Comment about the latest evolution post

Creationists only need to argue the origin of existence to make their point.
Whereas creationists can always appeal to a higher power, supporters of the theory of evolution must concede the theory breaks down because the science behind it breaks down.
The problem with the theory, and the science behind it, is its modeled after a cause and effect based system. While that may be an acceptable model for explaining something like how lightning occurs, it cannot offer insight into the origin. In fact it can only offer an explanation for those things that occurred after.
Whats offensive is that theses facts have not stopped supporters of the theory from banishing creationism from places of learning.
The theory of evolution doesn't offer any more legitimate an explanation for origin of the human race than creationism. The theory ignores the beginning and argues based on fragmented pieces of history that "this is how it MAY have happened"
There are many flaws with this kind of reasoning. For one, the theory relies on an incomplete fossil record with many gaps that are filled in by nothing more than educated guesses.
So how are educated guesses any better than a belief in creationism? Is an incomplete fossil record enough to preclude the POSSIBILITY that a few million years ago God intervened and created man?

--Nope, it's certainly POSSIBLE that God intervened. It's also possible that there's no gravity, but that God keeps us all from floating off the Earth, one by one. The evidence all suggests otherwise, but you can't prove gravity really exists. Same deal with evolution. It's funny how virtually all of the educated guesses about evolution turn out to be pretty much on the money when new evidence emerges, and how the mechanism of evolution has been observed on a shorter timescale in the lab. But..maybe it's all just a coincidence.

I am not saying the theory is wrong for explaining a scientific mechanism for the diversity of life.
I am saying that at some point during a public discussion of how life came to be, creationism cannot be ignored much less ridiculed.
By attacking creationism scientists have brought the discussion of how life came to be out of the scientific community and into the public community. You cant attack a theory for being wrong because it doesn't pass scientific standards. Because: Science does not equal truth, and creationism is not a scientific theory.
Maybe science can just ignore those things they cant answer, but then that kind of thinking cant debunk a theory that tries to answer everything. OK, the earth wasn't created in 7 days (depending on your definition of how long a day is), and maybe religious text aren't the word of God. How can you use that to make the leap that God wasn't involved in creating life, that creationism is wrong?
Creationism isn't tied to any particular religion, its part of the human psyche. Nearly every culture that has left anything behind to suggest it sought to answer the question of how we came to be has at least hinted at a creationist answer. But... maybe its all just a coincidence that so many different people came to the same conclusion based on the same evidence. Oh wait, those people don't count because some guy with a PhD didn't tell them to think that way right?
The notion that evolutionary theory will prove creationism wrong is unscientific. Where is your proof? What you're doing is saying "science proved all these other things wrong so therefore creationism must be wrong." In reality, science will never have proof to the contrary. Because all creationist need to do is keep saying "and what caused that?" And, then the lack of response will be affirmation enough to suggest creationism is on a whole different playing field.
The best the theory of evolution can ever hope to do is compliment creationist theory.

--Actually, there's a very plausible evolutionary explanation for why so many people came to the "same" conclusion (although the specifics are pretty different).
M.L.

M. L.

Here we are back again discussing evolution and the origin of life. The gist of all your comments to me and to others over the last couple of months is, you'd rather place your faith in science than in God when it comes to all the unanswered questions that are still around concerning these subjects. And it IS a matter of faith on your part, because we don't know where science will move in the future. Science may very well surprise some or all of us -- to prejudge the answer to unanswered scientific questions is essentially unscientific.

You have stated previously that you think that science will eventually solve the scientific riddle of how life began, how non-living chemicals somehow formed living cells. There is absolutely no scientific data to back up your faith that this happened -- as we have discussed previously, science is very far from any understanding of this subject.

I think it is important that all parties to these discussions be honest, and very upfront, about what their assumptions and beliefs are. Creationists and IDers wear the beliefs and assumptions fairly conspicuously. I believe evolutionists are pretty effective at hiding theirs under a cloak of scientific jargon.

--I don't know that science will answer all questions about the physical universe; I do know that so far, many, many questions assumed to be answerable only with "God did it" have since been answered by science. Seems to me it takes a lot more faith to assume this will suddenly stop happening than it will. You have zero idea of how far science is from answering the topic. It might be answered next week. So I pretty much reject most of what you say.
M.L.

"There is absolutely no scientific data to back up your faith that this happened -- as we have discussed previously, science is very far from any understanding of this subject."
The evidence is that you are here and thus, life arose. Look at the options after that. It happened or something caused it to happen. 'well, i guess that since i cant imagine life coming about on its own, I'm going to believe that a magic father figure decided that all this pain was just what he needed to feel better about his perfect existence,' because thats way simpler and easily more believable than just assuming there is any REAL explanation for it. 'And while I'm at it, I'll go ahead and let you know that that father figure isn't really alive and he exists outside of time, so no, i don't have to wonder where HE came from.'
It's like writing in god next to the (a) (b) (c) and (d) of a multiple choice question, yeah maybe its right, but is sure as hell didn't work the last 17 trillion times it was tried.

[[Whats offensive is that theses facts have not stopped supporters of the theory from banishing creationism from places of learning. ]]

They do that because creationism isn't science. Biology courses teach evolution because evolution is the lynchpin of modern biology.

