Is Evolutionary Theory Undermined by Creationist Claims?

  • Thread starter Daneel_Olivaw
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Evolution
In summary, your friend sent you an article from the website drdino.com, claiming that it disproves the theory of evolution. However, after researching and reading responses from other biologists, you discovered that the claims made in the article have been refuted by evolutionists. You also found that the article confuses the theory of evolution with the origin of life, which are two separate concepts. Furthermore, you explained that Louis Pasteur's experiments did not test the origin of life, but rather showed that microorganisms in the air can contaminate sterile solutions. The validity of the theory of evolution is not dependent on man's ability to create living cells, and the Miller-Urey experiment has also been refuted. In addition, you
  • #36
fawk3s said:
help me God..
did i say that evolution works like that? it was just an example of how small the chance of that complex organism creation was.

plus, who said one shake would construct the bike?

alot of ppl trying to make themselves so smart, yet still failing in the end..

Unfortunately, your attempts at explanation are part of the problem. There are a lot of people who "trust" that evolution is correct, but do not fully understand it, so in their attempts at defending it, only help spread misconceptions that provide more fuel for the creationists.

Rather than having a whole box of bicycle parts, imagine having a big box of random parts. With a lot of shaking, two stick together. Then something happens, the box falls apart, and those two pieces have a particular shape that allows them to bounce furthest down a hill and land in another box of random parts. After a long time of shaking, another piece sticks on. As that box falls apart and they all bounce around, one of the first pieces falls back off. They land in some other box, pick up another piece, etc. There's no advance plan that all the pieces of a bicycle are present, and no advanced requirement that they must all stick together. In fact, with a lot of random shaking and sticking and unsticking, you may never get a bicycle, but some other object. This is another problem, that people only look at existing species that were successful and assume evolution leads in a particular direction, always improving upon things. They forget that there is a huge evolutionary junk pile too, things that didn't work that quickly died off, never leaving an imprint on the fossil record. If you have any doubt of that, ask any geneticist about lethal mutations.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #37
mgb_phys said:
The eye isn't perfect it's crap.

It has a very limited wavelength range, can't change focal length (zoom) doesn't measure polarization, has high resolution only over a small area, has a blind spot bigger than this area, can't handle low/high light levels...

Compared to the eye we might evolve in another few million ears - it's only half an eye.

Well my eye doctor would agree with you but I think you beg the question.
 
  • #38
Intelligent Design is just a re-branding of Creationism, plain and simple. Creationism is make-believe notions that some people instill to try and justify their "absolute truths" in that everything god says is truth and the book of genesis is the truth. There is absolutely NO science in creationism and its a sad state of modern affairs that people are gullible enough to think Intelligent Design is anything but a modern re-frame of the Creationism debate.
 
  • #39
Evo said:
Due to the lack of science, this is moved to GD. Remember, Intelligent Design/Creationism is religion, so don't present it as a scientific explanation, it is faith based. Please read the rules on religious discussion to make sure this doesn't end up locked for that reason.

Guidelines

The question of whether one requires a notion of design in Nature is old and was and still is accepted by many scientists. It is not invalid to discuss its merits. I think you are making a value judgement. in the Evolution course I took it was discussed on its scientific merits and we found the arguments instructive and it helped us to understand Evolution better.
 
Last edited:
  • #40
wofsy said:
The question of whether one requires a notion of design in Nature is old and was and still is accepted by many scientists. It is not invalid to discuss its merits. I think you are making a value judgement.

Um, no. You are wrong.
 
  • #41
Moonbear said:
Unfortunately, your attempts at explanation are part of the problem. There are a lot of people who "trust" that evolution is correct, but do not fully understand it, so in their attempts at defending it, only help spread misconceptions that provide more fuel for the creationists.

There is nothing you can provide to creationists to provide "more fuel". They don't understand science period. Creationism is an extension of their faith and they can't separate fact from fiction when it comes to them being told that creationism or genesis is the absolute truth as part of their faith.

