Questions to Evolutionists

[puglover]

I've been thinking about where I stand on various issues, and decided that I don't have enough information to make judgments on many of those that I've held to. For example, I am throughly lacking in information on the Theory of Evolution, and the evidence that its supporters cite. I'd like to ask the evolutionist posters on the board a few questions. Please don't think that I posted this thread to debate (we have enough Creation vs Evolution threads.) It's just my belief that it can never hurt to ask questions, and I will try to remain open-minded as well as skeptical.

1) What evidence do you see backing the ToE? Can you point to specific examples of how that evidence can be shown?

2) Do you see evolution purely as a theory or legitimate idea, or are you sure of it being fact? Why?

3) Do you see the ToE as being compatible or incompatible with the idea of a Creator God? (Note: please do not get carried away with the existence of said God)

Thanks in advance.

 

[Shadylookin]

I've been thinking about where I stand on various issues, and decided that I don't have enough information to make judgments on many of those that I've held to. For example, I am throughly lacking in information on the Theory of Evolution, and the evidence that its supporters cite. I'd like to ask the evolutionist posters on the board a few questions. Please don't think that I posted this thread to debate (we have enough Creation vs Evolution threads.) It's just my belief that it can never hurt to ask questions, and I will try to remain open-minded as well as skeptical.

1) What evidence do you see backing the ToE? Can you point to specific examples of how that evidence can be shown?

we have fossils so we win.

2) Do you see evolution purely as a theory or legitimate idea, or are you sure of it being fact? Why?

fact. various parts and links to different animals may change, but the general idea remains the same

3) Do you see the ToE as being compatible or incompatible with the idea of a Creator God? (Note: please do not get carried away with the existence of said God)
Thanks in advance.

if you can believe there is a sky daddy watching over you. then certainly you can believe there is a sky daddy watching over you and evolution is true

 

[CurtSibling]

1) What evidence do you see backing the ToE? Can you point to specific examples of how that evidence can be shown?

If anyone here could produce evidence for God or Darwin, there would be no more threads on the subject!

All I can say is that change and evolution are part of life, everything changes. It i the basis of life, IMHO.
You changed today, Puglover - In tiny ways you evolved, you grew,lost skin, gained liquids, lost hairs.

The world has changed from pangaea to seperate continents, a seed becomes a tree, an animal will adapt.
Look at how we have grown from naked hunters to advanced cybermen in the tiny space of 10,000 years.

Look at a caveman from 100,000 BCE , and then a person from a modern city...

Then tell me there is no evolution there...!

2) Do you see evolution purely as a theory or legitimate idea, or are you sure of it being fact? Why?

It is an idea for sure, but one that makes sense when you understand the world beyond simplistic dogma.
Everything is theory, created and imagined by we humans. Evolution ideas are not immobile.

Like all scientific thinking, it should move with new ideas and evidence, until full understanding is achieved.
Unlike religious rhetoric, which is set in stone and only changes under supreme social pressure.

I am never so arrogant to put forward my thinking as some lofty and untouchable sermon.
Anyone who determines his opinion as fact on such a massive question is indeed prone to folly.

3) Do you see the ToE as being compatible or incompatible with the idea of a Creator God? (Note: please do not get carried away with the existence of said God)

Anything can be made compatible with anything else with enought imagination.
We can attach any amount of human self-arrogance to any of natures mysteries.

But when dealing with an issue so grand and almost unthinkable in scale, I reckon
that our wisdom will grow and tackle the secret of Evolution in due course. There
was a time when we did not know how lighting was generated or how our bodies worked,
so in the vast span of years, our knowledge will encompass even what seems impossible
today...I do think the idea of a creator god will become myth and a culture tale in time.

.

 

[AlanH]

Do you see the ToE as being compatible or incompatible with the idea of a Creator God? (Note: please do not get carried away with the existence of said God)

Quick answer:

If there are no laws of physics, and corollaries such as evolution, then a Creator God is necessary to sustain the universe. If the laws of physics and evolution do exist then they can sustain the universe with or without the need for a Creator God to define them.

Slightly longer answer:

If you believe in the non-existence of a Creator God then you have to believe that there is a set of laws that govern all the interactions between matter and energy in the universe, and those laws give rise to such effects as evolution as a natural consequence. Indeed the laws themselves may have evolved until they formed a self-sustaining set that could produce a viable universe.

If you believe in the existence of an all-powerful Creator God then that entity can be allowed any powers you need to make your world view work. At one extreme you can tear up all the laws of physics, including their likely consequences such as evolution, and assume He micromanages the whole universe to maintain equilibrium. Another option can define Him as the inventor of those laws, so all He had to do in order to ensure that we exist was to define the initial conditions of the big bang, plus a set of rules for the interactions of matter and energy, and let it evolve to form the universe we see today.

 

[mdwh]

Quick answer:

If there are no laws of physics, and corollaries such as evolution, then a Creator God is necessary to sustain the universe. If the laws of physics and evolution do exist then they can sustain the universe with or without the need for a Creator God to define them.