[[The theory of evolution doesn't offer any more legitimate an explanation for origin of the human race than creationism.]]

Yes it does. Creationism just says "God did it," sometimes adding that he did it by fiat on a particular day during the six-day creation. The modern picture of the evolution of humans, on the other hand, is based on a century and a half of patient explication of the fossil record, a hell of a lot of fieldwork, and studies ranging from molecular biochemistry to taxonomy. Are details of the picture going to change as new evidence comes in? Of course they are. But that's what makes evolution science and creationism not science. You never hear about the creationist picture being modified by new evidence. Evidence is irrelevant to it.

[[You cant attack a theory for being wrong because it doesn't pass scientific standards. Because: Science does not equal truth, and creationism is not a scientific theory. ]]

You can attack it for being wrong, and not science, when its proponents try to say it is "scientific creationism." Or even "Intelligent Design." As long as those are claimed to be scientific theories, it is exactly the right thing to do to attack them as wrong, as long as they don't meet the criteria for being science.

[[Maybe science can just ignore those things they cant answer, but then that kind of thinking cant debunk a theory that tries to answer everything. OK, the earth wasn't created in 7 days (depending on your definition of how long a day is), and maybe religious text aren't the word of God. How can you use that to make the leap that God wasn't involved in creating life, that creationism is wrong? ]]

I think you have "creationism" confused with "creation." I have no doubt that God is the creator, and that creation is his work. But "creationism" is a particular theory about how he did it -- a theory we know to be wrong from the empirical evidence.]]

--This demonstrates nicely that there is not necessarily a conflict between faith and science.
M.L.

Even if science cannot come with all facts and data yet concerning the origins of life,science does have much more evidence for evolution and even the possible origins of life than creationism has ever brought forth. Where is physical, reproducable evidence anywhere that unquivocally shows a supernatural designer's mark in anything that you see in the visible universe?

The only thing creationists have of any religion are the words of a book or handed down stories to rest their "faith" on. Science deals with the observable universe and makes hypothosis and theories based on measurable data. What do creationists measure besides the subjective desires for an explanation that fits their religious faith? These two ways of seeing the universe are not really compatable.

Just because some see "creation" as a part of their psyches because humans create things and reproduce does not lead to the ultimate conclusion that life as a whole must come forth from some supernatural creator.

That is merely the bias of some who are not willing to look deeper into what constitutes life on a reductionist level.

The strength and honesty of science is that it tries to stay away form the subjective biases of religious belief and find a common reference for all humans to understand without complicating things with religious worldviews. Scientists are not trying to hide behind scientific jargon,they are trying to use consensus and a agreed upon language of science to explain observations.

Religion has so many varied "languages" on what is "the truth" how can we hope to reconcile them to find common explanations and consensus?

Creationist and ID advovates, no matter how sincere you see their methods and beliefs are using their beliefs to try to undermine the consensus process and the scientific method, not augment it.

The "wedge" document coming forth from the Discovery Institute does testify to much integrity and honesty. It is a publicized, but crafted subversive attempt to overthrow what they see as "evil materialism and naturalism". How is that in line with ethical behavior?

Creationist and ID advocates might get further in their assumptions if they could show us testable, repeatable experiments and evidence that there is a supernatural explanation behind the universe. I have seen nothing even comparable to that coming forth from the religious community.

oops...I should have said that the "wedge document from the Discovery Institute does NOT testify to much integrity or honesty"

"The strength and honesty of science is that it tries to stay away form the subjective biases of religious belief and find a common reference for all humans to understand without complicating things with religious worldviews."

What do you think religion is? Most creationists would say, and I would tend to agree, that science IS a religion. At the very least the line has become blurred because science competes with entrenched religion. And science is a dangerous religion at that, because it does not espouse any limits or boundaries.
Religion wasn't created for ceremonial purposes. It was/is, like science, an effort to understand the universe. But when science is presented as having all the answers why would anyone bother with other religion. Especially when science is taught as the correct answer.
And if there is one thing that is sacred in all religions its the orgin, the story of how we came to be. But supportes of evolution arent leaving that alone, even if the theory is has holes. Religion cant be taught in schools, children spend more time in school then with their parents. The ideas are reinforced over and over again in tests and essays. If you believe it you will get an 'A'. If you don't you will fail and be ridiculed. So I wonder what theses people are going to grow up believing?
Maybe thats why the creationists/ID are so desperate to have their ideas heard, and accepted.
Its a last chance to reconcile their religious views with scientific ones, rather then have science completely displace their religious views.

--If this is so, how do explain the many very devout Christians (and members of other religions) who have no problem whatever accepting evolution, or the scientific explanation for the origin of life? They don't feel threatened by science. Why must you?

In addition, you keep making the false assertion that evolution is a "religion." That's just wrong. Evolution isn't based on belief. It's based on perfectly straightforward reasoning, supported by enormous amounts of evidence. You will probably never accept it, because no matter how resoundingly successful the theory is at explaining the diversity of life--which it is--you'll keep searching for the ever-fewer and smaller "holes" that you desperately need to invoke to satisfy your requirement that evolution cannot, no matter what the evidence, be correct.

--M.L.

Below is some definitions of religion. I believe creationists and strict fundamentalists fall into the first three categories and even the fourth at times.

