Is There a Non-Religious Argument Against Evolution?

  • Thread starter Thread starter jamesb-uk
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Evolution
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers on the existence of non-religious arguments against the theory of evolution. Participants explore whether there are logically justifiable reasons to oppose evolution without invoking religious beliefs, and they examine the sufficiency of evidence supporting evolution as a scientific observation.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Exploratory
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants question the immediacy of evolutionary effects compared to observable phenomena like gravity, suggesting that the long timescales involved in evolution contribute to doubt.
  • Others argue that macro and micro evolution are not distinct processes, asserting that both are part of the same evolutionary framework and that evidence for evolution can be observed in shorter timeframes, such as antibiotic resistance in bacteria.
  • A participant suggests that the distinction between macro and micro evolution is a false dichotomy created by opponents of evolution to dismiss observable evidence.
  • There is a discussion about the motivations behind anti-evolution arguments, with some suggesting that non-religious opponents may base their views on social or political agendas rather than scientific reasoning.
  • One participant references Stephen Pinker's arguments regarding the implications of evolutionary theory on social ideologies, suggesting that some left-leaning individuals may oppose evolution due to its perceived conflict with their beliefs about human nature and equality.
  • Another participant expresses skepticism about the existence of logically justifiable, non-religious arguments against evolution, asserting that sufficient evidence supports its occurrence.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a range of views, with some asserting the validity of evolution and others questioning its acceptance based on various factors. There is no consensus on the existence of non-religious arguments against evolution, and multiple competing viewpoints remain present in the discussion.

Contextual Notes

Some claims rely on assumptions about the nature of evidence and the interpretation of evolutionary processes. The discussion includes references to social and political implications of evolutionary theory, which may influence participants' perspectives.

  • #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

Book Review: The Gene's-Eye View of Evolution
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
COVID Need to refine an argument against an (almost) anti-vaxxer
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
On evolution of humans and that of other animals: any discrepancy?
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
7K
The Evolution of Matter: A Result of Natural Selection?
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
4K
Not accepting something claimed by science
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
Graduate Clarification regarding argument in EPR paper
  • · Replies 58 ·
2
Replies
58
Views
4K
What are the strongest arguments for evolution?
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
Scientifc method, hypotheses and prediction testing
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
6K
Undergrad Does Kerr's argument against singularities apply to all black holes?
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
Is Evolutionary Theory Undermined by Creationist Claims?
  • · Replies 266 ·
9
Replies
266
Views
31K