Defending Evolution: Tips & Strategies

[Mazuz]

People who don't believe in evolution always don't understand it. All she needs is exposure to good material on natural selection. If you believe in time and in the past, and you believe that our features, or our traits, are past down to our children than you have evolution. Niether of these two things would anyone refute. I guarantee you if you were to ask her to try and explain the process of evolution to you she would fail. She also won't want to learn about evolution most likely, so you should start by telling her she should at least understand it whether she choses to believe in it or not. That is always a good approach.

 

[Janitor]

Natural selection and mutation are sometimes said to be the twin pillars on which the theory of evolution rests. And then there are subdsidiary issues such as genetic drift and the colonizer principle, which can come into play in certain situations.

 

[Chrono]

I suppose to his way of thinking it is ridiculous to believe that 'mere' evolution could result in whale songs working that way.

Kind of a premature statement from him, isn't it? I mean, I kind of doubt he knows how evolution works and the biology of whales.

 

[Janitor]

Kind of a premature statement from him, isn't it? I mean, I kind of doubt he knows how evolution works and the biology of whales.

You are likely correct about that.

It would be interesting to read an anti-evolution book or article by a writer who has had training in biology to the level of a professional biologist. I wonder if there are any such writings out there? I do know that a law professor (not the same as a biologist, I know!) wrote a book called Darwin on Trial. I have not read it, but I just located it at Amazon:



Has anybody here read it? Maybe you can comment on its worth.

 

[Chrono]

I do know that a law professor (not the same as a biologist, I know!) wrote a book called Darwin on Trial. I have not read it, but I just located it at Amazon

The only thing I can think that that's about is the Scopes trial in Kentucky, I believe it was. When Clarence Darrow defended him and he got off on a technicality.

 

[selfAdjoint]

No, the law professor's book is recent. AFAIR he lives in San Francisco, and his book was received respectfully by all the literary types who aren't strong on either logic or scientifc evidence, and with laughter by people in the opposite categories.

 

[Janitor]

The only thing I can think that that's about is the Scopes trial in Kentucky, I believe it was. When Clarence Darrow defended him and he got off on a technicality.

From reading the reviews at Amazon, I can say that the author attacks evolution (or more particularly neo-Darwinism) by trying to show that arguments made by people such as Gould and Dawkins are not logical or not supported by evidence.

 

[Chrono]

From reading the reviews at Amazon, I can say that the author attacks evolution (or more particularly neo-Darwinism) by trying to show that arguments made by people such as Gould and Dawkins are not logical or not supported by evidence.

Of course there's evidencd. I don't know why they say that it's not supported by any. Either they don't know the evidence or they just don't accept it.

 

[Phobos]

You are likely correct about that.

It would be interesting to read an anti-evolution book or article by a writer who has had training in biology to the level of a professional biologist. I wonder if there are any such writings out there? I do know that a law professor (not the same as a biologist, I know!) wrote a book called Darwin on Trial. I have not read it, but I just located it at Amazon:



Has anybody here read it? Maybe you can comment on its worth.

The law professor is Philip Johnson. I do plan to read his book for myself because it's so often brought up in debates, but from what I've heard (and from what I've seen from some of his articles/debates), his strategy is to show "reasonable doubt" (like in a courtroom) for evolution which will then cause people to accept the supposed only alternative of Intelligent Design. Don't expect scientific evidence from him.

An often-cited anti-evolution book from a biologist is "Darwin's Black Box" by Michael Behe (biochemist). Behe actually accepts some of evolution but says that evolution is impossible on the biomolecular level due to processes that are "irreduceably complex". Of course, evolutionary biologists then provide examples of how those processes are not irreduceable as Behe claims.

Duane Gish is a Young Earth Creationist who has a PhD in biochemistry. His arguments are often just silly, IMO.

Jonathan Wells is the only other biologist (molecular/cell biologist) I've heard of that is an ID'er. Book review available here...
http://www.ncseweb.org/default.asp

Watch out for inflated credentials of many creationists...
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/credentials.html

 

[Chrono]

I do plan to read his book for myself

Let us know how it is, if you don't mind.

The only evolution book I've read is "Evolution" by Carl Zimmer. Of course it's pro-evolution, obviously.

 

[Janitor]

I have heard of Behe, and Gish is a name that comes up often in debates on creationism vs. evolution.

Incidentally, the book on a "young" Grand Canyon that is mentioned in the first link that Phobos provided was written by someone that I heard touting the book on local radio. This was back in mid May of this year. https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=25537&page=1&pp=15

 

[Phobos]

Let us know how it is, if you don't mind.

Will do. (But be patient...I'm currently in the middle of a few other books.)

The only evolution book I've read is "Evolution" by Carl Zimmer. Of course it's pro-evolution, obviously.

I heard that book on tape (abridged version of the book). It was interesting & provided a very good introduction/overview to the theory of evolution, but was light on the details of the mechanics of evolution. Overall, thumbs up (opposible thumbs, of course ).

 

[Chrono]

Will do. (But be patient...I'm currently in the middle of a few other books.)

I understand. I do that, myself. And with work, school, and martial arts, I can barely find the time.

I heard that book on tape (abridged version of the book). It was interesting & provided a very good introduction/overview to the theory of evolution, but was light on the details of the mechanics of evolution. Overall, thumbs up (opposible thumbs, of course ).

I didn't realize it was on tape. Well, you don't have all the pretty pictures with it that way.

 

[motai]

I found more interesting statements made by creationists...

"Evolutionary scientists have not the slightest idea how this complex assembly of complex, interdependent parts could have evolved. Yet, they believe it happened. They have faith in dumb atoms. Faith in the Creator God is far superior." which seems like a completely baseless accusation, and:

"And we should work to stop the dogmatic teaching of evolution and the persecution of Christians in the tax-funded public schools and universities."

