Evolution versus Creationism

[uppi]

I agree with Peter, El Mach, et al, that a more skepticist-proof line of reasoning has to start from the organic soup (e.g. Miller-Urey) and work it's way up to cells.

But Evolution doesn't cover that. For that you need another theory. Darwin got it right: It's about the origin of species, not the origin of life. Although people often think in terms of Evolution versus Creationism, Evolution is just one part in the body of theories trying to explain the origin of everything. A better title would be: "Creationism versus Science"

 

[warpus]

I think if you reason from a first cell, it's more assuming some third idea, like panspermia or a Intelligent Design kind of creationism (e.g. a creationist who feels evolution began after a ID force laid down the first cells).

I agree with Peter, El Mach, et al, that a more skepticist-proof line of reasoning has to start from the organic soup (e.g. Miller-Urey) and work it's way up to cells.

Panspermia always makes me think of bukkake for some reason.

Either way, I fully agree with the post above ^^^ (not what I'm quoting, but the post right above)

 

[GoodGame]

But Evolution doesn't cover that. For that you need another theory. Darwin got it right: It's about the origin of species, not the origin of life. Although people often think in terms of Evolution versus Creationism, Evolution is just one part in the body of theories trying to explain the origin of everything. A better title would be: "Creationism versus Science"

You're very right, I slipped into more of a Creationism vs. Science theme.

 

[Simple Simon]

I never said religion and science where one in the same, I stated that they do not contradict each other and that they go hand in hand, not that they work the same way.

bolding mine

The religion possible under this premises is limited to a deistic and far-removed God. Christianity certainly is not such a religion - none of the many sects out there. In fact, no Near-Asian mystery cult is.

 

[Perfection]

I think you guys are missing the point of religion (if there is anything that I missed you'd REALLY like me to respond to, please ask me again and I'll try my best to answer).
Religion is based on Faith. Faith is believing without seeing. Without literally having that tangible evidence. That's the whole point of faith. (this doesn't mean that you can just say "I believe" and go to heavan)

That's false. It might be true for you, but it's certainly not the case that all religious people posit that they believe because of faith.

If I were to give you some crazy mathematical equation you couldn't solve, and I told you the answer is "x" and then I solved the problem out slowly for you and showed you step by step what exactly needs to be done, what would be the point of having that problem? There'd be no point.

Huh? Why not?

That's how religion works. If God said "this is EXACTLY how everything works, and what you need to do (this plan sounds familiar to me....) there'd be no point in coming here if we wouldn't have any choice in what we do.

Why do you presume that God would find such a thing pointless?

well I was wondering, as you guys kept asking questions that aren't necessarily answerable, or why I believe them. Because it takes (and I have) faith.

Because we find blind appeals to faith to be a crappy cop-out non-answer that doesn't really tell us anything.

It is exactly because religion equires faith, that it should not be used as a scientific argument. Science is about finding explanations for how reality behaves and amassing evidence that this is the only way in which reality can behave. Saying that things behave in a certain way because "I have faith that it does" is the exact opposite of science. And that is what creationists say when they dont believe in evolution because the bible says different. It requires faith to believe the bible, and vastly less to believe evolution.

I'm all about, "screw faith, faith sucks". None of this "science and religion are special things crap"; you can make a religious point, you can make a scientific point, either way back it the frick up!

So what if this really smart (or all knowing) dude presented a theory that either could not be tested or contradicted what was generally accepted? Do you then question his "smartitude"? Dismiss his theory until he proves it? or Question your assumptions?

I'd support the theory provided I actually know he his a fantastically smart/all-knowing dude. When someone says an all-knowing dude told them something, I don't question the judgment of the all-knowing dude, I question his existence and communication with who ever told me the yarn.

We saw that happen with both the Theory of Relativity and String Theory. Einstein was shown to be 'mostly correct' much after he proposed his theory. And we basically pat String Theorists on the head these days, until they give us something useful

No way, we don't believe in relativity over string theory because we think Einstein was a pretty smart guy.

I never said religion and science where one in the same, I stated that they do not contradict each other and that they go hand in hand, not that they work the same way.

I think the idea of a meddlesome maker that starts life is an anti-scientific one.

But Evolution doesn't cover that. For that you need another theory. Darwin got it right: It's about the origin of species, not the origin of life. Although people often think in terms of Evolution versus Creationism, Evolution is just one part in the body of theories trying to explain the origin of everything. A better title would be: "Creationism versus Science"

I don't think it is so much that evolution doesn't cover the origin of life (there are very good reasons to think Darwinian processes are essential to the process of going from relatively simple organic chemicals to cells), but that most the tools that we have for modern evolutionary research (fossil record, triangulating species using DNA difference, etc. etc.) don't provide much insight into it.

