Evolution versus Creationism

[Smidlee]

While I can honestly say I've never seen the banana 'argument' (for lack of a better term!) used (I only linked to it for humour value!) it is almost identical in scientific merit to 95%+ of other YECs claims. .....

I was thinking the exact same thing about evolutionist. The video used "appearances" to say banana was design to fit our hands. (it would be hard to makes this case with other fruit) evolutionist use the same logic all the time, like with fossils for example. (they pick and choose that which fits to their beliefs)
We all know that appearances can be often very misleading.

 

[Smidlee]

But 99.99% of fossils fit into our present understanding of evolution. And when one doesnt, we then change our theory to fit the facts. Thats because it is science and thats what science is about. Unlike creationists who simple ignore the facts that dont fit because they are not able to alter their theory around the facts.

In science, observation trumps theory every time.

Most fossils are the result of a butch of bones slapped together to fit evolutionist theory.(complete fossils are very rare) Thus fossil are mostly based on opinion which is why interpretations of fossils are constantly changing.

 

[Ghpstage]

There is however a system used to 'slap together' those bones, and the system used by an individual or group of scientists is then critically evaluated by his peers.
Its not put together to fit evolutionary theory at all. In fact if anyone actually found real evidence to the contrary, then they would almost certainly be excited to present it. Theres a lot of prestige that would come with a find like that .

The fundamental difference between Evolutionary theory and Creationism is of stance on logic, the former is based on it, while the latter refuses to acknowledge its existance!

Thus fossil are mostly based on opinion which is why interpretations of fossils are constantly changing.

Always chaging? In what respect? The most significant change I can think of in the last few years is the idea that T-Rex may have been a scavenger, and how much of a change is that really? The finer details like these are incredibly difficult to determine from just fossil evidence, it is however incredibly obvious it didn't eat plants

 

[Simple Simon]

hey smidlee, what about the billions of complete fossils? I personally saw, oh, I guess about several tens of thousands of complete fish, crab, trilobite, insect, etc. fossils. And, btw, about 100+ complete dinosaur fossils. Missing, at most, a digit here or a tail-tip there......

EDIT: make that 500+ - I forgot to count the Chinese feathered theropods

 

[peter grimes]

I think Smidlee is correct on one point that people seem to be overlooking: Fossils indeed have been reinterpreted to fit a prevailing idea of the history of life. Consider the Burgess Shale, for instance. The accepted intrepretation (decades old, in fact) turned out to be wrong. But that didn't mean that evolution was wrong: on the contrary, the failure to interpret the data correctly was because the scientists couldn't even imagine such unlikely creatures! That's how powerful accepted dogma can be.

But the point that Smidlee goes astray is with the implication that every new fossil and other piece of data (ancient pollen, DNA, etc.) doesn't fit the model prima facie, and therefore must be 'interpreted' to make it fit in.

 

[Simple Simon]

I think Smidlee is correct on one point that people seem to be overlooking: Fossils indeed have been reinterpreted to fit a prevailing idea of the history of life. Consider the Burgess Shale, for instance. The accepted intrepretation (decades old, in fact) turned out to be wrong. But that didn't mean that evolution was wrong: on the contrary, the failure to interpret the data correctly was because the scientists couldn't even imagine such unlikely creatures! That's how powerful accepted dogma can be.

But the point that Smidlee goes astray is with the implication that every new fossil and other piece of data (ancient pollen, DNA, etc.) doesn't fit the model prima facie, and therefore must be 'interpreted' to make it fit in.

Ah, nonsense - yes fossils have always been used to bolster the view of an author, but that is true no moire and no less than for any other kind of evidence. Thus, picking out fossils for critizism is nothing but dishonest or stupid. After all, fossils are often difficult to interpret by their very nature. However, the example you chose (Burgess shale) is one of those examples where too few people worked on the material, so that it is not surprising that the creatures are in fact, now that they have been studied by more experts, found out to be way more conventional and conservative than previously thought. 'Oh, not another phylum' was nonsense, which is what you get if you only ask one or two guys.....