In science we hold our theories as truths because we can test them, we can apply the scientific method to reproduce, validate and confirm our findings. Creationism has NONE of that and thrives entirely off the debate of complexity.

The burden of proof is on creationists to prove creationism. They love to shoot the messenger and debunk the person but they fail miserably at the fact that ad-hominim debate is NOT science.

However.. their style of attacks is what created our modern political atmosphere so they're using that same divisive tactic to try and kill our scientific community.. thankfully scientists think with their heads :)
 
  • #42
Daneel_Olivaw said:
I ha...
Anyway, thanks in advance. I'd be really grateful if you guys can help me out here.

find something better to spend your time on ...
 
  • #43
wofsy said:
The question of whether one requires a notion of design in Nature is old and was and still is accepted by many scientists. It is not invalid to discuss its merits.

Not true at all. Design implies creator and there is no science to that.
 
  • #44
rootX said:
find something better to spend your time on ...

agreed.. if you love science, don't waste your passion on creationism :)
 
  • #45
byronm said:
Not true at all. Design implies creator and there is no science to that.

In my opinion design does not require a creator. It can be rigorously defined and tested for. Scientists generally think today - and I think they are sometimes surprised by this - that no evidence for design exists. But no true scientist would ever deny the possibility.
 
Last edited:
  • #46
Don't even bother arguing with a creationist because they don't care about the science no matter how right the science might be. ID and creationism are the same thing and what they say is that some intelligent creator placed animals on the earth. The problem is that they have no proof of it so in the scientific community the "theory" gets ditched right there. What creationists try to do next is try to prove evolution wrong with the idea being that if evolution is proved wrong then the only other "theory" left is ID. The problem for creationists is that there is a ton of evidence for evolution and absolutely none for ID. Its just amazing though how illogical creationists can be. I think you should watch this playlist I found on youtube titled "Why do people laugh at creationists?".

http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=AC3481305829426D
 
  • #47
wofsy said:
In my opinion design does not require a creator. It can be rigorously defined and tested for. Scientists generally think today - and think they are somtimes surpirsed bu this - that no evidence for design exists. But no true scientist would ever deny the possibility.

I'm not sure what you're getting at here. If you want to change the definition of design then by all means evolution is by design. The forces of nature were in essence the creator and not some supreme being. However in the debate of creationism vs evolution design implies a creator.

The scientific truth is that evolution has designed the creatures but design isn't the science of evolution but rather the result thereof.
 
  • #48
byronm said:
I'm not sure what you're getting at here. If you want to change the definition of design then by all means evolution is by design. The forces of nature were in essence the creator and not some supreme being. However in the debate of creationism vs evolution design implies a creator.

The scientific truth is that evolution has designed the creatures but design isn't the science of evolution but rather the result thereof.

I do not mean that. I am just saying that design is a well defined concept and can be tested for. There is no need to hypothesize a Creator. Design is different from natural selection of random mutation but does not exclude it as one of the active mechanisms. A lot of Evolutionists would agree that pure random mutation as the only force in Evolution is probably wrong.
For instance would selective breeding of animals be an example of design or of just random mutation selecting for advantageous traits in the environment? Could one deduce design let's say of golden retrievers from some earlier breed of dog purely from the evolution of the breed?
 
  • #49
wofsy said:
I do not mean that. I am just saying that design is a well defined concept and can be tested for. There is no need to hypothesize a Creator. Design is different from natural selection of random mutation but does not exclude it as one of the active mechanisms. A lot of Evolutionists would agree that pure random mutation as the only force in Evolution is probably wrong.

Call me hard headed but i still don't get what you're trying to say. What can be scientifically tested about design? This is a debate of ID vs Evolution, not the purpose of a heart vs the purpose of the brain if you're trying to use the word "Design" as a particular use for something.

Why also describe mutation as something random? what's the point of calling it random as if to say there is another word to describe that mutation that isn't evolution?
 
