Will evolution ever become widely accepted among the public?

[nahomadis]

Hi there. Found time over lunch to reply. Excuse the spelling mistakes as I had to type real fast!

 

The evidence far evolution is irrefutably solid, tangible, and quite extensive. Saying otherwise is simply false. Anywho, this isn't about the origins of life, as previously stated, THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH EVOLUTION.

 

 

 

Some of the emperical evidence can, to a measure, be made to fit a Darwinian explanatory framework e.g. mutation and the sifting process of natural selection. It is true that living things Evolve. Evolution simply means change (evolvere = 'to unroll/move'). However, when Darwinists use the term Evolution they imply change in a certain direction: information increasing change. They hold that the Evolution we see today has mounted up, over time, to increase the genetic information in a living thing such it becomes another kind e.g. reptile to birds. So Darwinists use the term Evolution to mean not just the change we see today, but change in a direction that can account for the Origin of new kinds of living things. Creationists hold that Evolution today is happening (some call it 'micro-evolution), but that it is happening in the opposite direction of that required for the Origin of new Kinds: information maintaing/decreasing change.

 

And the facts and evidence only support evolution. The creationists reject what the evidence says, and twist

 

 

 

Fact and evidence does not speak for itself. It must be interpreted. I do not reject the fact of Natural selection, mutation, speciation, and adaptation. I think these mechanisms cause variation within kinds of living things. But these changes can not be exptrapolated to account for change from one kind to another. I am not twisting the evidence.

 

 

 

Let's go with the legal-system simile again - This is similar to a court system deciding a man is guily for a crime without any reason to do so, then examing the evidence. Whether or not the evidence idicates he's guilty (which is clearly doesn't and points at another man) the court uses ludicrous and fanciful leaps of illogic to interpret the evidence as stating the man as being guilty, while using similar leaps of illogic to toss aside the evidence that proves his innocence wihtout any doubt (or ignoring such evidence entirely). That is what creationist "science" does

 

That is a false analogy. You have misrepresented the Creationist position by leaving out one piece of legal evidence: the eye wittness account. God tells us the major events in earth's history. Why should it be thought impossible that God can tell us about the past?

 

 

 

 

 

That doesn't count for anything without evidence to support that this god was quoted or interpretted properly (or had anything to do with what was written anyway), this god is trustworthy in the firstplace, or that this god even exists.

 

 

 

Jesus confirmed the historicity of the Genesis narrative. When dealing with an issue regarding marriage he said 'He that made them in the beginning made them male and female....'. Jesus, as God and man, can be trusted. Are you willing to trust him?

 

 

 

 

Why you believe what you do and the methods you employ to come to that "conclusion" are dishonest.

 

 

 

I don't understand. Please explain how I am being dishonest. I am not hiding anything.

 

If you believe that, then you clearly have no concept of science.

 

 

 

I graduated from Queen Mary and Westfield in Chemistry with Biochemistry. I am editor for Thomson Scientific. It is fair to say I have a conceptual understanding of sience and a working knowledge of the scientific method.

 

One crackpot does not represent the beliefs of the greater majority.

 

 

 

Lewontin is not alone. And he is no crackpot. Michael Ruse, probably the most informed anti-creationist in the US openly acknowledged the philosophical basis of molecules-to-man Evolution before a shocked audience several years ago. Read it at http://www.arn.org/docs/orpages/or151/mr93tran.htm

 

 

 

The genesis account is worthless as a literal guide to the universe. First of all, it's centuries old written and edited by many people across the ages who had only myths and cultic dogmas to work on, not to mention the political agendas they were pushing.

 

 

 

The Genesis account was written by Moses under Divin inspiration such that the final product is the Word of God, without human error. See 2nd Peter 1:v19

 

 

 

What history are you talking about? And what efect does it have on evolution? This makes no sense.

 

 

Take the origin of man. It took place in history. None of us were there. We have to make assumptions about what took place in history to correctly interpret the present evidence.

 

 

 

Again, evolution is not a belief system, it is a theory built up from the facts, a theory that changes to be honest about what the evidence says. And evolution is NOT ABOUT ORIGINS. Go to the astronomy section for that crap.