While scientists try to hold to a set of agreed methods in conducting science I can hardly agree that this is a "religion" especially like that of the the definitions below.

Anybody can become obsessed with any idea or doctrine. Scientists as well as anybody can become extremists about their findings or beliefs, but science is not normally about confirming OR DENYING God's existence.

It is about observing and examining data that the physical universe presents and TRYING to understand it WITHOUT a pre-conceived supernatural bias or conclusion. Many scientists just like the religious have personal beliefs and values but they try to leave them out of the mix when forming conclusions. Why? Because as I said previously adding muti-varied personal religious beliefs to the scientific method only complicates matters making resolution near impossible.

I do agree that science needs the input of ethics and guidleines to avoid harm as much as possible. But science is hardly some out of control dangerous force that must be strongly curtailed in favor of alarmist religious concerns.

"Nobody" please tell me honestly if you can say that most fundamentalist or evangelical religions and beliefs as defined below are impartial,objective and willing to be openly revised when they try to explain the universe?

Thank you

religion

re·li·gion [ri líjj?n] (plural re·li·gions) noun
1.RELIGION beliefs and worship: people’s beliefs and opinions concerning the existence, nature, and worship of a deity or deities, and divine involvement in the universe and human life

2.RELIGION particular system: a particular institutionalized or personal system of beliefs and practices relating to the divine

3.personal beliefs or values: a set of strongly-held beliefs, values, and attitudes that somebody lives by

4.obsession: an object, practice, cause, or activity that somebody is completely devoted to or obsessed by •The danger is that you start to make fitness a religion.
5.CHRISTIANITY monk’s or nun’s life: life as a monk or a nun, especially in the Roman Catholic Church

[12th century. Via Anglo-Norman religiun, from Old French religion, from the Latin stem religion- “obligation, reverence,” of uncertain origin: probably formed from religare (see rely ).]

—re·lig·ion·less, adjective

get religion
1.to stop flouting rules, regulations, customs, and expectations of society (informal)
2.to become a believer or join a religious organization, and, usually, start to lead a life that follows its teachings (informal)

Encarta® World English Dictionary © & (P) 1999 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved. Developed for Microsoft by Bloomsbury Publishing Plc.

If the religious object to evolutionary science being taught in public schools then you have the perogitive of private education or homeschooling.

But is is blatantly unethical and unfair for you to insist that other students be taught creationism in public schools because it is a religious topic, not something recognized as objective science which is what our modern society is based on,whether you accept this or not.

It is amazing that Christian fundamentalists cannot recognize the close analogy of what you wish for public schools, to the fanaticism and intellectual censorship that exists in Islamic cultures.

What has made(at one time at least)the USA a world leader was it's emphasis on advancing knowledge of science in the public schools without interference of personal religious biases. The stranglehold that fundamentalist religion would place upon institutions of learning would cause the further erosion of learning and knowledge we are experiencing lately, greatly harming us all.

"But is is blatantly unethical and unfair for you to insist that other students be taught creationism in public schools because it is a religious topic, not something recognized as objective science which is what our modern society is based on,whether you accept this or not."

The last time I read the encryption on u.s. money it said "in god we trust." The last time I said the pledge allegiance I recall saying "under god." Those things are not coincidences. My point is, modern society is based on religion not science. Science wouldn't even exist if religion didn't first help create an environment that could foster it.
While you may be opposed to forcing people to learn views that may contradict their personal beliefs, you are in effect doing the same. Or are you really saying its OK as long as those people count in the minority? Your solution is just as rash, forcing those people who don't agree with you to leave. That is probably going to be worse in the long run.

Why is it that the origin of life can only be discussed in biology class? I agree that the debate should not be limited to creationism as Christians understand it. All points of view should be presented but is that possible if anyone who tries to present alternative ideas is attacked?

"--If this is so, how do explain the many very devout Christians (and members of other religions) who have no problem whatever accepting evolution, or the scientific explanation for the origin of life? They don't feel threatened by science. Why must you?"

And how do you explain all those efforts by Christian fundamentalists to keep evolution out of school? Surely some part of that effort is about preserving their way of thinking.
I dont feel threatened by science. I see a problem. The problem is the scientific community ostracizing anyone who does not prescribe to the same school of thought as them, EVEN IF those individuals are not trying to get their ideas scientific acceptance.
The debate between creationists and evolutionists isnt a debate for the minds of scientists. The debate has now become whether creationists CAN EVEN present their ideas in PUBLIC schools and let the public decide on its own.
For some reason you feel threatened by any attempts on the part of creationists to present their views in the open. Case in point: your comments regarding creationism. So, if you feel that people can believe in both then why do you feel its necessary to attack and ridicule creationists?
When you attack and ridicule creationism you are, whether you accept it or not, attacking peoples' faith.

--I notice you've completely ignored my original question. I won't ignore yours: creationism doesn't belong in public school science classes because it's a a religious belief, not science. And because in this country your religious beliefs are your business, but when you use a government-funded forum to advance them, you're violating the constitution. That's why.
M.L.

Creationists believe an invisible magic man in the sky created creatures. Are creationists insane? Yes, of course they are. Are creationists stupid? Yes, they are the most stupid people on earth. They are a disgrace to the human race. Come on, a magic man created humans and cockroaches out of nothing? Creationists are the dumbest most insane people in human history, and these morons want to control what is taught in public school biology classes.

