Is There a Non-Religious Argument Against Evolution?

  • Thread starter Thread starter jamesb-uk
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Evolution
Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the validity of evolution, particularly addressing the distinction between microevolution and macroevolution. Participants argue that there is no logically justifiable, non-religious basis to oppose evolution, asserting that sufficient evidence supports its occurrence as a scientific fact. The difficulty in observing macroevolution over human lifetimes leads to skepticism, but this skepticism is often unfounded as both forms of evolution share the same biological processes. Some oppose evolution for non-religious reasons, often linked to political ideologies, but these arguments are also seen as invalid. Overall, the consensus is that evolution is a well-supported theory that should not be doubted.
  • #31
"Our entire discussion over whether or not macroevolution is 'true' is moot if that information can't be used to make verifiable predictions about what is likely to occur next."

thats a red herring and the general problem with people pontificating outside their area of expertise. Climatology cannot tell us whether it will rain next week, but that does not make it invalid. Evolution makes testable predictions about what one expects to find in nature - for example a large number of new species in an ecosystem that has been isolated for a long period of time (i.e. Australia or the Galapagos islands). The very concept of a discrete species is a relic of Platonism and the reality is much more complex. Talkorgins has a long list of speciation events, which you are free to discount to your liking:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

Evolution is an entirely adequate theory to understand biology even if all its mechanisms are not fully understood (and perhaps ultimately unknowable).
 
Biology news on Phys.org
  • #32
JazzFusion said:
@ BoomBoom (you posted your response while I was still typing this one): Lack of a viable alternative theory does not prove the adequacy of the current theory. For over a millenium, the Ptolemaic model of the solar system was the only game in town. If you desire to confirm your model as correct, you need to make a prediction a priori and then demonstrate its validity (hence the suggestions about fruit flies, or even computer models).

Well, the OP was asking about if there were any viable non-religious alternatives to evolution. In its rawest of forms, evolution is the concept of new species emerging from other related species through adaptation over time. This concept cannot logically be denied, as the only other alternative is that they just appeared out of nowhere...which IMO is utterly ridiculous.

The intracacies and details of how genetic information is expressed is a very active field in biology right now. The whole system is incredibly complex and there is much to be learned. Computer models have been and are being developed. The specific answers are on the horizon and new discoveries are made all the time.

I'm sure some "mad scientist" could create a new life form in the lab right now (ethics be damned)...but that wouldn't be "proof", although for some reason you seem to think it would be? :rolleyes:
 
  • #33
Creationist: I think the world is 6000 years old.

Scientist (laughing): HA! Nice one! Did you just write a fantasy novel or something?

Creationist: I'm SERIOUS. The world is 6000 years old. Look at all this evidence...blah blah blah blah blah...

Scientist: Um, yeah. Alright then, there's radioactive material that decays at a known rate. Based on how much of this material is left in rocks, we can tell the Earth is definitely billions of years old.

Creationist: But look! This one guy managed to screw up while using radiometric dating. Surely that means every measurement made using every radiometric dating method is wrong?

Scientist: OK then, our tree ring records extend back further than 6000 years. Fossils take millions of years to form. So do stars and planets; just look at how slowly that solar system over there is forming.

Creationist: No, the solar system was created in one day. It says so right here in this two-thousand-year-old book.

Scientist: What book? Let me see that...
So it says here that God made everything in seven days, and then...
Look, what would make you believe the universe wasn't created in 7 days? What kind of evidence?

Creationist: Nothing, except traveling back in time.

Scientist: OK then, I'll take you back in time. Look at those distant galaxies. That's what the universe looked like billions of years before. Look at the cosmic microwave background; that was emitted 400 000 years after the Big Bang. All of this fits perfectly with Big Bang cosmology.

Creationist: But Big Bang is a theory, and...
Scientist: OK, I give up.

Creationist (to another person): Hey, did you know everything scientists told you is a big lie? The Big Bang? Come on.

Layman: I'm listening...

Creationist: Well, there are many problems with...blah blah blah...
Layman: Well, I guess I should keep an open mind.
 
  • #34
Locked pending moderation.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
14
Views
7K
  • · Replies 58 ·
2
Replies
58
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
7K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
5K
  • · Replies 45 ·
2
Replies
45
Views
2K