 

 

 

Molecules to man evolution is not a belief system - true. But Naturalism is. And Darwinian evolution is an explanation that is built from Naturalism, and from a number of the facts.

 

No it can't test for God and might never be able to, but it can test for and prove evolution and other worldy aspects of our universe and planet.

 

The scientific method can not be used to prove or disprove Darwinian evolution. Darwinian evolutino relies heavily on Naturalism to interpret historical evidence. To refute DE, one would have to refute Naturalism, which can not be done scientifically.

 

 

 

Youu seem to be indicating that not being able to detect/test god means we can't do the same to the evidence that we know exists, can touch, test and correctly understand.

 

No that is not what i meant.

 

 

 

What is wrong to blindly assume word's god is true or honest without any reason to believe so.

 

I am not blindily assuming God's word to be true. God changed me so I came to know and love him and accept his word. My testimony is on http://www.amyandparkchapel.com/christian_church/christian_testimony_of_milkias_mollallegn.htm

 

 

 

No it doesn't. So far without any evidence to the contrary, we are led to believe that it is possible nothing is there,.....

 

What is the evidence that Nature is all there is?

 

 

 

.....but should evidence be found to indicate the otherwise, it would be taken into account and the theories of whatever would be properly adjusted.

 

What sort of evidence?

 

 

 

Few evolutionists are Darwinists anymore.

 

Then they are being inconsistent.

 

 

First of all, tehy're entire starting point of "they read" is a very soggy and uneven foundation for intreting evidence if it's combined with unwavering, inflexible faith.

 

 

 

I disagree. If you can show what you believe from the Bible clearly and logically then you can afford to be inflexible.

 

Make an observation that you can see to be true and get curious about it; make an assumption about how you think it works; test that assumption and see if it holds true; base a new conclusion off of what the test has shown you. THAT is scientific method. SImple curioisty and the desire to learn is reason enough. You don't need a big petty bully in the sky to want those things.

 

 

 

I said show a theoretical framework for justifying the relibility of the scientific method. Why does the scientific method work? Why should you trust it?

 

Show us evidence that suggests this.

 

Take the age of the earth (6000 by bible's dating). But darwinists believe it formed naturally, over billions of years. But the radiometric dating evidence suggests otherwise. The presence of radio-halos in Zircon crystals indicates rapid decay of the radio isotopes. The presence of C14 (half life 7000 years approx.) in diamond means diamond is not millions of years old either. There is not even enough time for evolution to be considered. But factoring in the effects of the flood, research shows the age of the oldest rocks at approx. 6000 years.

 

As for Genetics supporting evolution, the simple processs that change dna (mutation, acting in concert with natural selection and other population dynamics) and passes it generation to generation is evidence enough on its own.

 

 

 

Give me an example of a mutation working in concert with Natural selection that is evidence of molecules-to-man evolution.

 

Thanks. I may not be able to reply to you again until next week as I am quite busy with stuff. Have a nice weekend.

 

Nahomadis

[ecoli]

I said show a theoretical framework for justifying the relibility of the scientific method. Why does the scientific method work? Why should you trust it?

 

 

Wait... are you saying you trust what you can't see more then you trust what you can?

 

Belief in God requires faith... so you'd rather ignore yor observations and take facts on faith alone??

I'm not saying tha God doesn't exist, but their's a difference in believing in God and ignoring observations. The scientific method has worked time and again for proving scientific data... it says nothing about God, therefore nothing about creationism.

 

And besides, even if evolution is false, that doesn't mean creationism is true.

[nahomadis]

I was not going to reply, but very quickly....

Wait... are you saying you trust what you can't see more then you trust what you can?

I trust the Bible's account of what I can not see. I would add that I don't distrust what I see. I rely on the bible to guide me through what I can not see, and I trust my observations on things that I can see. The two are complementary, not in opposition.

 

 

Belief in God requires faith... so you'd rather ignore yor observations and take facts on faith alone??

 

 

I am not ignoring my own observations ecoli. I am accounting for the limitations of my observation e.g. I did not observe the formation of the first man and woman. But since God did, his observation is going to be correct. Then I add my observation to God's observation to build a more complete picture.