"When you attack and ridicule creationism you are, whether you accept it or not, attacking peoples' faith."

No kidding. Your faith is idiotic and childish. You deserve to be ridiculed because you and other know-nothing creationists spread lies about science, brainwash children with your stupid insane beliefs, and have made the USA the laughing stock of the world.

I find reading the debates in this blog about evolution depressing business. Truly, in no other modern western country is there such a debate still going on between partisans of evolution and creationism, or 'Intelligent Design' for those trying to hide their beliefs under a pseudo-scientific theory. What happened to the teaching of true science in the USA? Why does the USA keep giving the impression to the rest of the Western world that partisans of the Flat Earth Society are still trying to take it over? Science is NOT a religion, and Intelligent Design is definitely NOT a scientific theory, at least not in Europe or Canada. Wake up to the 21st Century, USA! You are becoming the laughing stock of the World with this creationism craze. And please, stop quoting God all the time, such as your politicians keep doing all the time: the Middle East is also a place where they quote God all the time and see how screwed up it is! Believing in God is fine with me, but religion is supposed to be a personal business, not a guide to state policies.

Nobody,

The reason that most educators do not want creationism taught in biology classes is that for the 10^1000 time!, creationism is based on your religious beliefs not the dsciplines of science!... and in particular in this case mostly Christian beliefs. If anything like that should be taught in class it would be in a religoius philosphy class.

How can you expect people who deal in science which does not normally look to supernatural powers as explanations to share equal time with those who advocate supernatural origins? I am sorry but the two things are mostly incompatable to bring up in public school science classes. The teachers would never get anything taught if that was to happen.

I am sorry that you may feel your beliefs are being marginalized and discriminated on but despite what you say our modern society does function on the foundations and discoveries that science has given us over the centuries. You seem to say that everything is dependent upon religion. I disagree. People use their religion in their personal lives for comfort and guidance but that does not mean that such varied personal beliefs should have undue influence in matters that are in the public sphere. It would be impractical and unproductive.

Science works because it tries to stay on neutral ground where humans can find answers to the universe we live without introducing complicated personal religious beliefs. If science did do that it really would be in chaos.

Just because mottos and money etc. carry religious slogans does not give anyone in this country that is based on individual freedom, including religious freedom to impose their particular religious beliefs upon the whole populace. We left that behind over two hundred years ago...remember? That is supposed to be the way this country works,the ideals we(were at one time)are working toward.

I am all for discussing realistic alternatives but the methods of established science as practiced by most scientists is that we deal with physical data that can be analyzed and quantified. We cannot analyze various personal religious values and stories of origin as physical data and come to some consensus on it's meaning and utility.

Nobody writes:

[[The debate has now become whether creationists CAN EVEN present their ideas in PUBLIC schools and let the public decide on its own.]]

Public school biology classes are not about letting some segment of the populace at large present their views on the subject. They're about teaching the science, the stuff we know to be true from observation and experiment.

Creationists are not being stifled. They have web sites, books, conferences, Sunday school classes, newspapers, TV reports, museums, pamphlets, and private school classes. They can't teach their views in a public school because public schools have to be neutral in questions of religion. You wouldn't like it if your kids were instructed in Islamic theories of embryology, or if a public school science class had to discuss the Saudi fatwa that states that the Earth is flat.

Bob writes:

[[Creationists believe an invisible magic man in the sky created creatures. Are creationists insane? Yes, of course they are. Are creationists stupid? Yes, they are the most stupid people on earth. They are a disgrace to the human race. Come on, a magic man created humans and cockroaches out of nothing? Creationists are the dumbest most insane people in human history, and these morons want to control what is taught in public school biology classes.]]

Gee, Bob, that looks like a really good way to reach creationists and people on the fence -- just call them stupid and crazy. You don't have to actually know anything about either religion or evolutionary biology to use this approach. A third grader can do it! Oh, man, why did I ever bother with the debate team?

[[And please, stop quoting God all the time, such as your politicians keep doing all the time: the Middle East is also a place where they quote God all the time and see how screwed up it is!]]

And please, stop quoting scientists all the time, such as your politicans keep doing all the time: the USSR was also a place where they quoted scientists all the time and see how screwed up that was!

It's a logical fallacy to say that because group A (or individual A) shares a trait with group B (or individual B), they must also share other traits. It's like saying that because Hitler and opera lovers both like Wagner, opera lovers are like Hitler, or that because George Bush and Al Gore have stated that global warming is a problem, George Bush is like Al Gore.

ML: Thanks for posting about my comments! Its great to see you actively discussing issues with those who comment on your blog.

You are very correct in your rebuttal to my comments... I'll use hunger as an excuse for my dull response =). Any way, after reading through these comments, its pretty obvious that many who feel strongly for either creation or evolution will not budge, regardless to any evidence or logic (or lack thereof) given. So instead, I'll offer another item to discuss: science answers the question of "how" very well. Through careful obvservation and dissection, we have historically been able to tinker with our interests until we discover to some level of certainty what makes them act as they do. However, I am not sure how well the scientific community answers the question of "why". For example, as far as I know, there are no well-grounded theories of why the universe experienced the big bang in the first place. What are your feelings on this matter?

