Sarah's Question: How Were We Created?

[Phobos]

I once heard an interview of a renowned biologist. He exlaimed that the formation of even an RNA spontanously is as impossible as the formation of a boing 777 from a junk yard full of scarp metal

That's a strawman argument. Evolutionary biologists are not saying that RNA formed from 1 sudden random event.

 

[Phobos]

I have to disagree that there are more factual arguments on either side of this debate. People's stance on this is largely determined by their worldview (whether the world is naturalistic or that there are forces outside of nature). Once people have set their minds on this matter, it's very difficult to get them to change b/c there are simply aren't slam-dunk facts on either sides. Naturalists invoke time and survival mechanisms whenever they are at a loss to explain something and Creationists invoke God to fill their gaps.

Worldview is certainly a big factor in the debate. However, the theory of evolution is based on a lot of scientific evidence, with the uncertainties outlined for review. Creationism (as previously noted) tries to poke holes in the scientific evidence in order to convince people to accept the alternative of divine creation. There's very little in the way of creationist scientific research.

I probably shouldn't only compare extreme viewpoints...it's worth noting that there is a spectrum of beliefs, including theistic (God-directed) evolution.

 

[misskitty]

Doesn't it seem as though those gaps are being made smaller and smaller by naturalists? Sure, for now creationists have some thread to hang by, but doesn't there seem to be a trend here?
Zeal is not a bad thing, maybe I'm wrong but I equate being zealous with being passionate. On the other hand, any person of science would be wrong to say that there is zero chance for a theory they support to be wrong, but this is common practice among creationists. Science is provisional even if some peoples beliefs are not.

Just for clarification:

Zeal: eagarness and ardent interest in pursuit of something.
Zealous: filled with or characterized by zeal.

Passionate: capable of, affected by, or expressing intense feeling.

Either zeal or passionate could be used as a descriptor in the scenario that you mentioned. You're right that zeal in small amounts isn't too bad. However there are some pretty zealous/passionate people out there.

It does seem like some of these gaps are being filled by Naturalists. So the longer the argument goes on the more technical it gets. The Creationist argument is getting harder to stand by, but I don't think that its a thread that will be easily severed. No matter how much evidence is presented against it.

I agree that it would be wrong for any person in science to say that there is no chance for their theory, whatever it may be, to be wrong. Its part of what science is about. Hypothesizing and then trying to prove it. If its wrong, then its wrong. You go back to the drawing board and try again.

Now we haven't really seen this in Creationism vs. Evolution, because how could you prove the Bible to be wrong? I'm not saying that people aren't trying or that it can't be done, its just that no one has been able to do it yet. I think part of the problem might be that there isn't any absolute concrete evidence to hold against the Bible and say this is right and the Bible is wrong and now we have proof of that. Again, I'm not saying that it can't be done.

An interesting thing I had heard from someone was, most people who set out against proving the Bible wrong end up finding more evidenc to support it and then they believe it. Now I don't know if that's true or not, or if it has any relvence to this topic. I thought it was an interesting thing to put out though.

 

[misskitty]

Worldview is certainly a big factor in the debate. However, the theory of evolution is based on a lot of scientific evidence, with the uncertainties outlined for review. Creationism (as previously noted) tries to poke holes in the scientific evidence in order to convince people to accept the alternative of divine creation. There's very little in the way of creationist scientific research.

This is very true and I do agree with it. I don't really think that we will see a lot of Creationist Sceintific evidence though. I could be wrong, but I still think that its unlikely. The opposite could also be said; Scientific research tries to poke holes in the idea of Creationism. So its a two way street.

 

[Phobos]

These machines are so incredibly and irreducibly complex that it befuddles the mind how these things could have evolved by natural selection.
...
There are numerous systems in biology which are highly complicated and cannot be made simpler than they already are.

Name one thing in biology that has been shown to be irreduceably complex. There are some claims (from Michael Behe, etc.) but many times the examples are refuted by examples of simpler features. Granted, evolutionary biology has not identified exactly how each biological feature first developed, but that's a long way from saying it's impossible.

