Is Evolution True? | Benzun's Perspective

[nautica]

I still do Not see where God has anything to do with evolution. Creationist believe that evolution is false b/c God was the creator.

Based on evidence, we know evolution exist, but we will never prove one way or the other wether there is or is not a God, well maybe someday.

This is why I have such a problem with creationist using science to disprove evolution. They use the bible as a scientific document and then manipulate the evidence in order to fit this version.

Why not use the evidence and create a theory instead of using a story (the bible) and then go looking for evidence. It is just so backwards and has no place in the discussion of evolution.

Just for once I would love to here a creationist say. I have looked at the evidence and it appears that evolution exist, but my faith tells me I must believe that the Earth is only 6000 you and that God created each spp individually so that is what I believe. End of story.

Nautica

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by nautica
I still do Not see where God has anything to do with evolution. Creationist believe that evolution is false b/c God was the creator.

Creationists are wrong.

Based on evidence, we know evolution exist, but we will never prove one way or the other wether there is or is not a God, well maybe someday.

Actually, God is the answer to many "why" questions, but science is incapable of asking those questions, by its very nature, and will thus never answer the question of whether God exists or not. However, if one chooses to accept that God exists, it can only be hoped that that person will not accept a vision of God that contradicts known science.

This is why I have such a problem with creationist using science to disprove evolution. They use the bible as a scientific document and then manipulate the evidence in order to fit this version.

Why not use the evidence and create a theory instead of using a story (the bible) and then go looking for evidence. It is just so backwards and has no place in the discussion of evolution.

Just for once I would love to here a creationist say. I have looked at the evidence and it appears that evolution exist, but my faith tells me I must believe that the Earth is only 6000 you and that God created each spp individually so that is what I believe. End of story.

You are probably right, with regard to creationists. However, the word isn't "faith", it's "credulity". Faith is an assured expectation of things hoped for, based on testing and trial (it comes from the Greek "elegkhos", which is at the heart of the Scientific Method itself). Credulity, OTOH, is accepting something blindly, or inspite of the evidence.

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Mentat
I'm trying to be careful not to let this get to religious because of me, but it is, in fact, possible to create an interpretation of the physical evidence that fits the Biblical account. You simply have to assume that the "days" of creation (which, btw, is a more restricted translation of a much looser term in the Hebrew...the word translated "day" could mean any defined period of time) were very long.

One problem though: on the seventh day he rested. Ie, his creation was finished. Clearly it is not.

Faith is an assured expectation of things hoped for, based on testing and trial (it comes from the Greek "elegkhos", which is at the heart of the Scientific Method itself).

Whoa now - entemology aside (I can't verify it, though it says it comes from LATIN - fides), that isn't what "faith" means. In fact, it is precisely backwards. Faith is belif in the absence of evidence. The relevant definition from dictionary.com is:

Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.

 

[thunderfvck]

hey, long time no see.
sorry about not responding, i had computer problems.
it's not like it really matters anyways because I'm giving up on this argument. i forget who posted whatever it was that inspired me to shut up, but thank you. holding up this argument is killing me. i feel raped. so I'm throwing in the towel and shaking hands with nobody except nautica and the girl (im sorry I've forgot your name but i do remember you being a quite attractive biologist in amsterdamn, or maybe you were a chemist, anywya...) who have done nothing but tried to prove me wrong. it was an honor.

 

[agnostictheist]

thunderfvck

we all due respect, you come across has if you seem to have been correct, or that ones aim was tp prove you wrong... your wrong on both accounts.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by russ_watters
One problem though: on the seventh day he rested. Ie, his creation was finished. Clearly it is not.

That's not taking into account the Hebrew word "ruach", which is the one that is usually used for direct creation/invention. He has ceased inventing new "kinds" for the time being...if one wished to make such a unification, that is. Besides, "ruach" was rarely used, except in connection with what He is "resting" from...alot of the "creative days" use the term "asah'" which refers to a gradual "bringing about".

Whoa now - entemology aside (I can't verify it, though it says it comes from LATIN - fides), that isn't what "faith" means. In fact, it is precisely backwards. Faith is belif in the absence of evidence.