--I agree with the statement about the Big Bang, although I disagree that it's a "why" question rather than just another "how." "Why" implies to me a purpose, and I don't think we have any scientific evidence to suggest the Big Bang happened for a purpose.

I also disagree with those who say the absence of a well grounded theory about the Big Bang suggests divine intervention. All it suggests to me is that we don't have a well-grounded theory at this point.
M.L.

Science never tried to give an answer for the "Why" of the universe. that's not the purpose of science, which is to observe, deduce, repeat. yeah, yeah, that's oversimplified, but you get the picture.

i would be interested to know what people mean when the talk of "Creationism". i wouldn't want to assume they're all Christians espousing the Biblical "God" as creator. Do they honor the beliefs of the Buddhists, or the Hindus? Hinduism does predate Christianity, after all. Does the world's third largest religion want a footnote in science textbooks like the Christians want for the Genesis story?

it just seems that if we're arguing validity, all the other unproveable supernatural beliefs should be taken into account. we wouldn't want to be myopic about this. or racist, considering we Westerners almost never consider the other longstanding spirituality of the other major beliefs.

'"Why" implies to me a purpose, and I don't think we have any scientific evidence to suggest the Big Bang happened for a purpose.'

ML: This is true, asking "why" in essence asks "for what reason, cause, or purpose" http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/why , and I'm glad you pointed that out. Does science ask the question of purpose? In the world of biology, we see purpose in (nearly) every individual component of a body in its contribution to the body as a whole. In the study of animal behavior, we see reason behind many social interactions. So in some circumstances yes, it does. A goal of science (if I'm not mistake, and I daresay you'll correct me if I am) is to develop a universal theory of, well, the universe. Can science afford then to ignore the questions of cause and of purpose of topics like the big bang? Are you comfortable not asking those questions?

--You're confusing two meanings of "purpose." One meaning is "function," as in "what is the purpose of a carburetor or an enzyme. Science addresses that sort of purpose.

The other meaning is closer to "motivation" or "intention," as in the purpose of a particular foreign policy or of a piece of art. I'm quite comfortable not asking such questions about the universe, because I have no reason to think there is such a purpose.
M.L.

"Beyond doubt, the main reason people believe in evolution is that sources they admire, say it is so. It would pay for these people to do a thorough examination of all the evidence CONTRARY to evolution that is readily available: Try answersingenesis.org. The evolutionists should honestly examine the SUPPOSED evidence 'FOR' evolution for THEMSELVES."

James: Though I'm a proponent of creation, I disagree with you. Firstly, as there is never %100 certainty in anything worldly, arguing that something is "beyond doubt" is naive. Secondly, to argue that "...the main reason people believe in evolution is that sources they admire, say it is so" is to imply that you are somehow an expert of a typical evolutionist or, in a broader sense, scientist psyche. Which (show me your Ph.D or equivalent and I'll apologize) does not seem to be the case.

On the topic of reason for believe in evolution or putting great stock in science, I would wager that it isn't an issue of blind admiration. Rather, its simply that many people wish to believe that they can understand the world around on their own accord.

As for your payment offer, my response is this: if you're so fluent with the evidence against evolution, then why not post THAT instead of your rambling political garb? Flaming will never accomplish anything; posting credible facts may spark serious intellectual conversation and solve problems. Its when people post what you have James that the scientific community becomes less and less likely to ever hold competant conversation with those who support creation. Please do the cause justice and support it adequately next time.

"If evolutionists want to end the arguments all they have to do is, get their brilliant heads together and assemble a 'simple' living cell. This should be possible, since they certainly have a very great amount of knowledge about what is inside the 'simple' cell."

You greatly underestimate the complexity of something like a cell system. No cell is "simple" therefor creating a "simple cell" from its constituent parts is not a simple or straight foward process. It is complex and very difficult to do.

"But if the scientists are unsuccessful, perhaps they should try Mother Earth's recipe, you know, the one they claim worked the first time about 4 billion years ago, so they say. All they need to do is to gather all the chemicals that we know are essential for life, pour them into a large clay pot and stir vigorously for a few billion years, and Walla, LIFE!"

First the Earth has been around for about 4 billion years not life. Life on Earth only arose about 2.7 billion years ago. Second sadly you are right in the fact that it took life 1.3 billion years to arise after the Earths formation so for science to create life in 50 or 100 years is nearly impossible. We can only guess at the exactly nature of the atmosphere on Earth when life arose so it will take much trial and error to create life in the labrotory.

I do think that it is interesting that people confuse Abiogenisis with evolution. Evolution does not in tackle the question of how life arose on the Earth. Evolution only deals with what happened to life once it had arose.

James Collins

I think that your overall comments show the grave lack of knowledge of basic biological systems and a lack of understanding of the scientific process. I unfortunately think that this lack of understanding is not ignorance but an active choice. People who support a creationist standpoint choose to confuse evolution with abiogenesis because abiogenesis still has many unanswered questions and evolution has very few holes to attack.

"Think of it this way, if all the brilliant scientists on earth can't do it how on earth can anyone believe that it happened by accident?????"