But how do you select out molecular systems which have 40-50 components whose functions requires every one of those parts be in place and working fluidly together. How do select out for components that have no apparent function and only have function when there are 50 other components in place?

Exaptation. Evolution often borrows from existing (functional/neutral) features and adapts them to new uses. Also, many features can have more than one function, which allows for flexibility in adaptations.

The evolutionists have their arguments and explanations- but I believe those rise from their supreme confidence in naturalism. Even if they discover their particular explanations to be wrong, they would just revise them because they are all working under the assumption that the natural world is it. In the end it comes down to, do you believe in naturalism or do you believe there's more than nature because there are so many things we just simply do not know at this point.

As you later say, science is supposed to update/correct explanations when new evidence comes in.

A scientific explanation can't invoke a supernatural cause unless there was scientific evidence for it. It may be a philosophical bias that science looks for natural explanations, but by the same token, scientific explanations do not say the supernatural is impossible.

I know plenty of religious people who believe in evolution.

An indication that evolution is not anti-religion.

But I have yet to meet a non-religious person who believes in creationism.

How can they?

Creationists cannot because their theories is clearly laid out in the scripture. Any revising of that theory really violates the fundamental principles of the scripture itself.

I'd say that scripture is not clear on matters of science (it may say "X happened" but it does not say how). I'd also note that scripture has been revised many times (e.g., contributions of multiple authors recording long-time oral traditions, the inclusion/exclusion of particular books/writings, various translations, etc.)

 

[loseyourname]

Nowhere did I say the formation of 1st organism is part of macroevolution. I simply stated that most evolutionists cannot account for the 1st organism because this thread is about human creation. If you are an evolutionist but believe the first organism was created by a higher being then I'm not inclined to debate you because we're really on the same side of this debate.

What reason do I have to hold a belief either way? The evidence in existence suggests strongly that the first organism came about through chance events, but that evidence is hardly conclusive. If you want to believe otherwise, I have no reason to argue with you. Neither of us is going to present a very compelling case. To be honest, I don't really care. Evolutionary theory has important and broad-reaching implications, and for that, it matters to me that it is a correct theory. Once accepted, we have a general framework in which we can solve a great many additional vexing problems, including some of biology's most difficult - those of animal behavior. Abiogenesis has no such implications. Whether that first organism was created or came about by chance doesn't matter. Either way, the world we live in and how we can explain it remains the same.

 

[noobie]

Evolutionary theory has important and broad-reaching implications, and for that, it matters to me that it is a correct theory. Once accepted, we have a general framework in which we can solve a great many additional vexing problems, including some of biology's most difficult - those of animal behavior. Abiogenesis has no such implications. Whether that first organism was created or came about by chance doesn't matter. Either way, the world we live in and how we can explain it remains the same.

Fair enough. I don't study biology so I don't really have any idea how evolutionary theory can help solve animal behavior problems. I study biophysics, namely thermodynamics and the structure and function of biomolecules. So for me, abiogenesis is important for the same reason that people are trying to engineer new molecules with novel structure/functions. There are tons of researchers today who are interested in the self-organization and self-assembly of molecules. I can't deny the far-reaching ramifications of the theory of evolution. But I think it's still up for debate whether or not it's the correct theory. I believe naturalists will still be naturalists even if their theory is disproven (most likely a different new theory will replace evolution) just as most creationists will still believe in a higher being even if creationism is disproven. But from what I have seen, evolution is still a theory along the ranks of Big Bang. Maybe that's the way things happened but it's a big if.

 

[Evo]

I listened to the radio program 'Truths That Transform' with Rev. Dr. D. James Kennedy at lunchtime yesterday. He claims that Stephen Jay Gould (now deceased) himself said that in the last hundred major debates of creationism vs. evolution, the creationism side won.

Hogwash. Gould was until his dying day against creationism.

