Is Evolutionary Theory Undermined by Creationist Claims?

[Evo]

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

Religious Discussion Guidelines:
Discussions that assert the a priori truth or falsity of religious dogmas and belief systems, or value judgments stemming from such religious belief systems, will not be tolerated. As a rule of thumb, some topics pertaining to religion might be permissible if they are discussed in such a way so as to remain neutral on the truth of, or value judgments stemming from, religious belief systems. However, it is essential to use good judgment whenever discussing religious matters to ensure that the discussion does not degenerate into a messy dispute. If in doubt, err on the side of caution.

 

[mgb_phys]

explain the perfection of complex biological structures such as the eye. This is actually an old argument that predates the theory of evolution. "You can't have only half a mouse trap."

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.

 

[Sorry!]

There is a great video on youtube... I'll go look for it.

Firstly though that article is attackin ABIOGENESIS not evolution. Most creationists that I know accept evolution but not speciation...

Anyways back to that video I read one post about a bike in a box and shake it all around.

First things first the bike is non-living and non-replicating. The video I'm going to look for is about a watch in a box. But the watches are able to reproduce. They were given the parts of the watch (which were quiet a few) and allowed to randomly join together. Evolutionary perssure was put to tell time more accurately. Every time that the simulation ran the thing that were formed were amazing. The gears would get together with a stick and create a pendulum... then they had hands... then more hands... and more... It was pretty amazing to see actually. :P


Here it is:

 

[Hel]

Why couldn't a sense of beauty have evolved? Maybe it's a side effect of pattern recognition. Who knows. In any case saying "God did it" is not a better explanation.

It's something that doesn't have a definitive answer and therefore people use it as an argument. People are curious and want to know why. So far no research has been done about this--it's rather abstract to begin with. Science says to make observations and form a hypothesis... to investigate when you ask "why". It irritates me the way a lot of people don't bother with investigating and just point to a the bible.

I think your problem with Haldane is interesting but it certainly puts intelligent design back to a primordial beginning and actually allows for evolution to occur. I suppose you could say that intelligent design is intermittent in evolution - God periodically intervenes to guide certain species or environments down a path of his own selection. These ideas befuddle me a little since I would wonder why God wouldn't like Jerry Rubin "just do it!" It seems that this really argues against intelligent design - it leaves diversity to evolution and explains nothing.

Intelligent design is interesting, and complies with religions other than Christianity (e.g. scientology.) but as I pointed out with Crick's idea, it only moves the issues elsewhere. How did that intelligent designer come to be? Not even the Bible has an answer to that. I don't see intelligent design so much as a theory, but rather a classification that encompasses a lot of different theories. And while it works for people who have religious beliefs and can reconcile themselves with the idea that something intelligent has always existed, it doesn't work for people who want to know about the origin of everything.

In short, it isn't science.

Never said it was. It's a classification. Apologies if it seemed as though I was presenting it as science. Was just explaining the premise.

Firstly though that article is attackin ABIOGENESIS not evolution. Most creationists that I know accept evolution but not speciation...

Really? Most creationists who know what they're talking about that I know accept speciation. It's something we've observed in things like squirrels. Creationists who don't accept speciation have a hard time explaining how all the animals fit on the ark.

The eye? I dunno... I get more overwhelmed with the complexity of a cell than the eye. If you told me to draw a diagram of the eye and label all the components and their functions, I could do it easily. If you told me to do the same for a eukaryotic cell, I'd just look at you in horror.

In any case, I don't see the question of "Where did we come from?" as all that big of a question, since it doesn't really matter, nor will it affect my life in any huge way. My priorities are much more simplistic: what will I eat for lunch? What will I do to get an A in O. Chem when I don't like Chemistry that much? When do I have to wake up tomorrow? (Or, alternately, I'm a control freak and have taught myself not to care about things I can't control.)
Mostly I discuss like this because I'm curious about what different people think.

So if I say something, it's probably not something I feel strongly about. Feel free to point out all the inconsistencies and falsehoods.

 

[Evo]

Some say that it doesn't make sense that we would place value in beauty if we evolved.
Creationists argue that beauty is something we appreciate because a creator instilled it in us.

This is both off topic and religious. Not allowed, don't let it happen again.

I may be pruning some posts from this thread later to bring it line, so if your posts disappear, you know why.

 

[Moonbear]

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.

 

[wofsy]

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.

 

[byronm]

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.

 

[wofsy]

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.

 

[Cyrus]

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.

 

[byronm]

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 :)

 

[rootX]

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 ...

 

[byronm]

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.

 

[byronm]

find something better to spend your time on ...

agreed.. if you love science, don't waste your passion on creationism :)

 

[wofsy]

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.

 

[hover]

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

 

[byronm]

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.

 

[wofsy]

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?

 

[byronm]

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?

 

[Cyrus]

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?

 

[aPhilosopher]

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.

 

[Cryptonic]

i am a christian as well, but i am also a logical thinker.

lol!

 

[byronm]

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!)

 

[mgb_phys]

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 ;-)

 

[aPhilosopher]

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!"

 

[rootX]

... 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 :)

 

[junglebeast]

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.

 

[aPhilosopher]

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?

 

[rootX]

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)

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

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.