is true, and that the man-made theory of creation is false. My point here is this: you disbelieve in Evolution because of the Biblical account, not because of the data. And this is a logical position, as witness:

1. If you believe that the Bible is God's Word
2. If you believe that the Bible rules out evolution

3. Then Evolution is wrong.

If one wants to defend Evolution, one must show that one of the two premises is false. Most evolutionists attacked premise 1; and this is why Evolution is seen as a Godless theory. However, I believe that the problem lies in premise 2. The Bible does not rule out evolution. Check for yourself. I argued this issue extensively with Thorin and Elendil3119, both of them much more schooled in Biblical matters than I am, and they never could point out a contradiction in my views. In other words, both views, which I may call "literal" and "metaphorical", may be applied to the first chapters of Genesis without contradiction.

If you choose the literal over the metaphorical for no good reason, you may be wrong. I choose the metaphorical over the literal for what is (to me) a very good reason -- the data. The data are overwhelmingly on the side of Evolution. (Remember that the data also come from God; God is the Author of Nature as well as the Author of the Bible. It is our duty to try to reconcile both of God's books, as there can be no falsity in either).

I recall to you the passage in Acts in which a man says to Philip, "how will I understand it [Scripture], if no one will explain it to me?". Scripture is not simple. And to assume that all that is written there is literal is, well, an assumption, not a Biblical precept ;). You don't see stated anywhere in the Bible that "Scripture is never metaphorical. It always has only a literal meaning". That assumption may be wrong.

That's all it takes for a Christian to look at Evolution with new eyes: the reassurance that there is "a reading" (among many) of Genesis that allows for Evolution; and that there is no firm rule for reading the Bible. So that both readings, literal and metaphorical, have the same merit, and we have to choose among them freely, based on our experience, with the help of the Holy Spirit.

So do it, Elessar. Look at Evolution with new eyes :).

Lotho, I found this site:

http://www.icr.org/ .

There are links there. Creation Science has many adherents in the U.S., very few outside it (as far as I know). There are some respectable men there, writing interesting books. I have books by Michael Behe and William Dembski, and I enjoyed them a lot, and they asked very good questions. Evolution theory is not refractory to good questions ;). Google some on these names if you want to know more, and also on "Intelligent Design".

[Barliman Butterbur]

Thanks for that link, Eriol! I bookmarked it and will be looking it over shortly.

Just now my main interest is in reading the Tolkien letters: the book just arrived yesterday. I was up till 2 am with it last night — had to force myself to go to bed!

Lotho

[Walter]

Gravity, to name but one of the examples above, is of course not a "theory". Gravity is a "phenomenon" we observe. Watching the apple fall down the tree was, what is said to have inspired Newton to ponder why this is so. Why, for example, the apple doesn't go astray towards outer space.

The result of Newton's pondering was a "theory", an attempt to describe the phenomenon by means of mathematics and this is what made Newton a scientist and one of the great forefathers of modern physics.

And while Aristotle had considered gravitation and the movement of heavenly bodies as entirely unrelated it was Newton who recognized that both could be desribed with the same "theory". Furthermore it enabled to make predictions about further "observations" - a very important "feature" of every scientific "theory". Hence Newton's theory was "better" than Aristotle's...

Electricity is - for the same reasons - not a theory, but a phenomenon we "observe". In Dr. Johnson's famous A Dictionary of the English Language of 1755 we find:

ELECTRICITY. n.s. [from electrick. See ELECTRE.] A property in some bodies, whereby, when rubbed so as to grow warm, they draw little bits of paper, or such like substances, to them.
and
ELECTRE. n.s. [electrum, Latin.]

1. Amber; which, having the quality when warmed by friction of attracting bodies, gave to one species of attraction the name of electricity, and to the bodies that so attract the epithet electrick.

This, clearly, is the description of a "phenomenon" rather than a "theory". But it took minds who connected this "property of amber" with thunder and lightning - like Maxwell and Faraday - to come up with the first "theories" regarding electricity.

A "theory" is what enables us not only to describe a certain "phenomenon" in a scientific way (e.g. through mathematical equations), but also to make predictions about future observations (e.g. experiments trying to verify the theory).

"Biological Evolution" originally also was an "phenomenon" - though less obvious than the apple falling down the tree - which was observed long before Darwin and Lamarck came up with their theories attempting to describe what has been observed.

But unlike with gravitation and electricity, mathematics has not been a tool available to the biologists, they had to rely on language and logic to describe their theories which complicates matters further. But nonetheless "biological evolution" is a theory that desribes observed phenomena and enables to make predictions of future observations.

What with "Creationism"? Can it be considered a "theory" and what exactly does it describe? Can we make predictions about future observations?