"Gould’s career as a scientist at Harvard from 1967 until his death in 2002 ended with the publication of his magnum opus, The Structure of Evolutionary Theory."
http://www.harvardsquarelibrary.org/speakout/gould.html

"A victim of “willful misquotation” by scientific creationists who misused the concept of punctuated equilibrium to support their views, Stephen J. Gould was one of creation science’s harshest critics."

http://gsa.confex.com/gsa/2003AM/finalprogram/abstract_60086.htm

 

[misskitty]

Being a harsh critic isn't a bad thing though. Its through challenging ideas and theories that we learn new things and develop new technologies.

Just curious, Evo what did you mean by a "willful misquotation"? I don't think Janitor misquoted Gould on purpose.

 

[Phobos]

Just curious, Evo what did you mean by a "willful misquotation"? I don't think Janitor misquoted Gould on purpose.

Pretty sure Evo meant Dr. Kennedy, not Janitor.

 

[Evo]

Just curious, Evo what did you mean by a "willful misquotation"? I don't think Janitor misquoted Gould on purpose.

Oh no, not Janitor! That is an excerpt from the article I linked to, not my words, I was in a hurry, I usually make that clearer.

 

[misskitty]

Oh, ok! I'm sorry I thought Janitor. Alright, that makes more sense.

 

[Janitor]

The first of Evo's links mentions Duane Gish. Dr. Gish was interviewed by Dr. Kennedy on a radio program this week. Gish claims that the great die-out of dinosaurs that some scientists attribute to an asteroid strike does not make any sense. Gish says that such a violent event wouldn't have allowed fragile flying creatures to survive, to become today's birds. Gish also doesn't think such an event would have left anything that would lead (via theoretical evolutionary processes that Dr. Gish actually denies the reality of) to modern reptiles and mammals.

Gish offers this instead: Noah's flood didn't kill off dinosaurs or birds or reptiles, at least not right away. But the climate change that Gish says took permanent effect at the moment of the flood was not conducive to continued thriving of dinosaurs, so they went extinct over some relatively short period of time after the flood, while the climate change was something that birds and reptiles could handle, so they survived.

No doubt biologists have theorized as to how the ancestors of modern birds and reptiles and mammals could have survived the impact 65 million years ago, but I am not aware of what their ideas are. Maybe somebody here can something about that?

 

[Janitor]

Kennedy... is quoting Gould out of context...

Yeah, I wish I could read the exact, full body of text from which Kennedy drew his quote. Evangelicals complain about the dishonesty out there in the heathen world, so one would think that they themselves would strive to be utterly honest and open. But if in fact Kennedy was quoting selectively to give an impression of Gould's thoughts that does not match up with what Gould really thought, that would be less than honest on Kennedy's part.

 

[Evo]

The first of Evo's links mentions Duane Gish. Dr. Gish was interviewed by Dr. Kennedy on a radio program this week. Gish claims that the great die-out of dinosaurs that some scientists attribute to an asteroid strike does not make any sense. Gish says that such a violent event wouldn't have allowed fragile flying creatures to survive, to become today's birds. Gish also doesn't think such an event would have left anything that would lead (via theoretical evolutionary processes that Dr. Gish actually denies the reality of) to modern reptiles and mammals.

Janitor, the article sites Gish as a creationist. "Unbeatable systems are dogma, not science. Lest I seem harsh or rhetorical, I quote creationism's leading intellectual, Duane Gish, Ph.D., from his recent (1978) book Evolution? The Fossils Say No! "By creation we mean the bringing into being by a supernatural Creator of the basic kinds of plants and animals by the process of sudden, or fiat, creation. We do not know how the Creator created, what processes He used, for He used processes which are not now operating anywhere in the natural universe [Gish's italics]. This is why we refer to creation as special creation. We cannot discover by scientific investigations anything about the creative processes used by the Creator."

Pray tell, Dr. Gish, in the light of your last sentence, what then is "scientific" creationism? "

 

[Janitor]

Janitor, the article sites Gish as a creationist...

Yes, Dr. Gish did not try to hide the fact that he is a creationist. When I said, "theoretical evolutionary processes that Dr. Gish actually denies the reality of," I was making reference to Gish not being an evolutionist.

I have heard of Gish on a few occasions before this. I think he is touted as one of the best-credentialed persons within the creationist camp. Dr. Kennedy described Dr. Gish as a biochemist.