  • #50
byronm said:
The scientific truth is that evolution has designed the creatures but design isn't the science of evolution but rather the result thereof.

What ........are you making things up as you type?
 
  • #51
DavidSnider said:
Creationism explains nothing. There is no evidence for it whatsoever. It can't be falsified. It is not science. This entire paragraph you wrote is nothing but speculation.

I have to disagree with this. Creationism is science! It's a scientific statement that makes falsifiable predictions. For example, It predicts that we would not find intermediary fossils. Some forms of it predict that we would not find rocks older than 6000 years. It predicts that there should be no ordering of the fossil record.

Of course these have all been falsified so it's not good science but it is science.
 
  • #52
sassa said:
i am a christian as well, but i am also a logical thinker.

lol!
 
  • #53
aPhilosopher said:
I have to disagree with this. Creationism is science! It's a scientific statement that makes falsifiable predictions. For example, It predicts that we would not find intermediary fossils. Some forms of it predict that we would not find rocks older than 6000 years. It predicts that there should be no ordering of the fossil record.

Of course these have all been falsified so it's not good science but it is science.

hahaha

actually what you just said proves it isn't science :)

science - systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation

Creationism has no experimentation and obviously would collapse on itself if it were observable. (i see god!)
 
  • #54
aPhilosopher said:
Of course these have all been falsified so it's not good science but it is science.
It also predicts that god put those artifacts there to test our faith - you believed in them so it passed but you failed ;-)
 
  • #55
byronm said:
science - systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation

I was wrong to say it's science if that's the definition that you want to use. It is a scientific statement because it is falsifiable and has been falsified.

At least that's the justification that I use when asked in religious forums why I come there to debate it. I just say, "Stop talking about science and I'll go away! You're the one that started talking about science, not me!"
 
  • #56
Sassa said:
... yet you wouldn't say that we evolved from every other creature on the planet. Our similarities are due to the fact that God, in a sense, recycles. Everything is created with all that it needs to function properly and live off the land we are given.

Interesting post. I din't know god recycles - he must be really short on things. I would like to work for god if he hires people for helping him in creating organisms :)
 
  • #57
aPhilosopher said:
I have to disagree with this. Creationism is science! It's a scientific statement that makes falsifiable predictions. For example, It predicts that we would not find intermediary fossils. Some forms of it predict that we would not find rocks older than 6000 years. It predicts that there should be no ordering of the fossil record.

Of course these have all been falsified so it's not good science but it is science.

I guess in your opinion, "scientific" simply means "falsifiable" ? Guess again.
 
  • #58
junglebeast said:
I guess in your opinion, "scientific" simply means "falsifiable" ? Guess again.

I favor this definition because it seems to require the least amount of subjectiveness

"science - systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation"

The above is a pretty typical definition of science. Define systematic and knowledge in a clear cut way that's not open to interpretation. Falsifiable is easy and basic. I give a collection of numbers, the experimenter gives me a collection of numbers back. If the numbers match, I have a good theory and we're going to have to try harder to break it.

The above definition is then an emergent property of any series of collections of falsifiable statements when subjected to extended testing. Is there a problem with this other than that it rules out things like psychology which shouldn't properly be called a science anyway?
 
  • #59
aPhilosopher said:
I favor this definition because it seems to require the least amount of subjectiveness

"science - systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation"

The above is a pretty typical definition of science. Define systematic and knowledge in a clear cut way that's not open to interpretation. Falsifiable is easy and basic. I give a collection of numbers, the experimenter gives me a collection of numbers back. If the numbers match, I have a good theory and we're going to have to try harder to break it.

The above definition is then an emergent property of any series of collections of falsifiable statements when subjected to extended testing. Is there a problem with this other than that it rules out things like psychology which shouldn't properly be called a science anyway?

Creationism is not science. It is nonsense. (PERIOD)
 
  • #60
byronm said:
Not true at all. Design implies creator and there is no science to that.