That is the common usage of it, but the apostle Paul was one who actually had faith...one assumes he'd know what it was. Credulity would not need to be a word at all, if your definition of "faith" was correct.

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Mentat
That is the common usage of it, but the apostle Paul was one who actually had faith...one assumes he'd know what it was. Credulity would not need to be a word at all, if your definition of "faith" was correct.

I'm not sure what you mean. What does Paul say about faith and what does the word "credulity" have to do with anything?

 

[selfAdjoint]

He means that your definition of faith is actually a definition of credulity, willingness to beliee what one is told without evidence. Christian faith, at least has evidence, although being interior, it is "not seen".

 

[russ_watters]

credulity: A disposition to believe too readily. (aka, gullibility).

While I do believe that gullible people are more likely to take things on faith, credulity and faith are not the same thing.

Christian faith, at least has evidence, although being interior, it is "not seen".

The fundamental points of the religion are strictly faith based. What evidence could there be to prove Jesus was the son of God? (for example).

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by russ_watters
I'm not sure what you mean. What does Paul say about faith and what does the word "credulity" have to do with anything?

Paul was the one who gave the definition I posted before: "Faith is the assured expectation of things hoped for, the evident demonstration of realities though not beheld." - Hebrews 11:1 NWT

I only mentioned credulity because it seemed you were equating the two (faith and credulity).

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by russ_watters
credulity: A disposition to believe too readily. (aka, gullibility).

While I do believe that gullible people are more likely to take things on faith, credulity and faith are not the same thing.

So, what is the difference between accepting something on faith and accepting it on credulity, in your opinion?

The fundamental points of the religion are strictly faith based. What evidence could there be to prove Jesus was the son of God? (for example).

The same amount of "proof" (not a very good word, under the circumstances, since nothing is ever really "proven" anyway) that assures us that the Jews were ever enslaved in Egypt, or that Columbus ever sailed across the ocean...written documents, three of which were by eye-witnesses (or, professed eye-witnesses anyway) and one was by a physician who had compiled information for some time after Jesus' death.

This point is really irrelevant though, since, if Paul's definition of faith holds true, then any strongly-supported theory is taken on "faith" ("evident demonstration" coming from the word "elegkhos" (as I mentioned before) which indicates testing or [/u]arguing[/u] to produce "proof"), while certainly not on blind belief or credulity.

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Mentat
So, what is the difference between accepting something on faith and accepting it on credulity, in your opinion?

Maybe I'm misusing the word, but the way I'm reading it is that credulity is the mental state that allows you to have faith. You don't accept an idea on credulity, you accept it because of credulity. Subtle, but there really is a difference.

The same amount of "proof" (not a very good word, under the circumstances, since nothing is ever really "proven" anyway) that assures us that the Jews were ever enslaved in Egypt, or that Columbus ever sailed across the ocean...written documents, three of which were by eye-witnesses (or, professed eye-witnesses anyway) and one was by a physician who had compiled information for some time after Jesus' death.

Proof is the right word - in this context, "proof" is synonomous with "evidence." There is a difference between "proof" and "proven" - very commonly overlooked though.

In any case, that's a false analogy because first, it assumes equal credibility for the sources of each, which clearly can't be assumed.

Second, the point of contention isn't that Jesus was a real person, but rather that he was the son of God. AFAIK, most historians do accept that Jesus was a real person - but that he was the son of God is not something that documents can provide evidence for.

Paul was the one who gave the definition I posted before: "Faith is the assured expectation of things hoped for, the evident demonstration of realities though not beheld."

So how is this different from the definition I posted? Thats just another way of saying belief without evidence ("realities" is the evidence, "not beheld" means you haven't seen it). And that is decidedly different from what you posted before: "assured expectation of things hoped for, based on testing and trial". Everything after the coma you changed to be the exact opposite of what Paul said!

I only mentioned credulity because it seemed you were equating the two (faith and credulity).