 

[Evo]

Yeah, I wish I could read the exact, full body of text from which Kennedy drew his quote. Evangelicals complain about the dishonesty out there in the heathen world, so one would think that they themselves would strive to be utterly honest and open. But if in fact Kennedy was quoting selectively to give an impression of Gould's thoughts that does not match up with what Gould really thought, that would be less than honest on Kennedy's part.

I searched the internet last night for any mention of Gould saying anything near what Kennedy claims and came up with nothing. If what Kennedy said was true, surely something would have turned up.

 

[Janitor]

... surely something would have turned up.

One would like to believe that D.J. Kennedy would not just fabricate a quote from nothing. Phobos's idea that K is quoting G out of context would be bad enough.

 

[misskitty]

Yeah, I wish I could read the exact, full body of text from which Kennedy drew his quote. Evangelicals complain about the dishonesty out there in the heathen world, so one would think that they themselves would strive to be utterly honest and open. But if in fact Kennedy was quoting selectively to give an impression of Gould's thoughts that does not match up with what Gould really thought, that would be less than honest on Kennedy's part.

Well we can't expect everyone not to be hypocritical. Everyone does it at some point in their lives. Its just part of human nature.

 

[misskitty]

I searched the internet last night for any mention of Gould saying anything near what Kennedy claims and came up with nothing. If what Kennedy said was true, surely something would have turned up.

Is there anyone who knows the title of the transcript of the program or the website of the radio station. It might have different keywords. Which would explain why your search turned up empty. You might be able to get a copy of that portion of the program. Everytime you read something out of context its always a good idea to take it with a grain of salt until, if possible, you can read it in context.

 

[Evo]

One would like to believe that D.J. Kennedy would not just fabricate a quote from nothing.

It appears that Kennedy has been caught doing this before.

Just google "A Response to D. James Kennedy's Presentations on Creationism and Evolution on 'The John Ankerberg Show".

As far as Gould ever saying anything like what Kennedy says, everything shows the exact opposite. Here's how Gould felt about creationsts and being misquoted by them.

"it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists-whether through design or stupidity"

"Sometime in the 1980s when I was on a visit to the United States, a television station wanted to stage a debate between me and a prominent creationist called, I think, Duane P Gish. I telephoned Stephen Gould for advice. He was friendly and decisive: "Don't do it." The point is not, he said, whether or not you would "win" the debate. Winning is not what the creationists realistically aspire to. For them, it is sufficient that the debate happens at all. They need the publicity. We don't. To the gullible public that is their natural constituency, it is enough that their man is seen sharing a platform with a real scientist. "There must be something in creationism, or Dr. So-and-So would not have agreed to debate it on equal terms." Inevitably, when you turn down the invitation, you will be accused of cowardice or of inability to defend your own beliefs. But that is better than supplying the creationists with what they crave: the oxygen of respectability in the world of real science."

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/amun_ra/

We're straying from the topic now.

I have nothing against creationists, I have nothing against religion, I don't agree with either, but I will defend anyone's right to believe what they wish.

 

[Janitor]

Is there anyone who knows the title of the transcript of the program or the website of the radio station...

I couldn't find a transcript of the program, which is called 'Truths that Transform.' But following Evo's lead, I found a website that Kennedy would like you to read:

http://www.truthsthattransform.org/

and one that he would probably prefer you not read:

http://www.rapidnet.com/~jbeard/bdm/exposes/kennedy/general.htm

 

[loseyourname]

Fair enough. I don't study biology so I don't really have any idea how evolutionary theory can help solve animal behavior problems.

Major advances have been made theoretically in the last three decades. Developments such as Sociobiology and Selfish Gene Theory have made sense of the problems of altruism and intraspecies aggression. The findings have even recently begun to be applied to human behavior, in the new field of Evolutionary Psychology. Perhaps one of the more intriguing applications of this discipline comes in the form of a book that we just finished discussing in a Political Philosophy class of mine called , in which a prominent primatologist attempts to explain the origins of human violence, and particularly warfare, by appeal to our evolutionary past and relationships with the other great apes.