 

[peter grimes]

But Evolution doesn't cover that. For that you need another theory. Darwin got it right: It's about the origin of species, not the origin of life. Although people often think in terms of Evolution versus Creationism, Evolution is just one part in the body of theories trying to explain the origin of everything. A better title would be: "Creationism versus Science"

You are, of course, correct, Uppi. Perhaps I wasn't being as precise in my usage as I should have been. But it's a pretty common argument that skeptics of life's natural origins (and subsequent evolution) use: Even the first cell is so amazingly complex, there's no way that can come from little bits of random matter coming together randomly. By talking of shades of gray separating inanimate from animate, I was trying to show that life doesn't simply start with a cell - there must be antecedents.

 

[Taras Bulba]

That's false. It might be true for you, but it's certainly not the case that all religious people posit that they believe because of faith.

I figured you'd understand I can only speak for MY religion, not every single religion on the face of this Earth

Huh? Why not?

so you're telling me there IS a point to having a problem that you were told everything to do, given the answer, and everything?

Why do you presume that God would find such a thing pointless?

I'll put it this way. Life is a big test, and God is the teacher. He does what he can to help us understand the questions, and work our way through the answers.
Would there be a point to that test if he just came out and said "these are all the answers, copy them down, and you'll get the best grade."
What would be the point of that?

Because we find blind appeals to faith to be a crappy cop-out non-answer that doesn't really tell us anything.

well unfortunately religion can't be ENTIRELY explained by scientific means. I just find it strange that certain aspects of my religion fit nicely into science and history and there NOT be a correlation between the two.

I think the idea of a meddlesome maker that starts life is an anti-scientific one.

how might the idea of a single creator be any less scientific than one random explosion of ALL the mass in the entire universe in one spec? THAT doesn't make sense to me

 

[warpus]

how might the idea of a single creator be any less scientific than one random explosion of ALL the mass in the entire universe in one spec? THAT doesn't make sense to me

Because the former is unfalsifiable (the Christian version of it, anyway), the latter is, and you need falsifiability in any scientific theory.

 

[El_Machinae]

No way, we don't believe in relativity over string theory because we think Einstein was a pretty smart guy.

Well, that's not what I said, so I agree. My point was that having a smart dude involved makes science easier. If they give us theories that can be tested, then we'll not really believe them until the tests can be done. But if someone is smart or convincing enough, we'll often give them resources by which to conduct their tests.

 

[Perfection]

I figured you'd understand I can only speak for MY religion, not every single religion on the face of this Earth

You might argue that you only able to speak for your personal religious beliefs, but you could certainly speak about religion in general. Since you didn't explicitly state that you were speaking for your personal religious beliefs rather then about religion in general the miscommunication was something that IMO you should have seen coming.

so you're telling me there IS a point to having a problem that you were told everything to do, given the answer, and everything?

Could be! You might use it to solve a similar problem, or it might satisfy your curiosity or whatever.

I'll put it this way. Life is a big test, and God is the teacher. He does what he can to help us understand the questions, and work our way through the answers.
Would there be a point to that test if he just came out and said "these are all the answers, copy them down, and you'll get the best grade."
What would be the point of that?

So why do you presume this relationship of teacher pupil? And why should there be a "test" with "grading"?

Please flesh out the metaphor!

well unfortunately religion can't be ENTIRELY explained by scientific means. I just find it strange that certain aspects of my religion fit nicely into science and history and there NOT be a correlation between the two.

Well, I'm not looking for strictly scientific reasons, rather reasons other than blind faith.

how might the idea of a single creator be any less scientific than one random explosion of ALL the mass in the entire universe in one spec? THAT doesn't make sense to me

The latter has substantial empirical evidence (though I don't think "random" is necessarily an apt descriptor).

I think part of the unease people have with Big Bang theory is that it still leaves unresolved the, "why does anything exist? Why is not all void?" question. However, I think problem is substantially the same difficulty with or without some sort of creator deity.

Well, that's not what I said, so I agree. My point was that having a smart dude involved makes science easier. If they give us theories that can be tested, then we'll not really believe them until the tests can be done. But if someone is smart or convincing enough, we'll often give them resources by which to conduct their tests.

I don't really think that has much bearing as to what Birdjag said.

 

[Murky]

The Theory of Evolution explains how life evolved into different species over time. It doesn't tell how life began.

Creationism is a belief that formed from the guiding philosophy that God created all things.

They aren't necessarily exclusive of each other. For instance, a person could choose to believe that God kicked off the big-bang and the end result is life as we know it.

 

[Perfection]

The Theory of Evolution explains how life evolved into different species over time. It doesn't tell how life began.