That still confuses me since I never used the word "credulity" until you brought it up. Like I said before, they are unrelated words. [edit: ok, you used the word in that first post where you suggested it as an alternative to "faith." Frankly, I didn't even see it. I wasn't saying anything at all about the definition of "credulity" - though I am now]

This point is really irrelevant though, since, if Paul's definition of faith holds true, then any strongly-supported theory is taken on "faith" ("evident demonstration" coming from the word "elegkhos" (as I mentioned before) which indicates testing or [/u]arguing[/u] to produce "proof"), while certainly not on blind belief or credulity.

I'm not sure if you are doing this on purpose or not, but it appears to me you are misrepresenting the words and their definitions. You misquoted Paul, put a word in my mouth I didn't use, and are attaching an definition from the entemology (that isn't in the dictionary I saw) for the purpose of changing the definition of the word.

Look, whether the definition has changed and been refined through history really isn't the point (though it appears to me it has not anyway). Under the current accepted definition, faith is belief without evidence. It just seems to me you don't like that definition and the associated stigma, so you are trying to suggest a substitute word and and definition.

 

[nautica]

Well, at least this did'nt turn into a religous thread.

Nautica

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by nautica
Well, at least this did'nt turn into a religous thread.

Nautica

Sorry I let myself get sucked into that and hijack the thread. Its a pet peve of mine.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by russ_watters
Proof is the right word - in this context, "proof" is synonomous with "evidence." There is a difference between "proof" and "proven" - very commonly overlooked though.

In any case, that's a false analogy because first, it assumes equal credibility for the sources of each, which clearly can't be assumed.

Equal credibility between which sources?

Second, the point of contention isn't that Jesus was a real person, but rather that he was the son of God. AFAIK, most historians do accept that Jesus was a real person - but that he was the son of God is not something that documents can provide evidence for.

Except when you consider the numerous prophecies (written by very different people, at very different times) that all pointed to the same person being born and baptized on the exact years that Jesus was born and baptized.

So how is this different from the definition I posted? Thats just another way of saying belief without evidence ("realities" is the evidence, "not beheld" means you haven't seen it). And that is decidedly different from what you posted before: "assured expectation of things hoped for, based on testing and trial".

Actually, I was working off a knowledge of the ancient Greek. The word for "evident demonstration" was elegkhos, which is exactly what would be used to say "experimentation" if science had existed then - and that same word was used for "trial" or "testing out".

That still confuses me since I never used the word "credulity" until you brought it up. Like I said before, they are unrelated words. [edit: ok, you used the word in that first post where you suggested it as an alternative to "faith." Frankly, I didn't even see it. I wasn't saying anything at all about the definition of "credulity" - though I am now] I'm not sure if you are doing this on purpose or not, but it appears to me you are misrepresenting the words and their definitions. You misquoted Paul, put a word in my mouth I didn't use, and are attaching an definition from the entemology (that isn't in the dictionary I saw) for the purpose of changing the definition of the word.

Not "changing" the definition, providing insight into the Greek word used...remember, please, that Paul never spoke English. In fact, it didn't exist then. He spoke the Greek, and used the Greek word elegkhos where he could have easily used some other word to denote blind faith.

Look, whether the definition has changed and been refined through history really isn't the point (though it appears to me it has not anyway). Under the current accepted definition, faith is belief without evidence. It just seems to me you don't like that definition and the associated stigma, so you are trying to suggest a substitute word and and definition.

Actually, I was presenting a reason to believe that that particular dictionary's definition was incorrect. The American Heritage dictionary gives a similar definition, but provides reference to its Appendix, wherein it is explained that the probable root of the word "faith" is in words that denoted both confidence and persuasion. "Persuasion", by that same dictionary, usually involves argument and reasoning.

Anyway, you may (of course) respond to all of this, and I would like to continue discussing it (perhaps by PM?), but will not respond on the religious side-track of this thread anymore - mostly my own fault, and I apologize for that - (it'll probably be locked anyway).

 

[selfAdjoint]

Except when you consider the numerous prophecies (written by very different people, at very different times) that all pointed to the same person being born and baptized on the exact years that Jesus was born and baptized.

If there are these "numerous" prophecies, you surely won't mind giving the text of three of them, with the "exact years" highlighted so we can all learn what year Jesus was born. Because this is something that is unkown to scholars, students, and theologians. But since all these different people at different times knew exactly when it was going to be and they all agree with each other, then we can just use their date.