Since when are scientists trying to persecute Christians? Arent the creationists the ones who started this entire debacle?

http://www.parentcompany.com/csrc/basics.htm

 

[Mazuz]

Right, so the universe is too complicated to make sense

 

[Phobos]

I found more interesting statements made by creationists...

"Evolutionary scientists have not the slightest idea how this complex assembly of complex, interdependent parts could have evolved. Yet, they believe it happened. They have faith in dumb atoms. Faith in the Creator God is far superior."

"And we should work to stop the dogmatic teaching of evolution and the persecution of Christians in the tax-funded public schools and universities."

Good examples of annoying accusations.
(1) confuse abiogenesis with evolution
(2) exaggerate uncertainties
(3) accuse evolution of being just another religion (and then saying their faith is better than your faith)
(4) make it seem like the choice is simply between evolution or God (no mixing of those ideas, no other options)
(5) claims of "Big Brother" Science

 

[CharlesP]

Since when are scientists trying to persecute Christians? Arent the creationists the ones who started this entire debacle?

In West Virginia several school officials were killed because they dared to teach evolution. The fight is not over yet.

 

[selfAdjoint]

Wow! I had no idea. Do you have a link?

 

[CharlesP]

Wow! I had no idea. Do you have a link?

It was about ten or twenty years ago. My buddy Jim Haught has it on his web site. I downloaded it so I can find it in a day or so.
I went to the school board meetings last year and the creationists were fighting hard right then, but they lost.
Here is a link to ongoing out of state activities. http://www.swarthmore.edu/NatSci/cpurrin1/textbookdisclaimers/index.htm

 

[loseyourname]

Kenneth Miller, in Finding Darwin's God, provides a very good dismantling of Behe's and Johnson's arguments. Then he goes on to make several arguments for the existence of the Christian God, finishing by arguing that evolution is the only way God could have ensured the existence of free will.

Anyway, I think he's full of it when he veers off into his religion, but your friend might be satisfied by it. I always encourage religious people that are skeptical of evolution to give this book a try. It seems to me like the best attempt to reconcile science with religion.

 

[Tom McCurdy]

It was about ten or twenty years ago. My buddy Jim Haught has it on his web site. I downloaded it so I can find it in a day or so.
I went to the school board meetings last year and the creationists were fighting hard right then, but they lost.
Here is a link to ongoing out of state activities. http://www.swarthmore.edu/NatSci/cpurrin1/textbookdisclaimers/index.htm

that is amazing...

I heard some of my religous friends aruging that there is scientific evidence that the world is only 10,000 years old. I told them they were wrong, ... does anyone know of any actual scientific evidence of a 10,000 year old earth?

 

[loseyourname]

If, as evolutionists teach, the solar system evolved from a spinning dust and gas cloud 4.6 billion years ago, the slowly condensing Sun would have radiated 25–30% less heat during the next 600 million years than it does today.a (A drop in the Sun’s radiation of only a few percent would freeze all our oceans.) Had this happened anytime in the past, let alone for 600 million years, the ice’s mirrorlike surfaces would have reflected more of the Sun’s radiation into outer space, cooling Earth even more in a permanent, runaway deep-freeze. If so, all agree that life could not have evolved.

One product of radioactive decay within rocks is helium, a light gas. Helium then enters the atmosphere—at a much faster rate than it escapes the atmosphere. (Large amounts of helium should not escape into outer space, even when considering helium’s low atomic weight.) Radioactive decay of only uranium and thorium would produce all the atmosphere’s helium in only 40,000 years. Therefore, the atmosphere appears to be young.

If Earth had initially been molten, it would have cooled to its present condition in much less than 4.6 billion years. This conclusion holds even if one makes liberal assumptions about the amount of heat generated by radioactive decay within Earth.a The known temperature pattern inside Earth is consistent only with a young Earth.

Because Galaxies Are Billions of Light-Years Away, Isn’t the Universe Billions of Years Old?

The logic behind this common question has several hidden assumptions. Probably the most questionable assumption is that starlight has always traveled at the same speed. Has it? Has the speed of light always been 186,000 miles per second or, more precisely, 299,792.458 kilometers per second? One simple test is to compare the historic measurements of the speed of light.

Read the Idiocy for Yourself

 

[Nereid]

An interesting perspective (or not): ask one of these (christian) creationists what they think truly devout believers in other religions think about the theory of evolution and abiogenesis. Apart from their astounding ignorance of the core tenants of other faiths, you may discover that they find it more difficult to accept that deeply religious people (of different faiths) can be truly at peace with Darwin than that 'faithless scientists' are high on evolution (I have no idea why the fact that so many of their christian breathern are equally at peace doesn't discomfort them so much).

 

[selfAdjoint]

I have no idea why the fact that so many of their christian breathern are equally at peace doesn't discomfort them so much

Oh that's easy. They consider any so-called Christian who doesn't accept their ideas to be damned and of no concern (except for possible prosylitizing).

 

[CharlesP]

More links

Here are some more links of interest in evolution

To read Forrest and Gross's essay, and West and Witt's response, visit:
http://www.stnews.org/books_authors_1204.html

For the Panda's Thumb critique of Behe and Snoke's paper, visit:
http://www.pandasthumb.org/pt-archives/000480.html

 

[Phobos]

Oh that's easy. They consider any so-called Christian who doesn't accept their ideas to be damned and of no concern (except for possible prosylitizing).

I've often heard fundamentalist Christians refer to those others as "nominal Christians" (i.e., people who say they're Christian, but who are incorrect in their beliefs)