 

 

And besides, even if evolution is false, that doesn't mean creationism is true.

That is correct.

 

 

 

thanks

 

Nahomadis

[Rasori]

Back to the OT, there's one major thing I see against evolution's eventual full acceptance. My student teacher in Biology accidentally pointed it out (I'm sure she didn't realize).

 

Animals evolve to gain advantages--they want to be able to eat more, or they want to get eaten less, for the most part. Humans found a way around that--rather than evolving, we make a machine that allows us to make our way around the situation. If we need food, we develop a club, a cleaver, or a shotgun in order to hunt our food. Eventually we'll adapt to more advanced species with more advanced weaponry (err... "tools") to take them out. If we're attacked, we do the same thing. We speed up the "evolutionary process," but we avoid the true evolution part of it because it is not biological at all.

 

Nowadays, natural selection rarely, if ever plays a role in human life. Someone may be born immune to a disease, but everyone who gets the disease manages their way around it. I don't believe humans will really continue evolving--if we do, it is toward a reproductive goal more than anything, so that we can spread our genes more efficiently.

 

This lack of future human evolution will give everyone a doubt as to whether or not evolution is true, or at least whether evolution explains everything. Don't get me wrong, I believe wholeheartedly in evolution, but I don't think that, 5 million years from now, if we're still around, we'll actually be able to point back and say "look at humans then and humans now. Obviously, we've evolved."

 

EDIT: realized some typographical errors and some unclear points. Clearer now.

[swansont]

Some of the emperical evidence can, to a measure, be made to fit a Darwinian explanatory framework e.g. mutation and the sifting process of natural selection. It is true that living things Evolve. Evolution simply means change (evolvere = 'to unroll/move'). However, when Darwinists use the term Evolution they imply change in a certain direction: information increasing change. They hold that the Evolution we see today has mounted up, over time, to increase the genetic information in a living thing such it becomes another kind e.g. reptile to birds. So Darwinists use the term Evolution to mean not just the change we see today, but change in a direction that can account for the Origin of new kinds of living things. Creationists hold that Evolution today is happening (some call it 'micro-evolution), but that it is happening in the opposite direction of that required for the Origin of new Kinds: information maintaing/decreasing change.

 

Evolution does not have a direction, and you need to define "information"

 

It's already been pointed out that "Darwinists" is an incorrectly applied (and some might say pejorative) term.

 

 

 

Fact and evidence does not speak for itself. It must be interpreted. I do not reject the fact of Natural selection, mutation, speciation, and adaptation. I think these mechanisms cause variation within kinds of living things. But these changes can not be exptrapolated to account for change from one kind to another. I am not twisting the evidence.

 

I don't see where you've presented any evidence.

 

That is a false analogy. You have misrepresented the Creationist position by leaving out one piece of legal evidence: the eye wittness account. God tells us the major events in earth's history. Why should it be thought impossible that God can tell us about the past?

 

...

 

The Genesis account was written by Moses under Divin inspiration such that the final product is the Word of God' date=' without human error. See 2nd Peter 1:v19[/quote']

 

I'll never be mistaken for a Biblical scholar, but I think you might have meant to include v20-21. But these refer to prophecies, not history, and it's circular reasoning to say that the Bible is the inerrant word of God because the Bible says so.

 

 

 

The scientific method can not be used to prove or disprove Darwinian evolution. Darwinian evolutino relies heavily on Naturalism to interpret historical evidence. To refute DE, one would have to refute Naturalism, which can not be done scientifically.

 

Sure it can. Lamarckism was a naturalistic (would-be) theory, and it was shown to be wrong. However, you can't refute a theory that is correct, but it is falsifiable (i.e. you can test it in a way that it would fail if it were wrong). e.g. Darwin knew nothing of DNA when he came up with his theory. No mechanism for passing on of traits would have been a big blow.

 

 

 

Take the age of the earth (6000 by bible's dating). But darwinists believe it formed naturally' date=' over billions of years. But the radiometric dating evidence suggests otherwise. The presence of radio-halos in Zircon crystals indicates rapid decay of the radio isotopes. The presence of C14 (half life 7000 years approx.) in diamond means diamond is not millions of years old either. There is not even enough time for evolution to be considered. But factoring in the effects of the flood, research shows the age of the oldest rocks at approx. 6000 years.