I study biophysics, namely thermodynamics and the structure and function of biomolecules. So for me, abiogenesis is important for the same reason that people are trying to engineer new molecules with novel structure/functions.

That's different, though. For you, the research is important because it can lead to the discovery of improved catalysis and even self-catalysis. What is not important to this, however, is whether or not the first organism that came into existence did so through these methods or did so under the direction of an intelligent force.

It is worth noting at this point that, as Richard Dawkins points out in the final chapter of The Blind Watchmaker, intelligent design hypotheses are circular in nature. It is the origins of life, and more specifically, intelligent life that we eventually hope to explain. Ultimately, we want to know how we came to be. Intelligent design would explain the existence of intelligent life by an appeal to another intelligent lifeform and we are simply left with a regression of the original question one step: Where did this intelligence come from? Nothing is really explained. Daniel Dennett goes to great length in Darwin's Dangerous Idea to demonstrate that only a theory that postulates the emergence of life and intelligent from non-living, non-intelligent forces can explain, in principle, the existence of life and intelligence. Anything less is question-begging.

But from what I have seen, evolution is still a theory along the ranks of Big Bang. Maybe that's the way things happened but it's a big if.

From what I know of the big bang theory, the only pieces of evidence that corroborate it are red-shifting and cosmic microwave background radiation. I've never studied the least bit of cosmology, so I could be dead wrong, but this is nowhere near the absolute mountains of evidence from multiple disciplines that serve to confirm both the general and many specific hypotheses of evolutionary theory. It isn't 'maybe it happened, maybe it didn't;' it's about as certain as any scientific theory out there.

 

[noobie]

From what I know of the big bang theory, the only pieces of evidence that corroborate it are red-shifting and cosmic microwave background radiation. I've never studied the least bit of cosmology, so I could be dead wrong, but this is nowhere near the absolute mountains of evidence from multiple disciplines that serve to confirm both the general and many specific hypotheses of evolutionary theory. It isn't 'maybe it happened, maybe it didn't;' it's about as certain as any scientific theory out there.

In my mind a lot of the evidence for evolution is circumstantial. There is no foolproof evidence that a complex organism can evolve into a completely different organism. It might sound like harping but no one has observed monkeys turning into humans and a theory is just a theory until it can be fully validated and predict future events. Frankly, a lot of the evidence for evolution must be archaelogical(which I know little about) because molecular evidence is circumstantial. Even evolutionists argue about the mechanism by which evolution occurred so I find it surprising that you can be so certain to its validity (especially if you are not a biologist). I mean how could you be so certain of something when it is not even clearly established how these things occur. I suspect it's because there are no better theories out there for naturalists. But that does not mean that with the advancement of science that in a hundred years evolution could be debunked and a new and better theory will replace evolution.

I don't mean to belittle the whole field of evolutionary biology but it is not the same as quantum mechanics or even biophysics. Evolutionary biology would not stand up to same rigor found in these fields nor could you realistically expect to since we try to take everything to its reductionary limit. BTW, the Templeton Prize was given out to Charles Townes this year (nobel laureate for inventing microwave lasers). I asked him during a talk couple of years ago about faith and science and he mentioned that as you get into more of the physical sciences and away from soft sciences, there are more and more theists because you realize that you've reached the limits of knowledge and are humbled by limits of our understanding.

 

[Janitor]

... From what I know of the big bang theory, the only pieces of evidence that corroborate it are red-shifting and cosmic microwave background radiation...

I think some people would also include the abundance ratios of various elements/isotopes as corroborating the Big Bang as well.

 

[Evo]

This discussion is in danger of becoming a religious discussion, and that's not allowed at PF. This is the biology forum. Any discussion of human creation here needs to be absent of any religious content or references.

 

[misskitty]

So in an attempt to steer away from religion...how long have humans been researching their origins? I know Darwin's theory dates back to the Mid-1800's. Was there anyone who tried to scientifically research human orgin?

 

[Evo]

So in an attempt to steer away from religion...how long have humans been researching their origins? I know Darwin's theory dates back to the Mid-1800's. Was there anyone who tried to scientifically research human orgin?