To me comparing the theory of biological evolution with an account of the creation - like in the Genesis, Enuma Elish, Kalevala, Voluspa, etc. or even Ainulindale - seems like comparing apples with oranges...

[Barliman Butterbur]

Thanks, Walter, for that very clarifying disquisition on the difference between theory and phenomenon! Clearly, we must be more precise in our terms and agree on our definitions in order to make this discussion more productive — myself included.

(BTW, your signature is a jewel — I may just co-opt part of it!)

Lotho

[Eriol]

Thanks, Walter, for that very clarifying disquisition on the difference between theory and phenomenon! Clearly, we must be more precise in our terms and agree on our definitions in order to make this discussion more productive — myself included.


Indeed. And this is why I must restate that Gravity and Electricity are theories that explain phenomena such as an apple falling from a tree and the attractive properties of amber.

Gravity is not "apples falling from a tree". Gravity is "matter attracts matter to the direct proportion of its mass and to the inverse square proportion of its distance". And that is a theory. The "theoretical" part of it is "matter attracts matter"; the rest is a description of how it attracts matter.

Biological evolution is not a phenomenon. It is a theory.

The notion that a theory is something that allows for future predictions is in itself a theory ;). There are fields which are very rigorous and yet predict almost nothing; such as economics. After all, it is not those schooled in economical theory that become rich :D.

[Walter]

Thanks, Walter, for that very clarifying disquisition on the difference between theory and phenomenon! Clearly, we must be more precise in our terms and agree on our definitions in order to make this discussion more productive — myself included.

(BTW, your signature is a jewel — I may just co-opt part of it!)

Lotho
Thanks but that is too much honour, because meanwhile I realized, that I have been not as precise - as I hoped to be - either. Eriol probably spotted this correctly - but still expressed it wrongly, I think.

"Gravitation" and "Electricity" are not the phenomena we observe, but the names we gave at some point in the past to the phenomena observed - as the example from Johnson's dictionary above clearly shows. The according "theories" - as attempts to "scientifically" explain the phenomena - came later, but the names are now indeed often used synonymously with the theory...

Also, maybe I should have better called it a "scientific theory" rather than just a "theory", since many people mistake a "hypothesis" with a "theory"...

But this all goes to show how important a careful wording is when approaching such controversial issues...

PS: I'm glad you like my signature :) The longer I live and the more I learn, the more I realize how limited my intellectual knowledge as well as my spiritual wisdom is, hence I am rather partial of those 2 quotes...

[Barliman Butterbur]

...There are fields which are very rigorous and yet predict almost nothing; such as economics. After all, it is not those schooled in economical theory that become rich :D.

Reminds me of the definition of the specialist: someone who knows more and more about less and less until he knows everything about nothing!:p

Lotho

[Barliman Butterbur]

...I'm glad you like my signature :) The longer I live and the more I learn, the more I realize how limited my intellectual knowledge as well as my spiritual wisdom is, hence I am rather partial of those 2 quotes...

You're in excellent shape! To know that one does not know is the beginning of wisdom!

Reminds me of a notion that came to me with the force of divine revelation when I was 17: Suddenly I was filled with the unassailable conviction that I now knew everything I would ever need to know! You can imagine what a pain I became. I saw what a dunderhead my father was. It was amazing to me how he got smarter as I grew older, until I finally got it straight that my "revelation" was but hormonal hubris of the worst sort...

Lotho

[HLGStrider]

Time has something to do with it, but genetics and natural selection operating over time is the main thing. If you think it's a matter of time, then you don't understand evolution
All I got was told I didn't understand evolution when I was complaining that I didn't understand the post I quoted. I would very much like to understand the post I quoted. Is there anyone who does who will tell me what it meant?

Evidently you sink to sarcasm because you have nothing else to offer. I have all the time in the world, give me names, house addresses AND phone numbers. It wasn't sarcasm. It was light hearted flippancy based on the fact that I was trying to get offline quickly, and didn't have time to list names or look things up online, or anything like that. It was just a happy way of saying "I know of some."

Duane T. Gish comes to mind off the top of my head. Used to be my favorite Paleontologist. I can only list last names after that, without doing internet research, and it wouldn't tell you much. I used to have alink to a news story about it that I VERY much liked . . .but I don't anymore. . .so I'm going to say Eriol's link works for me.

[Gildor]

From the basis of my own observations and experiences, the theory of evolution makes sense. Its not perfect...which is to say it doesn't cover everything and is probably wrong on a lot of details, but as a means to comprehend our physical world I find it to be quite plausible.

I don't know everything. I'm not inclined to believe in Creation as it is described in the Bible, but that doesn't mean it couldn't have happened, just as I can't rule out (or prove) the existence of a divine being or beings. I'm merely an interpreter of reality, just like everyone else.