[/quote']

 

Since you are familiar with the workings of science, you must know that citations are important, so that we can check on the specifics of these claims. In what refereed journal did the articles appear?

 

But unless you are contending that all diamonds were formed when the earth was, C-14 won't tell you anything conclusive (plus, Answers in Genesis states the age of the diamond they had dated at ~58,000 years, and that assumes no contamination or production of C-14 in the sample). You contend 6000. Surely you must recognize that those two numbers are different.

 

Radio-halos are addressed here

[mattbimbo]

rasori: This lack of future human evolution will give everyone a doubt as to whether or not evolution is true, or at least whether evolution explains everything

.

 

Interesting point. What if a new and fatal disease evolved that was beyond our ability to cure despite all our knowledge and technologies? Let's not forgot, all life forms are evolving.

[Moonquake]

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/intro.html @ genesis credibility regardless of whether God is real.

[zyncod]

Interesting point. What if a new and fatal disease evolved that was beyond our ability to cure despite all our knowledge and technologies? Let's not forgot, all life forms are evolving.

 

Well, then we would co-evolve with the virus. Like the rabbits in Australia.

[AI_Interface]

Science is about finding the best explanations for a problem. In the case of evolution vs. creationism, the problem is how did life become what it is today.

 

Literalist 6-day creation has been refuted by numerous observations thus ruling it out as a viable solution. However many creationists have opted for a less literal form of creationism that can be simplified to "the theory of evolution + the guiding hand of god" (hereafter refeered to as creationism). This theory makes the same predictions as evolution and thus can't be refuted by observation. It is still false, though.

 

The only difference between the theory of evolution and creationism is the "guiding hand of god" term. If both theories make identical predictions then the theory with the least terms (the least complex one) is the preferable theory. In this case the preferable theory is evolution since it has the least terms (it isn't unessecarily complex) and it therefore provides the best explanation.

[alt_f13]

It is the Evolutionary explanation that I reject, because it, fundamentally, disagrees with what God says. I do not hide this fact from my colleagues who believe in molecules-to-man Evolution so I am not being dishonest.

 

You do realise that the books you so whole-heartedly believe in weren't written by god, right?

 

In fact, if I sent an Aibo dog back into the past with an audio message indicating that it was god, and the writer should eat razor blades, he likely would have.

 

Besides, how could you ignore the most obvious of facts: the focils of our ancestors are older than ours, proven by fossil depths corrolating with major geological events (ie we were not created before apes). Of course you could answer this by reminding me that the biblical earth is only 7000 years old (or whatever random number suits you) and therefor it is impossible for anything to be older than that, and God, being the universal trouble maker that he is, threw a few bones into the gears, you know, to mix it up a bit (because that makes much more sense than scientific reason).

 

To which my answer would be (and to perpetuate a rant which is just falling on deaf, irrational ears anyway), that you must not believe in radioacarbon dating either, because it can measure the age of carbonaceous materials which predate the biblical earth by some 50 thousand years. Should all theories brought to light through radiocarbon dating be abandoned?

 

How about the fact that light has a finite speed, and the light reaching us from the edge of the visible universe has been traveling for 14 billion years. If creationists are right, then relativity should be thrown right out the window. Start from scratch, because Einstein was an idiot.

 

Evolution proves our relation to apes. Creationism disagrees with this. Does it then disagree with the DNA evidence of this? Should DNA evidence then be disallowed in court, too? It's obviously wrong...

 

If creation theory is true, than almost every field of science is completely wrong. We should go back to the stoneages when the earth was flat, the moon was cheese, and your goats were worth more than your wife.

 

If you believe creation theory, stop believing the rest of science.

[Cthulhu]

Will evolution ever become widely accepted among the public?

 

I believe most of the public quietly accept evolution without having actually considered why they accept it. I don't think anyone should find that particularly comforting as it is a position of ignorance really. They can easily be manipulated for or against it.