Wofsy is right. The idea of 'Intelligent Design' has been around for a long time. Creationists may have stolen the idea and tried to make it their own but that does not mean that ID is nothing but creationism.

Also I have seen (and unfortunately can no longer find) actual scientific papers promoting an ID interpretation of the evolution of certain organisms. They weren't very good, but it goes to show that there are people who actually take ID seriously and attempt to show it scientifically.

Lastly, ID does not require nor infer a creator. ID, at its base, believes that there is an orderly fashion and seeming impetus behind evolution that does not seem to be adequately explained by natural selection. I have in fact seen versions of ID that suggest an intelligence inherent in the system, something like an organic neural net process which actively seeks to adapt and improve itself. Some people see horizontal gene swapping as possible evidence of this, or at least that there are possibly other factors which have been involved in evolution other than just natural selection. Unfortunately, from what I have read, such ideas are sometimes poorly received due to knee jerk reactions to anything suggesting natural selection is not the be all and end all of evolution.
 
  • #61
rootX said:
Creationism is not science. It is nonsense. (PERIOD)

That depends on how we define science though! I think it is nonsense. No self respecting scientist would believe in it but it is still falsifiable. I was just tossing it out there as it's a funny excuse to use when debating creationists on there home ground. I am keen on my definition of science though.

TheStatutoryApe said:
Wofsy is right. The idea of 'Intelligent Design' has been around for a long time. Creationists may have stolen the idea and tried to make it their own but that does not mean that ID is nothing but creationism.

Unless there is a way to distinguish ID from the result of natural selection, there is no way that that can be considered science. And apparently, I have a pretty liberal definition of science ;).

TheStatutoryApe said:
Also I have seen (and unfortunately can no longer find) actual scientific papers promoting an ID interpretation of the evolution of certain organisms. They weren't very good, but it goes to show that there are people who actually take ID seriously and attempt to show it scientifically.

Do you recall if they made any falsifiable statements?

TheStatutoryApe said:
I have in fact seen versions of ID that suggest an intelligence inherent in the system, something like an organic neural net process which actively seeks to adapt and improve itself. Some people see horizontal gene swapping as possible evidence of this, or at least that there are possibly other factors which have been involved in evolution other than just natural selection. Unfortunately, from what I have read, such ideas are sometimes poorly received due to knee jerk reactions to anything suggesting natural selection is not the be all and end all of evolution.

I can't speak to the first part, but that is changing. Horizontal gene transmission of genetic information fits in perfectly with the selfish replicator view of natural selection. They're good at getting copies of themselves made, so there are more of them. Genetic drift also plays a role in speciation.

The main problem with investigating other mechanisms, and any scientist would be remiss not to consider the possibility, is that there is this constant back biting from the creationists so that the biologists feel the need to "close ranks" and get god out of it all together. Then science can go on. That's my take on it at least.
 
  • #62
byronm said:
Call me hard headed but i still don't get what you're trying to say. What can be scientifically tested about design? This is a debate of ID vs Evolution, not the purpose of a heart vs the purpose of the brain if you're trying to use the word "Design" as a particular use for something.

Why also describe mutation as something random? what's the point of calling it random as if to say there is another word to describe that mutation that isn't evolution?

well I'm not really sure but take the breeding of a dog species. this is evolution by design. Maybe we could detect this in the sequence of breed intermediates and the time that it took for the evolution to take place and maybe some consideration of the environmental constraints (without knowing there is a human hand) and maybe even in the genetic changes?
This would then be an example of an experiment where design could be detected.
 
  • #63
Why does everyone assume Creationism and Evolution are mutually exclusive?

Earth could just be an alien petri dish. Where did they come from you ask?:rolleyes: -> Ok, now we can resume the debate.
 
  • #64
WhoWee said:
Why does everyone assume Creationism and Evolution are mutually exclusive?