This does not follow...just because we do not have the technology to recreate something doesn't mean that God must have done it. We couldn't replicate nuclear fusion until recently does that mean before science could replicate it that the light from the sun was created by God.

"People who support a creationist standpoint choose to confuse evolution with abiogenesis because abiogenesis still has many unanswered questions and evolution has very few holes to attack." -- mIve

mIve: In the future, please do not use blanket statements in such a discussion unless you can support it with evidence, i.e. a poll or study. I believe you are correct in assuming this is how James appears, but as a creationist myself I do not support these views. Thank you.

Just wanted to weigh in here with something that I don't believe was articulated. There is an insistance by the hardcore ID and Creationist folks out there to teach their beliefs right along side of evolutionary theory in science class (specifically Biology; this also hasn't been mentioned but there are many facets of science, not just the origin of life believe it or not).

My question is why? Would it make sense to teach German right along side English in an English class? They're both languages after all, and the kids should be able to decide which they like better to be their native language. We have different subjects in schools and those subjects are kept relatively separate. The goal of biology is not to tell the kids what to believe or where we came from or what is right, but to show them results that they can reproduce for themselves. Do this, and that will happen. Kid does this, that happens...magic? No, that's science.

Religion and faith have their place within all of us and it doesn't need to interfere with other forms of education (or anything in life really). Show me where the Bible (or any relgious text) says that we should be speaking English, or learning math, or teaching art classes, or working out. While I don't know it for fact, I would guess that those things aren't stated in the respective texts. To me it's quite clear that personal beliefs and faith do not have the answers for our day to day lives and we actually have a bit of freedom on how to fill the hours.

Trying to artificially inject unrelated subjects into others will only confuse kids, not enlighten them. Let's go back to the German example. Let's say instead of German (which is, at least, another language spoken by many people) we tried to teach the language used in mathematical proofs alongside of English as an equally valid way to communicate. The two are unrelated, clearly, so it doesn't make sense to teach them as competing ways to communicate. What makes sense in one is nonsensical in the other. I think someone earlier absolutely has it right when they said that they can still believe that God is responsible for creating it all, but what came after can be explained by what science has taught us.

Oh, and if God is really holding and moving everything in the universe in a way that mimics how we've predicted 'gravity' to operate...well, S/He's very cooperative with what science predicts.

" I think someone earlier absolutely has it right when they said that they can still believe that God is responsible for creating it all, but what came after can be explained by what science has taught us.
"

To clarify, I'm not saying whether I also believe this or not, but only that the poster had the right idea that the ideas don't necessarily contradict each other.

"mIve: In the future, please do not use blanket statements in such a discussion unless you can support it with evidence, i.e. a poll or study. I believe you are correct in assuming this is how James appears, but as a creationist myself I do not support these views. Thank you."

I apologise I did not mean it as a blanket statement. thanks for correcting me.
To clarify I should have stated in my experience some people who support a creationist standpoint choose to confuse abiogenesis and evolution.

James Collins,

They're close check out these two sites:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/transcripts/3112_origins.html

http://www.resa.net/nasa/origins_life.htm

Stanley Miller was a brilliant man. It is a shame that he has passed on, but his work will be built on.

Nobody,

Your pleading and insistence is reminding me very strongly of the reasons for "Spaghetti Monster Theory".

Religion is best for teaching morals, those silly little things that help society function. As long as we hairless monkeys insist on living together there will always be religion. And as long as teachers hand out tests there will always be prayer in school.

Science is a set of tools for discovery, not a religion. I am sorry but I will never pray to my beaker, nor will I give a tithe to my Erlenmeyer Flask. Wow.

"Oh, and if God is really holding and moving everything in the universe in a way that mimics how we've predicted 'gravity' to operate...well, S/He's very cooperative with what science predicts." -- KB

KB: We note that gravity has been in effect for all of human history. We also note that our "predictions" are based off of nothing more than observations of how gravity works today and has worked in the past. Therefore, if indeed God constantly pulls the strings to gravity, it is our predictions that cooperate with God, not the other way around.

I completely agree with the body of your argument, other than that nonsense.

Zach,

My apologies for getting a touch flippant at the end, but it was a direct response to a section in the first comment, not a statement directed at any belief set or group of people.

Zachary Petiti,

Kepler's Third Law: "The squares of the orbital periods of planets are directly proportional to the cubes of the semi-major axis of the orbits."

Apply this to Newton's Gravitational Law: "Every single point mass attracts every other point mass by a force pointing along the line combining the two. The force is proportional to the product of the two masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between the point masses."

Throw in some "voodoo", i.e. mathematics and viola gravity explained! Quick get your camera!

I completely agree with the punctuation of your argument, other than that nonsense.

Ben: You missed the purpose of my comment. I understand the physics behind gravity, thank you. My comment was to address KB's assertion that God adheres to our predictions. When scientists were convinced in the days of Galileo that "heavy" objects fell faster than "light" objects, did gravity change to adhere to the "law" of the day? No, it did not. Just as if several years goes by and our scientists discover a flaw in Newton's "law", gravity will not correct itself to assimilate to our new assertion. Rather, our "laws" are estimations of the phenomena that has always been in existance. The way KB worded his arguement, it sounded like God changes gravity to the whim of mankind, which (regardless of whether you believe in God or not) is absurd.

