Evolution versus Creationism

[GoodGame]

Look guys, can't we just drop this science must know everything crap?

Is it not enough that science is an extremely good methodology for truth finding and progressively builds a better understanding of the world?

Preaching to the choir.

 

[Perfection]

Not preaching to the choir. Preachin' to the other dudes.

 

[peter grimes]

Yeah, I find the philosophy of science discussion much less interesting than hearing how people are lead into doubting evolution. This discussion has caused me go back to some of my favorite books and give them another go around.

Quick poll:
Who here has read On the Origin of Species?

1. I have. I was supposed to read several chapters of it in college, but I didn't feel like it at the time (ignorance of youth!). I read it for the first time about 5 years ago, and reread it again about 2 years ago. I was struck by how accessible and understandable he presented the material. It truly is a document for the ages.

 

[warpus]

Yeah, I find the philosophy of science discussion much less interesting than hearing how people are lead into doubting evolution.

Ideology and ignorance.

You will be hard pressed to find someone who:

1. Rejects evolution
2. Understands the theory and what it says

Most of the people who reject it, like Smidlee, do not fall in this category.

 

[Ghpstage]

Quick poll:
Who here has read On the Origin of Species?

1. I have. I was supposed to read several chapters of it in college, but I didn't feel like it at the time (ignorance of youth!). I read it for the first time about 5 years ago, and reread it again about 2 years ago. I was struck by how accessible and understandable he presented the material. It truly is a document for the ages.

I haven't read the actual Origin of a Species yet but its one of two I intend to read and understand before the summer is out, the other being Hawking's a Brief History of Time.
I gotta finish The Road to Reality by Roger Penrose first though!

 

[Flying Pig]

Ideology and ignorance.

You will be hard pressed to find someone who:

1. Rejects evolution
2. Understands the theory and what it says

Most of the people who reject it, like Smidlee, do not fall in this category.

Very true.

 

[Simple Simon]

Who here has read On the Origin of Species?

1. I have.

2. Me, too. As well as the Journey of the Beagle (1839 edition)
I found the Origin of species tedious, the language convoluted, but that was to be expected. After all it is a long, winding argument. Once I got into the Darwin style, it was fun reading, and as you said the evidence is very clearly presented.


The Beagle travel report was much easier to read, and gives a clear picture of how Darwin was compelled by gradually accumulating evidence to keep questioning his established convictions and beliefs, and kept find them to be insufficient
to explain what he saw, and had seen. The mental journey is at least as compelling to follow as the physical travel around the earth.

@Ghpstage: I'd recommend reading the Beagle journal FIRST! Afterwards, you can properly estimate the Origin of Species properly. I am sorry that I read them in the 'wrong' order!

 

[Fifty]

Like what?

The most intimate sorts of truths... truths about seemings! For example, it seems to me that there's a computer monitor in front of me.

 

[AngryZealot]

I read the Origin of Species after already having an understanding of the modern theory, and I was struck by how thoroughly Darwin understood the concept. He got several things wrong, but as a whole the book reads just like a modern biology textbook. What amazes me most is he had no knowledge of inheritance or all the molecular evidence, nor did he even attempt a mechanism to explain why evolution works. Imagine what he would have thought of modern phylogenetics based on genome sequences, and how it conforms to all of his predictions:

(That says "You are here" in the upper left.)

 

[Moss]

To play devil's advocate (as some of you know/remember, for a short time I did believe in a Creator) this is an argument made by many Christians I know:

If you are seriously looking for evidence (of God), open your eyes. The entire world is brilliant and alive. Everything from the simplest natural process to the most complex interstellar phenomena has the fingerprints of design. Even something as lowly as a banana shows us the mind of a creator. Try taking a science class to see what I mean. You will find that the laws that govern nature are simultaneously incredibly complex and extremely simple.

I realize much of this has been discussed in this thread already, but it's something I was recently told, again, so thought I'd bring the specific quote up.

 

[peter grimes]

I found the Origin of species tedious, the language convoluted, but that was to be expected. After all it is a long, winding argument. Once I got into the Darwin style, it was fun reading, and as you said the evidence is very clearly presented.