 

A lot of people have a rebellious kind of skeptical streak which leads them to question authority on a matter they have no real understanding of. Skepticsm coupled with knowledge is a health combination. But skepticism and ignorance I believe is not. A person ignorant of the theory who takes a moment of critical thought can dream up all sorts of misconceptions about evolution and work themselves into disbelieving it.

 

I am no psychologist, but the psychology of how a person decides whether to accept or deny a scientific theory interests me. I am not so interested in obvious biases - such as religion, or political beliefs. I am more interested in people who could go either way. I believe there is a feedback effect once a person starts drifting in one direction that causes them to go even further and makes it very hard to change sides. Especially if they have got into a debate on the matter. I believe debate generally polarises and doesn't bring the two parties together in agreement (but then reaching agreement is not necessarily the point of debate). I see this more with global warming than with evolution as with evolution there is more religious beliefs at work than anything else.

[Edtharan]

Animals evolve to gain advantages--they want to be able to eat more, or they want to get eaten less, for the most part.

This is not correct. Organisms evolve to produce more offspring that can produce successful offspring. Being eaten or not being eaten does not come into it except indirectly. Evolution is not directed either as you imply.

 

Given a limited pool of resources, if something is able to gather more resources from other that gater resources then the best gather will have the most resources. This is the core of evolution.

 

Organisms are compeating for resources (food). Take, for example, several groups of lions. Each group is compeating with the other groups for resouces (prey). There is a limited number of prey in the environment so lions that can catch the most prey will be more healthy (not starving) and will produce more offspirng. May be their genetic advantage is that they have slightly longer legs that allow them to run just that bit faster. This long leggedness is a genetic trait and will be passed down to the next generation. Other prides of lions nearby that don't have this long leggedness will find that they don't produce as many offspring and will usually go hungry.

 

As the number of offspring in the first pride (Call it the "Alpha" pride and the shorter legged prides the "Beta" pride), increases they will find that they have to range further to catch prey as they have been eating too many in the imidiate area to maintain their larger pride. Some of these will eventually go off and form their own prides. These "Colony" prides will put more preasure on the Beta prides and they will find that the can no longer maintain their population and will eventually become extinct. Alpha pride may interbreed with the Beta pride, but this may produce inferior (to Alpha pride) individual that can't compete with the full Alpha pride mambers, and so their genetic line will eventualy vanish.

 

Now, with all the other prides gone (or on the very edge of the Alpha pride and it's colonies), the Mambers of the Alpha prides are killing off all the prey to suport their members. Now the Alpha Pride Colonies and the original Alpha Pride are in competition. As the prey is killed it will reduce their numbers and Alpha Pride will begin to starve. As the members of Alpha pride and it's colonies are forced into starvation and die, more prey will survive and the Prides can build up. However if Alpha pride were too successful they may wipe out all prey within their territory and then they will not have the strength to move to new territories. This will amke a too successful Aplph pride become extinct. If any of the less successful hunter of the Beta pride are still around at the edge of the Alpha territory then as the prey spiecies recovers they will be able to once again move back into their old territory, and scince they are not as successful as the Alphas then they will not produce too amny offspring so that they wipe out all their available prey.

 

What I have shown here is that a slight mutation that could give lions more successful hunting ability (ie evolve to eat more) can actually lead to them being unfit and therefore become unsuccessfull as a group. The group that was less successful at first ends up being the group that was most successful in the long run.

 

This kind of evolution has been seen in fossil records found in areas with limited resources and usually with introduced organisms, like on an island.

 

So in the short term (several generations) your thinking might seem to be what happens, but in the longer term (a few thousand years at least), this is not the case.

 

The Genesis account was written by Moses under Divin inspiration such that the final product is the Word of God, without human error. See 2nd Peter 1:v19

Linguistic analisys indicates that the first testement had many authors. Not only that, it has been translated in parts by many differnt people and through many different languages. How sure are you that what you are familiar with was the same as what was written? Have you tried to follow instructions that was translated from another language? The bible has been through many more translations (and even edits and rewrites), I think the curent estimate of the number of translations is around 5 differnet languages (at least).

 

I do not reject the fact of Natural selection, mutation, speciation, and adaptation. I think these mechanisms cause variation within kinds of living things. But these changes can not be exptrapolated to account for change from one kind to another.