I don't entirely agree with your answer. Laws of physics are not really "laws" in the sense that the Universe must follow them - rather, scientific laws are descriptive. They describe how the Universe behaves, based on our observations.

Whether evolution occurs because of the way the Universe works, or because there is a God who intervenes at every moment, isn't something that science can (or needs to) answer - either way, evolution is still a fact.

Consider gravity - when Newton discovered this, he gave no answer as to what a force actually is, rather it was simply a way of describing how things behaved. You could say a force's effects are carried out by invisible angels - but that's not really scientific.

It's true that if there was an interventionist God, then he could choose to make the Universe behave far more erratically. The fact that it seems well-behaved could be taken as evidence against a moody intervening God.

 

[Boris Godunov]

1) What evidence do you see backing the ToE? Can you point to specific examples of how that evidence can be shown?

Abundant fossils, morphology, DNA evidence, molecular biology, and outright observation of it occuring.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-research.html
http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoEvidence.html

There is, as of yet, no scientific evidence for evolution not being true.

2) Do you see evolution purely as a theory or legitimate idea, or are you sure of it being fact? Why?

That evolution is a fact is incontrovertible. It is overwhelmingly accepted as a fact by the scientific community, to a degree that heliocentrism is accepted as a fact. Some people disingenuously claim that evolution is not necessarily true because science says it is "only a theory," but this just betrays their ignorance of what the word "theory" means in the scientific sense.

The details of how evolution occurs is what is more theoretical--we are still discovering how the process works. That it works, though, is not in dispute. It's similar to gravity. We know it exists and what it does, but how exactly it works is still being hashed out. We have pretty good ideas about how evolution and gravity both work, but the details need to be fleshed out.

3) Do you see the ToE as being compatible or incompatible with the idea of a Creator God? (Note: please do not get carried away with the existence of said God)

Evolution says nothing about god(s) whatsoever, so I don't see why it would be incompatible with belief in god. It is incompatible with particular views of god, such as the god required by a literal interpretation of the Bible. But otherwise, there's no reason to think evolution must run contrary to the idea that a god of some kind or another is ultimately responsible for creating the universe and creating life, etc. I personally don't believe in such a thing, but someone can logically believe both evolution and god are true.

Thanks in advance.

You're welcome.

 

[greekguy]

1) What evidence do you see backing the ToE? Can you point to specific examples of how that evidence can be shown?

The Origin of Species by Charles Darwin

2) Do you see evolution purely as a theory or legitimate idea, or are you sure of it being fact? Why?

As much a theory as the Theory of Gravity.

3) Do you see the ToE as being compatible or incompatible with the idea of a Creator God? (Note: please do not get carried away with the existence of said God)

I believe in God and I accept the Theory of Evolution as fact. So, i would say they are compatible.

Thanks in advance.

No problem.

 

[Boris Godunov]

BTW, please stop using the term "Evolutionist." There is no such thing. It's a loaded term made up and used by Creationists to try and make those who accept evolution as fact seem like dogmatists. One might as well call those who accept gravity as fact "Gravitists."

 

[ainwood]

If you believe in the existence of an all-powerful Creator God then that entity can be allowed any powers you need to make your world view work. At one extreme you can tear up all the laws of physics, including their likely consequences such as evolution, and assume He micromanages the whole universe to maintain equilibrium. Another option can define Him as the inventor of those laws, so all He had to do in order to ensure that we exist was to define the initial conditions of the big bang, plus a set of rules for the interactions of matter and energy, and let it evolve to form the universe we see today.

Which actually means that God & evolution aren't mutually exclusive - although the biblical account of creation would be.

 

[Neonanocyborgasm]

1) What evidence do you see backing the ToE? Can you point to specific examples of how that evidence can be shown?

Worlwide discoveries of fossils of animals that no longer exist, as well as comparative anatomy of existing animals, demonstrate a descent from an earlier ancestor. In more recent times, genetic analysis has corroborated this descent by pointing to homologous DNA sequences.

You can read about specific examples on http://www.talkorigins.org

2) Do you see evolution purely as a theory or legitimate idea, or are you sure of it being fact? Why?

Evolution has such a large amount of evidence behind it that it may as well be fact.

3) Do you see the ToE as being compatible or incompatible with the idea of a Creator God? (Note: please do not get carried away with the existence of said God)

Don't really care, as I don't believe in god.

 

[Maniacal]

I have never really understood why religion could not have simply adopted evolution with the explanation "God causes the changes" or something along those lines but maybe a little more subtle.

 

[blackheart]

I have never really understood why religion could not have simply adopted evolution with the explanation "God causes the changes" or something along those lines but maybe a little more subtle.

Creationists have tried. They've poisoned the idea of intelligent design with it.

 

[puglover]

Which actually means that God & evolution aren't mutually exclusive - although the biblical account of creation would be.