 

[Nereid]

Originally posted by thunderfvck
ANd again.

Achaeopteryx was a fraud.
Did you know that?
http://www.chebucto.ns.ca/Environment/NHR/archaeopteryx.html

Note that this is the original archaeopteryx in the British Museum. Scientists replied:

SO, in perspective, some dudes decided to look at the archaeo and noticed there was something fishy about it. Tell me, people who are familiar with bones can often spot a fake fairly easily, why would they be wrong? They have experience, they've seen fossils before. I might be wrong here but it's worth mentioning.

ISn't this archaeo thing a fill in for the gap between reptiles and birds? Or is there some other explanation, besides archeao, that explain the evolution, I'd be interested.

If thunderfvck is still around ...
1) there's a awful lot more to the 'archaeo' story than is in the website (dated 1992) that you posted. "Bones of Contention" (Paul Chambers) is one book among several that discusses the 'forgery' claim, and other archaeo controversies. The BM's specimen is not a forgery.
2) there are quite a few archaeo specimens, including some found in the past decade. At least two have well preserved feather impressions; all are consistent with the BM's specimen.
3) so, yes, you are wrong here (about the forgery).
4) the dinosaur-reptile-bird story, and archaeo's role in it, is fascinating. Many key questions remain; much active research is going on; the peer-reviewed papers are there for you to read and critique. If you'd like, we could start a new thread here in Biology to discuss this.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by selfAdjoint
If there are these "numerous" prophecies, you surely won't mind giving the text of three of them, with the "exact years" highlighted so we can all learn what year Jesus was born. Because this is something that is unkown to scholars, students, and theologians. But since all these different people at different times knew exactly when it was going to be and they all agree with each other, then we can just use their date.

I over-stepped in saying there were "numerous" ones, as there is actually only one that points to the exact date, while there are many that point to events that would happen in his life-time. PM me for the one prophecy, if you wish to know, but, as I said, I don't think I should continue the religious side-track that I, unfortunately, started.

 

[Nereid]

Maybe this question will get this post locked ...

As I've learned, there are groups of christians (Christians?) who cannot accept the scientific work done on evolution - 'creationists' they seem to call themselves.

Are there similar groups within other major world religions, e.g. Judaism, Buddhism, Islam, Hinduism?

When Darwin's "Origin of Species" was published, what was the reaction of religious leaders among Hindus, Buddhists, etc?

 

[russ_watters]

Jews and Muslims read pretty much the same Old Testament as Christians, so the same creation story applies. Dunno about the two other major world religions though.

 

[Chemicalsuperfreak]

Originally posted by Nereid
Maybe this question will get this post locked ...

As I've learned, there are groups of christians (Christians?) who cannot accept the scientific work done on evolution - 'creationists' they seem to call themselves.

Are there similar groups within other major world religions, e.g. Judaism, Buddhism, Islam, Hinduism?

When Darwin's "Origin of Species" was published, what was the reaction of religious leaders among Hindus, Buddhists, etc?

The creationist movement is, except for a few fundamentalist muslim places like afghanistan, almost completely isolated to a few groups of american protestants who believe in the literal interpretation of the Bible. At least the parts that they like. There are a few wackos in western europe that have caught on, but there numbers are quite small compared to the US, where they are quite organized and in numerous instances have taken control of school boards in order to spread their ignorance. Can't remember the numbers but I think the majority, maybe plurality, of americans still believe that God created man in his present day form several thousand years ago. I think it was an AAAS poll.

This isn't to say that christianity is responsible. Most christians don't believe in creation, I think. The Vatican, for instance, has come out in favor of evolution. Albeit by divine hand.

Jews, I believe, are not typically biblical literalists, although ultra orthodox jews may believe in creation.

 

[Nereid]

Summary

This thread is now 21 pages long, and has >240 posts.

The answer to bunzun_1999's question (is evolution true?) seems to be:
+ YES, if evolution is defined as a change in allele frequencies with time (the dodo is extinct; its allele frequencies have changed)
+ YES, if evolution is defined in any way that allows the emergence of antibiotic resistance bacteria to be regarded as evolution
+ not answered*, if evolution is defined as incontrovertable speciations among multi-cellular organisms in the last ~200 years.