Now, if you look at more 'pedestrian' fossils, the sequence stratigraphy based on ammonites from the Jurassic of Southern Germany ALONE should be enough to convince any idiot that a) evolution happens, b) there was no global flood, and c) earth is MUCH older than 6000 years. But those convinced otherwise never show up to actually look at the sediments - I wonder why (not really)?

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

I think Smidlee is correct on one point that people seem to be overlooking: Fossils indeed have been reinterpreted to fit a prevailing idea of the history of life. Consider the Burgess Shale, for instance. The accepted intrepretation (decades old, in fact) turned out to be wrong. But that didn't mean that evolution was wrong: on the contrary, the failure to interpret the data correctly was because the scientists couldn't even imagine such unlikely creatures! That's how powerful accepted dogma can be.

But the point that Smidlee goes astray is with the implication that every new fossil and other piece of data (ancient pollen, DNA, etc.) doesn't fit the model prima facie, and therefore must be 'interpreted' to make it fit in.

See, that's what I like about science. The facts don't chance. Even if our interpretation of them is faulty, the fossil will still be there staring us in the face. And when theories about them don't add up, the accepted interpretation will be under constant fire until it confirms to the facts. And it's only logical that there's resistance to change. Beneficial even. It makes us evaluate the evidence again and again to a point when there's no getting around the evidence and the new insight will be incorporated.

Now, if you look at more 'pedestrian' fossils, the sequence stratigraphy based on ammonites from the Jurassic of Southern Germany ALONE should be enough to convince any one that a) evolution happens, b) there was no global flood, and c) earth is MUCH older than 6000 years. But those convinced otherwise never show up to actually look at the sediments - I wonder why (not really)?

Those convinced otherwise also never try to found their case, but always will try to undermine the opposing scientific theory. That is precisely why those sort of theories are not scientific. Science starts with interpreting data to form a model, test it against reality, adapt your findings into the model, test it against reality, etc, etc. Creationism has one model which is unable to change. Can't be falsified and has no positive evidence to back it up. In effect, isn't science.

 

[peter grimes]

Ziggy, you said it perfectly. And the things that you mention about science - its constant self-corrections, its ability to shed deleterious elements - are the very things that instill optimism in me when thinking about humanity's ability to handle some of the Big Problems.

But it's taken me years to reach this point of understanding when it comes to the way science self-edits, and I'm not ashamed at all to admit that Stephen Jay Gould's essay's on science, humanism, history, and philosophy were integral.

I may come across as a cheer-leader for him, but I don't mind that at all. It's apparently acceptable for a religious organization to place advice guides in hotels and motels across the USA, I'd simply like to do the same with his collections of essays on Natural History.

But more specifically, I'd like to challenge anyone here who doubts the facts of evolution or the methods of science to read any of his essay collections. I'll even pay for it: give me your address and I'll send you book, free of charge. The only compensation I ask is that you read the book cover to cover, making notes about what comes to your mind: post those notes here, and that will form a wonderful topic for discussion.

Feel free to PM me, or contact me via google mail: peter dot smith dot grimes

 

[civ_king]

science corrects its own errors, eventually giving an unparalleled product that is flawless (or at least 99.9999999999999999% correct)

 

[Imperialmajesty]

... creationism is technically compatible with evolution if you put "God" into such a corner that it is more logically feasible to do away with the whole notion of a creator altogether, since it explains nothing or raises a menagerie of even more questions.

 

[warpus]

... creationism is technically compatible with evolution if you put "God" into such a corner that it is more logically feasible to do away with the whole notion of a creator altogether, since it explains nothing or raises a menagerie of even more questions.

That's pretty much the corner the idea of God has been for the last couple hundred years anyway.

 

[Imperialmajesty]

That's pretty much the corner the idea of God has been for the last couple hundred years anyway.

Golly gee, thanks Mr. Darwin.