Zach,

You point to the discovery and principles of drag as an assertion that classical mechanics is flawed? Ummmm... ok... You were home schooled weren't you?

Ben: Stop with the straw man, I'm not asserting anything about a lack of understanding of gravity. I suggest you re-read my post. And if that doesn't work, take a reading comprehension class. I hear hooked on phonics works great.

He was only responding to my semi-sarcastic and dismissive response to a point brought up earlier. Of course it's absurd to think that nature (regardless of how one believes nature asserts itself) would bend to the whim of man. Think 'phlogistan'.

Zach,

Cut a little close to the bone there eh? Let's look at your previous post:

"We note that gravity has been in effect for all of human history" Uh-huh. Before that there was nothing, and current astrophysical research is just a sham.

"We also note that our "predictions" are based off of nothing more than observations of how gravity works today and has worked in the past." If you have a better means of studying a system than observing it by all means share with the rest of us. Even mathematical models are based on these observations.

"Therefore, if indeed God constantly pulls the strings to gravity, it is our predictions that cooperate with God, not the other way around." Cute. Personally I can't predict God or the future. To say that I could would be foolish, and possibly a touch egotistical. Surely you don't mean that we hairless monkeys can predict God, because that would place us above Him.

I have to admit I am going to stick with my first impression, home schooled.

Anon,

Nice reference to pre-Periodic Table beliefs.

I think certain biology teachers may have contributed to the outrage of the religious right. Evolution is not always taught in schools as a neutral theory that does not prove or disprove God. Such proofs are beyond the scope of science, just as scientific questions are beyond the scope of religion.

I do remember specific instances where biology teachers at my public college would use evolution to disprove God. The line that most sticks out was about how the "thumb" of the giant panda evolved. The professor said "If there was a God, why would he choose to create a thumb in this way?" This oversteps the bound of teaching science to college students and is just as wrong as telling students "Evolution is so complicated, God must have done it." The establishment clause of the first amendment is a two way street. The government must neither promote or demote religion.

"I can make sense of creationism with today's evidence too. I can just say "whatever it is, God did it." But that's hardly an explanation."

I agree with this. Science is not a religion, it's making sense of how the world works through careful observation and study.

Ben,

Going for the throat it seems.

There's really no reason to have this particular arguement of semantics. Your first point speaks back to the arguement of divine creation where before God made it all there was before that, in fact, nothing (this includes gravity). Point 2: I meant predictions in the scientific sense and I think he took it to be in the prophetic sense; again, no need to argue. Point 3: he said IF the case were that God micromanaged it all as an illusion of gravity, not that such was the case.

Holy cow! Who would have thought a sarcastic remark made in jest would fire up a new arguement. Look, all I meant was, if God micromanaged all the motion in the universe in a grand illusion of a natural force that we called 'gravity' and we have even gone so far as to make lots of theories on it and base many architectural works upon this 'force', it's darned decent of Him to maintain a consistent application of this illusion and not just allow our buildings to collapse, our bridges to crash into the sea, our airplanes to fall out of the sky, etc.

Ack, last two Anon posts were me.

Jordan:

I think that it's wrong and certainly overstepping bounds for teachers to do this. I had an experience in high school where a biology teacher mocked Creationist belief. While I also am a non-believer, it gives me no greater right to my opinion than they to theirs. The burden of maintaining neutral ground is on the teachers, and in the case of science teachers it may be more than they signed up for. It's difficult to be in a position of authority, teaching young people about your particular subject matter, and yet maintaining a belief-neutral zone. That's not an excuse, just a matter of fact. Maybe there should be some monitoring of what gets told to students during science classes, rather than replacing the content.

KB,

Yes I am "going for the throat" this sort of foolishness from IDists and Creationists should be stopped.

So yes, I will argue the semantics. I hope Zach put his gloves on because this is something VERY important to me.

An incorrect theory* backed by confidence and arrogance often wins out over a correct theory* backed by timidity and doubtfulness. The righteous man may win in the end but the confident man will have claimed all of the spoils and glory to be gained.

*Incorrect theory = evolution

*Correct theory = creationism

Creationists should not fight with evolutionists. Evolutionists do not care about being wrong or right. They just want to get fame, glory, and money for themselves. Evil-lution, I mean evolution, is just a path to the good life for evolutionists.

Yadgyu,

Got any facts to go with that pandering?

--Don't take him seriously. He's kidding. Nobody could be that clueless.
M.L.

Yadgyu,

Anything?

Hello?

Breaker, breaker, this here's Ben calling for Yadgyu. Ya got yer ears on, come on?

Explain to me how scientists, who operate off of grants to do research, glean the spoils and glory while poor, lil', 'ole evangelicals live a life of the meek while they've had massive representation in the government?

ML,

Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, and everyone in "Jesus Camp" are prime examples of active cluelessness.

I do actually enjoy this part here:

"The righteous man may win in the end but the confident man will have claimed all of the spoils and glory to be gained."

Jimmy and Tammy Faye Baker? Hmmmm...