For some posters on this thread the real question isn't evolution, but the origin of life (or the universe), which is out of scope for this thread.

Other posters who feel that 'evolution is not true' seem to have not defined what they mean by evolution, so we have been unable to assess whether their feelings are consistent with observation or logic.

*Since the definition of 'species' is somewhat elastic, even for multi-cellular organisms, this may be unanswerable. However, IIRC, there was an experiment which produced a new species of fruit fly, in the sense that inter-breeding was no longer possible ('biological speciation'). And the peppered moth observations are the archetypical evidence of morphological speciation.

Comments?

[edits: typos corrected]

 

[nautica]

Originally posted by Nereid
This thread is now 21 pages long, and has >240 posts.

The answer to bunzun_1999's question (is evolution true?) seems to be:
+ YES, if evolution is defined as a change in allele frequencies with time (the dodo is extinct; it's allele frequencies have changed)
+ YES, if evolution is defined in any way that allows the emergence of antibiotic resistance bacteria to be regarded as evolution
+ not answered*, if evolution is defined as incontrovertable speciations among multi-cellular organisms in the last ~200 years.

For some posters o nthis thread the real question isn't evolution, but the origin of life (or the universe), which is out of scope for this thread.

Other posters who feel that 'evolution is not true' seem to have not defined what they mean by evolution, so we have been unable to assess whether their feelings are consistent with observation or logic.

*Since the definition of 'species' is somewhat elastic, even for multi-cellular organisms, this may be unanswerable. However, IIRC, there was an experiment which produced a new species of fruit fly, in the sense that inter-breeding was no longer possible ('biological speciation'). And the peppered moth observations are the archetypical evidence of morphological speciation.

Comments?

[edits: typos corrected]

Completely, agree.

Nautica

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Nereid
For some posters on this thread the real question isn't evolution, but the origin of life (or the universe), which is out of scope for this thread.

Important point - I find that most of the arguements against evolution are actually an attempt to argue about this point, which is not part of the scope of evolution.

 

[DonFelipe]

It seems that depsite the 240+ posts to this site no-one has picked up on the fatal flaw in initial question, choosing instead to get involved in this very tiresome evolution vs. creation debate.

Evolution is merely a model, (no doubt incomplete and in some ways flawed), it is certainly not a "fact" as someone stated several pages ago. It is a theory which allows us to make predictions (to some extent), and which seems to be supported by some of the experimental evidence mentioned in the various posts.

It is only a model, however, and if someone can comes up tomorrow with a theory that better fits the evidence, or provides greater predictive ability, then that would (hopefully) be adopted by the scientific establishment.

As such evolution can't be "true" - it is merely that it hasn't been disproved or superseded yet.

DF

 

[Phobos]

Kind of getting into semantics here. As has been stated many times (in these CvE debates, if not this thread), it's a fact that life evolves (changes over time) and the Theory of Evolution is the model that explains how it happens and what has been the history of it. The Theory is still being refined to this day (and will always be with the discovery of new fossils, etc.). We are more likely to see more refinement to the theory than to see a wholesale replacement of it, given the strong evidence supporting the current theory. But, sure, it's possible, if it can explain everything the current theory does (at least as well or better) and more.

 

[spuriousmonkey]

As such evolution can't be "true" - it is merely that it hasn't been disproved or superseded yet.

Why don't you give us a better model then.

And on a sidenote (I can smell a creationist here) creationism has been discarded as a model a 150 years ago. And no, it is not coming back.

 

[Euphoriet]

I saw this famous biologist on Tv once.. he studied slugs and he talked about how humans could be evolving with every generation... The program was part of the Tech Tv... does anyone know what I am talking about?

 

[Loren Booda]

Did this person (he or she) win the Nobel or other esteemed prize?

 

[spuriousmonkey]

Evolution does occur after each generation.

Each product of a single successful reproduction is another intermediary state on the evolutionary 'bush'


(no, I don't have a nobel prize)