What makes you say that?

 

[AlanH]

I don't entirely agree with your answer. Laws of physics are not really "laws" in the sense that the Universe must follow them - rather, scientific laws are descriptive. They describe how the Universe behaves, based on our observations.

Of course the universe doesn't obey any theories written down by Einstein or Newton. But science works in the belief (that word again) that the patterns of behaviour we see indicate that an ordered set of laws is in operation, and seeks to discover those laws. The theories that are published along the way are best guesses at any time, and the fact that they seem to get increasingly accurate when compared with observations gives hope that there is indeed a set of fundamental laws that the universe *does* obey.

 

[Boris Godunov]

What makes you say that?

I think he's assuming a literal reading of the biblical account.

Still, even taking it as heavily allegorical, it seems some stretching needs to be done to really make it fit with the evolutionary paradigm.

 

[mdwh]

Of course the universe doesn't obey any theories written down by Einstein or Newton. But science works in the belief (that word again) that the patterns of behaviour we see indicate that an ordered set of laws is in operation, and seeks to discover those laws.

Yes, but my point was that laws are a description of how the Universe work; whether or not a creator was needed to "sustain" the way the Universe worked, we would still be observing, and describing the observations with laws.

I agree that in order for us to be able to do science, there needs to be some patterns or order in the way the Universe works.

 

[AlanH]

Our scientific theories are descriptive of the way the universe appears to work. Laws, as I am using the term, are the underlying principles that dictate how the universe operates. That's why I use the term Law. If science is right in believing these exist, and are worth trying to discover, then they would be there and immutable, whether we are around to observe and describe them or not.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

The beginning of Genesis, if viewed as a parable like the good Samaritan or the Prodigal Son, actually does say a lot about creation. What matters is not that it took 6 days, or that there were plants then animals or whatever. Science has shown that it can't be an actual description. But as a parable, it imparts the important truths that the world was created intentionally by God, according to a plan, that humans were in some way the crowining achievement, and most importantly that He was pleased with the results. Those basic ideas make Genesis 1 quite distinct from other creation myths of the time.

 

[Perfection]

1) What evidence do you see backing the ToE? Can you point to specific examples of how that evidence can be shown?

Try the first post of the first KOs creationism thread for some good stuff

2) Do you see evolution purely as a theory or legitimate idea, or are you sure of it being fact? Why?

This gets into some nitty gritty semantics that I really don't care to argue about. I view the theory of evolution as having almost no chance of being false.

3) Do you see the ToE as being compatible or incompatible with the idea of a Creator God? (Note: please do not get carried away with the existence of said God)

I don't understand enough about the mechanics of "creator gods" to speculate.

 

[Souron]

1) What evidence do you see backing the ToE? Can you point to specific examples of how that evidence can be shown?
There's lots of it, and I can point to specific examples. I don't feel like writing an psudo-essay on it right now, though. Besides there are plenty of biology books that explain everything.

2) Do you see evolution purely as a theory or legitimate idea, or are you sure of it being fact? Why?
It is a theory in the scientific sense of the word. That means it is an explanation of a natural phenomena. And as scientific theory, it is humanity's best guess at how the world works.

While the details of evolution on earth are not yet fully understood, there is so much evidence supporting it that I do not see the theory ever being overturned.

So yes, I see evolution as fact, with the details somewhat murky particularly in the area of biogenesis.

3) Do you see the ToE as being compatible or incompatible with the idea of a Creator God? (Note: please do not get carried away with the existence of said God)
In answer to your question I will explain how science in general is compatible with a Creator God:

I see it as generally compatible.

However, science has always sought to explain things without referring to any God or gods. One of the very basic assumptions of science is that any experiment or natural phenomena can be reproduced to yield the same results, regardless of position and time, assuming that the conditions vital to the experiment are the same. In other words, everything is reproducible. There are no miracles. So science will explain away any miracles that may otherwise be called divine intervention and if you believe in miracles your beliefs are incompatible with the principles of science.

Furthermore, science does not assume any religious text to be true. And there being so many contradicting religious texts it’s no wonder science disagrees with all but the simplest. For example ToE is incompatible with a literal interpretation of Genesis.

Despite this, ToE, and every other fully accepted scientific theory do not deny that the world had a beginning. And there is (as of yet) nothing to explain what caused the universe to come to be. ToE does not touch the subject except to say that it happened billions of years ago. Current astrophysics marks the age of the universe to be 13.7 billion years. What “caused” the world to be is unknown, and many think it is outside the scope of what will ever be answerable by science. Therefore it is not against science to say that there is a Creator God that caused the world to be.

Spoiler A musing by me on a related issue :

On the other hand, caused might be an inapplicable word, because time began at the Big Bang. Nothing caused the big bang in the conventional sense because there was nothing before it. So it may be necessary to accept that “God created the world” is an approximation, an metaphor of what really happened, because such a God would be a timeless entity or something

.