Yes they can. In another thread I gave an example of a bicycle turning into a house through small changes and each change gave a useful object. I also have given examples of how a fish could turn into an amphibian and then into a reptile. These changes are were able to produce an organism that would have an advantage. If fact one of the transitional forms (or one that fit that place in my descrition) that I described ended up being discovered a few weeks laters (it was a fish with lungs and fins that resembeled a transitional phase to legs). Simple small changes like a swimbladder being able to transfer oxygen more efficiently, or the bones in a fin changeing slightly to make it more efficent at puching the fish along the bottom of a shallow pool to eventually becomeing an amphbian can be shown in the fossil record and what we know of genetics says that this can occure.

 

One spiecies of organism can change to such an extent that it must be reclassified into a new spiecies. You won't get a cat changing into a dog and if you try to argue that it is an argument from absurdity (I am not saying that you have or will, but it is a common argument that gets put when this subject is discussed). You will get a cat changing into a new kind of cat and then into something that is no longer a cat. It will be a new spiecies altogether, but it will have cat decendant and to some degree it will resemble a cat (just as we resemble an ape and apes resemble us - that is we had a common ancestor).

 

The scientific method can not be used to prove or disprove Darwinian evolution.

Yes it can. Observation, Hypothisis, Experimentation, Prediction, Disproof can all be applied to evolution. We have observed the fossil record. We have made hypothisis (Darwins "Origin of Species"). We have perfonrmed experminets with fruit flies, bacteria and plants. There have bee predictions as to what fissil evidence we will find. These predictions have bee tests for disproff, so far they are turning out to be accruate. Some times thet theory needs to be revised in the light of new evidence and observation, but that is all part the scientific method. The scientific method can be applied to evolution and evolution has yet to be disproved (even the theory of gravity to still subject to this disaproval requierment - this is what Enstien did to Newton).

 

What is the evidence that Nature is all there is?

What is the evidence that it isn't. Exceptional claims require exceptional evidence.

 

I am not ignoring my own observations ecoli. I am accounting for the limitations of my observation e.g. I did not observe the formation of the first man and woman. But since God did, his observation is going to be correct. Then I add my observation to God's observation to build a more complete picture.

 

We have to make assumptions about what took place in history to correctly interpret the present evidence.

And you make the assumption that God did it. Now lets look for evidence to suport our positions. The evidence must be emperical. I will use the fossil record.

 

Quote:

Few evolutionists are Darwinists anymore.

 

Then they are being inconsistent.

No they are not. Few scientists (read none) think that Newton's Theory of gravity is correct (Enstien proved him wrong, but Newton is very close to being right - just like Enstien is). We have modified Pure Darwinian Evolution due to new evidence (DNA was one of them). The modern Theory of Evolution has been changed to fit the new evidence and it is not strictly Darwinian Evolution. Therefore, few scientists are actually Darwinian Evolutionists.

 

I said show a theoretical framework for justifying the relibility of the scientific method. Why does the scientific method work? Why should you trust it?

Logic, Mathematics,, Reality check. These are the framework for the reliability of the scientifc method. The Scientific method works by trying to disprove (the reality check) any claims made. No matter how "accepted" a theory is it is always subject to this disproval criteria (peopole are still trying toshow that gravity is wrong - and there is evidence but then that evidence needs to be verified as well). Logic and Mathematics, well usually a scientific theory must be subject to logic (and therfore mathematical) analysis and critesism.

 

The whole of the scientific method is geared towards checking and rechecking, and that is what makes the scientific mehtod so reliable. But it does have one assumption built into it, that the universe follows cause and effect (and as far as we have been able to determine, it does).

[One of the Few]

45% of people told Gallup that God created the Earth 10,000 years ago, while 37% said that humans have developed from less advanced forms of life, but God guided the process.

QUOTE]

 

I am one of the 37%, although i'm not very religious, I feel that something must have given us a little boost every once in a while.

 

In fact, if i was a super religious person, i'd have never joined this website.

People are scared of that which they don't know, and always will be, it's a part of our nature that religion has only magnified.