That's very interesting -- I found just the opposite! But I suppose that has as much to do with initial expectations (preconceptions) as anything else. I was expecting something along the lines of Herman Melville, but much more technical

Also, I had read about On The Origin Of Species for years, so I was already familiar with the foundations of his argument. But when I read his words I was completely unprepared for the gentleness with which he prepared his audience for his ideas. It was very clever of him, and politically smart, to use examples from everyday life: Pigeons, Sheep, Cattle, etc. The gradualism that Owen had been recently championing in conjunction with Malthus' contemporary treatises on population growth lead conclusively to the mechanism that had been there all along (and proposed by others before Darwin, though many people forget that!).

I haven't read Beagle - to be honest, I hadn't thought much about it yet. But perhaps this summer I'll give it a go. But I'll have to choose between that and some E.O. Wilson - I haven't read any of his stuff yet

EDIT: x-post w/ Moss...
I've heard that before, and, to be completely honest, it's something I have no rejoinder for. That's pretty much the same reason my mom believes in an active God, and I don't think there's anything more than physics and chemistry. As I said earlier - the philosophical stuff doesn't interest me much. We learn much more about the world (and there's so much to learn and be amazed by!!!) by using science.

 

[AngryZealot]

To play devil's advocate (as some of you know/remember, for a short time I did believe in a Creator) this is an argument made by many Christians I know:



I realize much of this has been discussed in this thread already, but it's something I was recently told, again, so thought I'd bring the specific quote up.

Already refuted earlier in this thread. It's like looking at a glass of water and being amazed that the glass is just the right shape to fit that particular piece of water.

 

[Moss]

Already refuted earlier in this thread. It's like looking at a glass of water and being amazed that the glass is just the right shape to fit that particular piece of water.

Not sure how that is a good refute considering the glass is designed to fit that particular piece of water (or at least, designed to hold water). Isn't that similar to a designer designing the Universe for the benefit of life?

 

[Ghpstage]

Not sure how that is a good refute considering the glass is designed to fit that particular piece of water (or at least, designed to hold water). Isn't that similar to a designer designing the Universe for the benefit of life?

Its more to do with the fact that the water shapes itself to the glass!

Isn't that similar to a designer designing the Universe for the benefit of life?

Also how is the universe we have beneficial for life? Most places we know have are extremely unlikely to hold any form of life.

Any argument involving the universe being perfect has to get around the blatant deficiencies in living things too.
(Why are our eyes far worse than eagles? Why are we so much weaker than other apes? What possible reason could we have a tailbone for? etc etc)
When I look at it I seee something as far from intentional 'design' as you can get. Though I do see 'design' driven by known laws and scientific concepts, and for living beings 'design' looks driven by survival.

 

[Moss]

Its more to do with the fact that the water shapes itself to the glass!

Again, it shapes itself to a glass that was created by a creator.

I'm not sure if that quote necessarily denies evolution, but states that a creator put it in motion or provided for the environment for it to happen.

Edit: x-post

The second part of your response answers my question, I think.

 

[Ghpstage]

The best refutation ever made in my opinion was this one:

“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?”

Usually attributed to Epicurus from some time BC.

 

[AngryZealot]

Not sure how that is a good refute considering the glass is designed to fit that particular piece of water (or at least, designed to hold water). Isn't that similar to a designer designing the Universe for the benefit of life?

Water will fit into any concave shape. The exact shape of the glass is inconsequential. Being amazed at the universe's capacity to support life is like being amazed at any specific shape of glass.

See also the video where the guy flips a coin and lands on heads 10 times in a row. It's nothing to be amazed about.

 

[Simple Simon]

That's very interesting -- I found just the opposite!

I guess I am just terribly impatient, especially when I can already see where the argument is going!

 

[Perfection]

Again, it shapes itself to a glass that was created by a creator.

I'm not sure if that quote necessarily denies evolution, but states that a creator put it in motion or provided for the environment for it to happen.

Edit: x-post

The second part of your response answers my question, I think.

Really the need for a creator is superfluous, natural selection provides the explanation needed as for why things look designed (because active design and natural selection are both mechanisms for creating things optimized for a certain role).

 

[sanabas]

To play devil's advocate (as some of you know/remember, for a short time I did believe in a Creator) this is an argument made by many Christians I know:



I realize much of this has been discussed in this thread already, but it's something I was recently told, again, so thought I'd bring the specific quote up.

And a specific quote to rejoinder with is "I'll take the awe of understanding over the awe of ignorance every time." Knowing how this stuff works, knowing that it can happen without magic, that the 'fingerprints of design' don't require an actual creator/designer to make, that doesn't make all that stuff around us any less awesome, any less brilliant, any less interesting.