Yes, many. The scientific approach as we know it today hasn't been around all that long, and is improving all the time. For example, before the early 20th century the approach to archeaology was abysmal. There was no care to record the exact placement of bones and artifacts found. They were only interested in finding things and did not realize the importance of maintaining careful records. As a result a large amount of extremely valuable information at a lot of important sites has been destroyed forever.

The Leakeys, Louis, Mary, Richard and Meave are very famous for their work in the study of the origins of man.

 

[iansmith]

It might sound like harping but no one has observed monkeys turning into humans and a theory is just a theory until it can be fully validated and predict future events.

I don't think you understand the meaning of theory in scientific sense. A theory in science has been validated and holds true under every test.

Frankly, a lot of the evidence for evolution must be archaelogical(which I know little about) because molecular evidence is circumstantial.

There is more than just archaelogical, which is just a small fraction of the evidence. What come to mind is comparative embryology, compartive biology and genetics.

What do you mean molecular evidence are circumstantial?

Even evolutionists argue about the mechanism by which evolution occurred so I find it surprising that you can be so certain to its validity (especially if you are not a biologist). I mean how could you be so certain of something when it is not even clearly established how these things occur.

Argument about the mechanism does not discredit the theory of evolution. The element being argued are about what mechanism are more important and what is really happening in terms of speciation events.

I suspect it's because there are no better theories out there for naturalists. But that does not mean that with the advancement of science that in a hundred years evolution could be debunked and a new and better theory will replace evolution.

You are right we have no better theory because the theory of evolution is the best and holds true and give accurate predictions for models.It is not likely that the theory of evolution will be debunked and anything that arise to replace it will be build upon it.

I don't mean to belittle the whole field of evolutionary biology but it is not the same as quantum mechanics or even biophysics. Evolutionary biology would not stand up to same rigor found in these fields nor could you realistically expect to since we try to take everything to its reductionary limit.

You are wrong, evolutionnary biology has high standard and it is will stand has high has any of the old hard science. Several evolutionnary prediction model are based on mathematics. Biology is a new hard science and the field is still evolving.

 

[noobie]

I don't think you understand the meaning of theory in scientific sense. A theory in science has been validated and holds true under every test.

A theory is an explanation which can be supported by a set of observations or data that one may have. It can never be proven true but only disproved. But the only useful theories in science are the ones that can correctly predict natural phenomena. We use the word theory in our lab all the time and 99% of the time it's another way of saying it's our best guess.

There is more than just archaelogical, which is just a small fraction of the evidence. What come to mind is comparative embryology, compartive biology and genetics.

Could you point me to direct concrete evidence that evolution occur. And I mean that sincerely because I don't know much about archaeology. One that doesn't require me to use my imagination to infer that evolution occurred sometime in the past. Evolution is not an empirical science in the same sense of physics or chemistry where you can come up with the a theory and test those theory over and over. Evolution is more of a historical science because you are looking for clues throughout history to construct an explanation of what may have happened. And yes if you show me an elapsed video of a complex organism evolving into another over time I will believe you. That is the kind of rigor and standard you face in hard sciences but not in evolutionary biology. The fact that evolutionary theory has to invoke so many different fields to support its claims by default makes me suspicious of its claim- it's not yet simple or elegant.

You are wrong, evolutionnary biology has high standard and it is will stand has high has any of the old hard science. Several evolutionnary prediction model are based on mathematics. Biology is a new hard science and the field is still evolving.

Perhaps. But I'm a byproduct of my education and I don't believe evolutionary biology is in the same league as chemistry or physics. In my old undergraduate institution (MIT), I ended up 2 classes short of double majoring in biology and never did any of my professors mention macroevolution (well maybe they might have mentioned the word once or twice but it certainly wasn't in any of my exams. I suspect it's because my professors didn't want to resort to hand waving complicated explanation that the theory of evolution often entails. BTW, I took genetics, molecular cell biology, biochemistry, introductory biology, etc. And visit the top science universities in the world, you will see that physical scientists look down on biologists. I'm in these fields and my colleagues and I notice and talk about these attitudes all the time.