Earth could just be an alien petri dish. Where did they come from you ask?:rolleyes: -> Ok, now we can resume the debate.

the theory of evolution as generally laid out does not use creation as a parameter.
 
  • #65
fawk3s said:
my biology teacher always used to tell us that if you put loose parts of bicycle in a box, and shake it however long you want, you will never get a true, working bicycle.
while most of it is true, i do believe that there's a small chance for it.

evolution took a veery long time, so the universe had a really long time to shake that box.
while you can't prove that there is or isn't a God, i tend to believe life came from non-life. but this evolutionist-creationist bs is quite confusing. all i know is that everything happened and happens for a reason.

You should have told him: "and you can wait for an eternity for a fully functioning bike to appear out of thin air by some god's creative hand, and it will never happen.."

what would you bet your money on? shaking the box till a bike forms, or waiting for matter and energy to be created from nowhere in the form of a fully functioning bike? I think we all know what the obvious answer to this is...:P
 
  • #66
WhoWee said:
Earth could just be an alien petri dish. Where did they come from you ask?:rolleyes: -> Ok, now we can resume the debate.


Well, obviously the aliens must have been created by God, right? :wink:
 
  • #67
aPhilosopher said:
Unless there is a way to distinguish ID from the result of natural selection, there is no way that that can be considered science. And apparently, I have a pretty liberal definition of science ;).

I'm not really defending ID. It just seems that people like to bash ideas without knowing much about them (kinda like creationists) and it does not endear them to anyone but those that agree with them. If one really dislikes ignorance and lack of understanding then one really ought to seek to understand what they argue against and communicate effectively. If all one can do is make insulting comments about other people's beliefs one has no room to complain about said people not coming around or making insulting comments themselves.


This isn't directed at you by the way. These things just irk me when ever we have threads like this.
 
  • #68
physics_head said:
You should have told him: "and you can wait for an eternity for a fully functioning bike to appear out of thin air by some god's creative hand, and it will never happen.."

what would you bet your money on? shaking the box till a bike forms, or waiting for matter and energy to be created from nowhere in the form of a fully functioning bike? I think we all know what the obvious answer to this is...:P

Natural selection takes the pure randomness out of evolution. The randomness really only occurs in point mutations. It is not just like shaking a box. The example of shaking bicycle parts while true in itself is not an apt analogy for evolution.
 
  • #69
wofsy said:
well I'm not really sure but take the breeding of a dog species. this is evolution by design. Maybe we could detect this in the sequence of breed intermediates and the time that it took for the evolution to take place and maybe some consideration of the environmental constraints (without knowing there is a human hand) and maybe even in the genetic changes?
This would then be an example of an experiment where design could be detected.
The thing is that I don't think it's possible to consider environmental constraints without knowing the human hand is present in it. We shape their environment almost completely. Or do you mean something else?

Even in this case, it wouldn't be sufficient to show that a designer exists; only that a new mechanism of evolution is necessary. Evolution can happen pretty quickly as well. The http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/04/080417112433.htm" are two recent examples of this.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #70
aPhilosopher said:
The thing is that I don't think it's possible to consider environmental constraints without knowing the human hand is present in it. We shape their environment almost completely. Or do you mean something else?

Even in this case, it wouldn't be sufficient to show that a designer exists; only that a new mechanism of evolution is necessary. Evolution can happen pretty quickly as well. The http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/04/080417112433.htm" are two examples of this.

I agree with you. But I am trying to define design not as a creator but as a distinct process that can be detected through experiment.

You objection on environmental constraints I can see but maybe if you knew that the dogs had no natural predators or that the environment did not exhibit a selective pressure for a shaggy coat and a few other things like this you might suspect that natural selection was not following its usual course.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Similar threads

Replies
14
Views
1K
  • General Discussion
Replies
16
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
47
Views
4K
Replies
6
Views
920
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • General Discussion
2
Replies
66
Views
16K
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • Biology and Medical
Replies
7
Views
8K
Replies
4
Views
3K
Back
Top