Actually, it kinda does. Only nebulously now (because our understanding of the topic is limited), but the process by which things as complex as a cell came into being was undoubtedly evolution by natural selection.

Creationism is a belief that formed from the guiding philosophy that God created all things.

Under one definition, yes. It's important to not it has more than one.

They aren't necessarily exclusive of each other. For instance, a person could choose to believe that God kicked off the big-bang and the end result is life as we know it.

But then should we give God design credit for life if natural selection is the true sculptor?

 

[BananaLee]

I'm just going to pop in and say that this whole "if you believe in God, then you're a creationist" thing rather stupid.

Evolution is a proven thesis on the diversity of species.

The origin of life/time/universe is something where no one has an answer, just lots of hypotheses. So God or Big Bang or whatever you believe in could be equally true or equally false. The fact is, we don't bloody know.

We don't bloody know what/who setup these laws of physics or natural secltion or whatever in the first place.

So what I suggest is, we all accept the proven theories and admit we don't bloody know the rest.

Conclusion: -
Evolution versus Creationism is a STUPID term because it implies that a belief in Evolution and a belief in (a) God(s) are mutually exclusive. Which it's not. So stop arguing about it and go have sex or something.

EDIT: And I would point out that I'm not a Christian - if my enjoyment for sins of the flesh hasn't indicated that yet. I am merely pointing out that the term is stupid. Because it is. Now go forth and multiply safely enjoy yourselves

 

[Murky]

Actually, it kinda does. Only nebulously now (because our understanding of the topic is limited), but the process by which things as complex as a cell came into being was undoubtedly evolution by natural selection.

Under one definition, yes. It's important to not it has more than one.

But then should we give God design credit for life if natural selection is the true sculptor?

I'm not sure that it really matters.

Why not just leave matters of faith to individual belief?

Just believing in God shouldn't exclude you from pursuing scientific inquiry and being a scientist (who accepts evolution) should not automatically imply you're an atheist.

Each to his own...

 

[GoodGame]

Why not just leave matters of faith to individual belief?

It's really not a problem....untill faith matters enter into the scientific debate as causes. Then it becomes imperative to challenge it by the scientific method.

 

[Taras Bulba]

You might argue that you only able to speak for your personal religious beliefs, but you could certainly speak about religion in general. Since you didn't explicitly state that you were speaking for your personal religious beliefs rather then about religion in general the miscommunication was something that IMO you should have seen coming.

I only assumed you were going to make the connection to the fact that I can only speak for my religion. Obviously my assumption was wrong.

Could be! You might use it to solve a similar problem, or it might satisfy your curiosity or whatever.

yes, but this goes into the pre-existance and what we knew THERE. Given what we knew THERE and why we knew we HAD to come to Earth, I think MOST of us wouldn't have wanted to come here under the circumstance that we wouldn't have free agency. (that being a reference to the war in Heaven)

So why do you presume this relationship of teacher pupil? And why should there be a "test" with "grading"?
Please flesh out the metaphor!

Not God being a teacher-per-say, but more that he knows more than us and is trying to help us understand without just telling us the answer. I believe this life IS a test, and our "grade" is our judgement of our actions (based off of our faith).

That metaphor of mine wasn't saying that "God is our teacher and we are literally his pupils"

Well, I'm not looking for strictly scientific reasons, rather reasons other than blind faith.

unfortunately, religion (in general) nor my religion can tell you everything we believe is based on science.

The latter has substantial empirical evidence (though I don't think "random" is necessarily an apt descriptor).

Because the former is unfalsifiable (the Christian version of it, anyway), the latter is, and you need falsifiability in any scientific theory.

I'm just curious as to what experiments have been done to prove the big bang theory, or what experiments COULD be done to prove that.
and last time I checked, no two objects can exist in the same place at the same time. How then, can every single piece of mass in the universe exist in one infinitesimal spec?

I think part of the unease people have with Big Bang theory is that it still leaves unresolved the, "why does anything exist? Why is not all void?" question. However, I think problem is substantially the same difficulty with or without some sort of creator deity.

not that I disagree with the Big Bang Theory entirely, but science (IMO) still leaves big holes that scientists try to fill in. I believe a lot (if not all) can be "explained" by religion, on the basis of faith, and that science as it expands goes hand and hand with religion, but without the whole picture, it cannot be interpreted with 100% accuracy.

Just like when string theory was gaining popularity, different "versions" seemed to appear that contradicted each other, but in reality, each of those theorys was just a different way to look at the same picture.

 

[Perfection]

The origin of life/time/universe is something where no one has an answer, just lots of hypotheses. So God or Big Bang or whatever you believe in could be equally true or equally false. The fact is, we don't bloody know.