Though in all fairness, the body politic has been far behind the educated in finally doing away with God(s). So, in society, the idea of God has not gone to the corner yet, though I think that the idea is slowly being pushed into that corner.

 

[warpus]

Golly gee, thanks Mr. Darwin.

Though in all fairness, the body politic has been far behind the educated in finally doing away with God(s). So, in society, the idea of God has not gone to the corner yet, though I think that the idea is slowly being pushed into that corner.

Sure, whatever, Vincent, but I was responding to this:

it is more logically feasible to do away with the whole notion of a creator altogether, since it explains nothing or raises a menagerie of even more questions.

which, given what we've learned of the world over the last couple hundred years, is very true.

 

[Imperialmajesty]

Sure, whatever, Vincent, but I was responding to this:



which, given what we've learned of the world over the last couple hundred years, is very true.

I wasn't refering to you as "Mr. Darwin".

I was sarcastically thanking Darwin for delivering the most important hammer blow against religion n the past 200 years.

Anyway, it is my interpretation of Dawkins and some other people's sentiment about religion.

 

[Arakhor]

Why do religion and evolution have to be in conflict? Surely it is possible to be a religious scientist - one who works with modern science and yet believes in a higher power? What created the Big Bang? Was it chance or divine power that caused the meteorite to begin the Cretaceous extinction 65 Ma ago? Why must people be so bloody pig-headed about all this, especially the so-called enlightened ones?

 

[El_Machinae]

Religion only fails when it's used as a source of fact. Heck, religious myths can generate fun and testable hypotheses, so it's still got some scientific value.

I know quite a few successful religious scientists. Sometimes they're unwilling to perform certain experiments, due to moral issues, but that's very rare. Outside of that, though, they are quite functional biologists.

 

[Perfection]

Why do religion and evolution have to be in conflict?

I wouldn't say religion and evolution necessarily conflict, but I think that religion and science generally do. Any time one posits a religious explination for something, I find they're taking an anti scientific stance.

Surely it is possible to be a religious scientist - one who works with modern science and yet believes in a higher power?

Yeah, but so what? Just because a scientist can function and produce good results while having religious views, doesn't mean that his religious views are compatible with science or aren't anti scientific.

What created the Big Bang? Was it chance or divine power that caused the meteorite to begin the Cretaceous extinction 65 Ma ago?

A religious explanation would conflict with a scientific one here!

Why must people be so bloody pig-headed about all this, especially the so-called enlightened ones?

'cuz we're right.

 

[peter grimes]

I think there may be a distinction between religion and spiritualism. One can be spiritual without holding specific religious views...

At the same time, there are other religions out there besides the 3 Middles-Eastern ones that have no quarrel with science. I remember reading that stem-cell research was proceeding quite rapidly in India because there was no moral incongruence between Hinduism and stem cell research. Interesting, no?

 

[Ghpstage]

I think there may be a distinction between religion and spiritualism. One can be spiritual without holding specific religious views...

At the same time, there are other religions out there besides the 3 Middles-Eastern ones that have no quarrel with science. I remember reading that stem-cell research was proceeding quite rapidly in India because there was no moral incongruence between Hinduism and stem cell research. Interesting, no?

Indeed, there is no inherent conflcict between religion and science.
There is however conflict between certain religions and science, in particular Abrahamic faiths largely as the texts they are based on are easily disproven by science, or even just a basic literary analysis of the book that quickly shows up failures by contradiction.
People of these religions then go on to claim the book is metaphoric, but fail to realise that if the the book can be metaphoric to the extreme levels they propose, then how the heck can you claim the bible really means anything at all?

 

[Flying Pig]

Religion only fails when it's used as a source of fact. Heck, religious myths can generate fun and testable hypotheses, so it's still got some scientific value.

I know quite a few successful religious scientists. Sometimes they're unwilling to perform certain experiments, due to moral issues, but that's very rare. Outside of that, though, they are quite functional biologists.

Ditto, quite often, as a source of morals - asking a book written thousands of years ago for guidance on modern issues is not exactly a wise tactic to me.