Well, just because they aren't proven doesn't mean they are of equal veracity. Big Bang theory has a quite extensive amount of experimental evidence for it, something that God does not have!

Big Bang theory is a very good guess as to what happened (of which the details are quite fuzzy). God is unnecessary and fruitless explanation.

We don't bloody know what/who setup these laws of physics or natural secltion or whatever in the first place.

Well, I think we do knos some things about the origin of life. We do know that things as complex as cells need a design process. We also have naturalism (whic is well justified and vitally important belief for scientific claims) saying that there wasn't any sentient designer God. This makes a very strong case that Darwinian evolution was acting on entities prior to the first cell!

So what I suggest is, we all accept the proven theories and admit we don't bloody know the rest.

Well not knowing the rest doesn't mean we should say we don't know about the rest! We might not know what evolutionary steps occured between some unknown first imperfect replicator and the cell that became all organisms living today.

Conclusion: -
Evolution versus Creationism is a STUPID term because it implies that a belief in Evolution and a belief in (a) God(s) are mutually exclusive. Which it's not. So stop arguing about it and go have sex or something.

Well, that's evolution versus the belief in God, which is a whole separate debate (of which I think there are important things to say, but that's not the point here).

The word here is "creationism", the idea that the God created us. It comes in two flavors, the first denies that evolution was the process by which God created us, the second that says that it was.

My criticism is that the first is absolute garbage that denies basic science, and that the second (though much more respectable) sort of undermines evolution by putting together a sort of divine conspiracy theory where God set up the process to produce us instead of us just being the path that evolution just happened to take.

EDIT: And I would point out that I'm not a Christian - if my enjoyment for sins of the flesh hasn't indicated that yet. I am merely pointing out that the term is stupid. Because it is. Now go forth and multiply safely enjoy yourselves

I enjoy debating on the Internet.

I'm not sure that it really matters.

Why not just leave matters of faith to individual belief?

We value truth, and as such I try to express my views on what is true, to both spread truth and to test to ensure that what I think is true actually is true.

Now I also thing there are practical reasons why my belief is better (more likely to produce good scientific results that may have practical benefits in industry and medicine, for example), but really for me it comes down to truth being a good thing to spread!

Just believing in God shouldn't exclude you from pursuing scientific inquiry and being a scientist (who accepts evolution) should not automatically imply you're an atheist.

Each to his own...

Well certainly holding a belief in God doesn't make one a bad person/scientist/whatever, but that doesn't mean that such beliefs are equal!

I do not have this debate because I think the belief in God is some sort of scourge that must be annihilated (though I do have deep moral objections of certain views of God), I just don't think it's true!

 

[peter grimes]

I'm just curious as to what experiments have been done to prove the big bang theory, or what experiments COULD be done to prove that.
and last time I checked, no two objects can exist in the same place at the same time. How then, can every single piece of mass in the universe exist in one infinitesimal spec?

There are two ways (perhaps more - I'm not a scientist) to test a hypothesis - by actively performing a physical experiment, or by creating a model to test predictions. I imagine that in most cases, both methods are employed, and the interplay between the two refines the idea to the point where confidence becomes very high that the model describes reality.

Particle accelerators probe the nature of the early universe every day, and the results of those experiments refine our understanding of the nature of matter. Plus, the energy levels are so high that it sheds light, so to speak, on what the early universe must have been like.

I'm really not sure how to explain how 'every piece of mass can exist in one infinitesimal spec'. But my limited understanding is that mass (which can be thought of as condensed energy) - atoms, which are made of sub-atomic particles - which are in turn made up of quarks - didn't behave at all like we are accustomed to in our every day life immediately after the instant the universe began. The energy level was so high that that it was more of a quantum soup, rather than 'space'.

I'm sure I've got some details wrong, which I expect the more knowledgeable among you to correct

 

[GoodGame]

Cosmology and astrophysics involves a lot of inference. Personally, i think it's a bit wrong to call them theories, but I have an empirical bent too. Short of time-travel and creation of a 'pocket universe', there's no way to verify the truth. Scientists can just try to improve the model so it's in accordance with all known facts. I think if you're gonna do thought experiments on the big bang, realize that scientists do make unmeasured assumptions (because of the lack of time travel / records) about the universe; Inferences based on the natural record still have some implied assumptions. Suffice to say that even the 'big bang' is still challenged by scientists to this day (http://www.physorg.com/news4999.html).

Bottom line is still, if you want to challenge an established scientific theory, in a scientific way, you need facts, not theologies. And if you want to introduce a theological belief as a physical force to propose an alternative scientific theory, then you have to supply facts of such for it to be validated as science.

 

[Simple Simon]

Taras, no answer?