Though I'd like to participate in a philosophic, pseudo-scientific discussion with other ponderors of existence, having read the above posts, I've come to the conclusion that suffering personal attacks for proposing any personal belief or observation within this blog is utterly pointless. Without debasing myself further, I would, however, like to make one comment. This is a science blog. Whether you believe is an opinion and, as such, irrelevant to the subject of discussion. Oh, one last thing. Ben, whether or not a blogger may or may not have been home-schooled is also irrelevant.

Ben: I don't really understand what it is you're argueing with me. The straw man crap you're using with me is ridiculous; you're putting words in my mouth. Let's see...

""We note that gravity has been in effect for all of human history" Uh-huh. Before that there was nothing, and current astrophysical research is just a sham."

My statement was ONLY concerning human history because prior to human history was irrelevant to my point. I made no claim to what happened before history or to current astrophysical research anywhere.

""We also note that our "predictions" are based off of nothing more than observations of how gravity works today and has worked in the past." If you have a better means of studying a system than observing it by all means share with the rest of us. Even mathematical models are based on these observations."

Again, I make no assertion as to whether our current methods are adequate or not. Being a mathematics major, I often rely on mathematics models, and I have no issues with their usage.

""Therefore, if indeed God constantly pulls the strings to gravity, it is our predictions that cooperate with God, not the other way around." Cute. Personally I can't predict God or the future. To say that I could would be foolish, and possibly a touch egotistical. Surely you don't mean that we hairless monkeys can predict God, because that would place us above Him."

Um, you're not making any sense. Not once do I "predict God or the future" as you put it.

"IF indeed God constantly pulls the strings of gravity."

Theres no assumption that I know His methods. Additionally, there is no future tense in that quotation (again, hooked on phonics buddy). So how can I be speaking of the future?

Obviously, you are too concerned with picking a fight and ensuring that you are the biggest and baddest kid on the playground. Sadly, no points go to arrogance or machoism in the realm of thought.

Poor little Ben...

Scientists (or Evolutionists, if you consider them real scientists) have tested, and tested for the percent of mutations that generate a new family of animal life. (Not just a new species, since new species could not even begin to explain evolution.)

Guess what... ZERO PERCENT. They can't get it to work. None created to date.

There are six stages of Evolution necessary for what we see in today's world (cosmic, chemical, stellar/planetary, organic, macro, and micro). Only one stage, Micro-evolution, has been observed, and the rest are merely assumed. Many of the assumptions have been shown to be unreasonable. For instance, the lack of transitional fossils has severely affected the theory of macro-evolution, and the observation of retrograde motion, "voids" and "clumps" have proven to be a great setback to the theory of cosmic-evolution, including Big Bang theory.

--No, Yadgyu. Wrong on just about every count. Transitional fossils have resoundingly confirmed evolution, over and over again. Your comments about cosmology are, if anything, more clueless. Which isn't easy. Anyone who listens to you will actually become more ignorant.
M.L.

ML: Thank you for clarifying that for me; I do get the different definitions confused a bit sometimes. True, science does look for "why" in a sense of action-reaction or cause and effect. And yes, I would agree that scientists rarely look for motivation in nature. However, I still stick by my assertion that both those who are religious in nature and those who are scientific in nature act from a similar compulsion. Both actions stem from a human desire to better understand ones surroundings and ones self.

For example, whether I am conducting psychological research at a university or reading about Joseph's troubles in Eygpt, I am attempting to learn more about human nature. Additionally, faith is placed into both science and religion. I don't believe you would disagree that at some point, the scientific thinker must allow him or her self to accept a given theory, even when there are still doubts to its accuracy. Such is the way with religion as well (though there are arguably different levels of "evidence" and "faith" in the different fields). What are your thoughts on this?

--The essential difference is that a scientific thinker accepts a given theory provisionally, as a working model. A good scientist will give up a theory if it's shown to be wrong. Would you give up the divinity of Jesus or the existences of God under any conceivable circumstances?
M.L.

Yadgyu,

Look at Stan Miller's work for chemical evolution. As to cosmic and stellar look at Arlie Petters work. As to organic look to Darwin and Wallace's research and theory. For macro, well we haven't been watching long enough have we? And micro we have seen.

--Actually, Miller's work is generally considered to be wrong, because the atmosphere he posited is no longer believed to be accurate. But that's science for you. It changes when the evidence changes.
M.L.

Zach,

I'm sticking with what I said earlier.

"--Don't take him seriously. He's kidding. Nobody could be that clueless.
M.L."

Ouch.

--Could you?
M.L.

ML: Another good point... sure, there are things that could and have shaken my faith. But thats much different from obtaining new evidence and altering a theory, as a scientist would do. So we have established an important difference.

I've come across another thought: what is it that makes science so sure that the data we analyze today had the same properties however many years ago it was formed? Or what would bar said data from changing unexpectedly somewhere along the line from creation to analysis?

I guess what I am trying to ask is how certain can we be that inductive reasoning stands the test of time? I.e., just because we can look back as far as we can remember and say "yes, gravity worked yesterday, and the day before...", how can we be certain that it worked the day before that?

"Gee, Bob, that looks like a really good way to reach creationists and people on the fence -- just call them stupid and crazy."

Do you seriously think a creationist, any creationist, has the ability to understand a simple scientific fact like evolution? Do you seriously think it's possible to reason with a childish idiot?

I call them stupid and crazy because they are stupid and crazy. And I was being nice. These idiots are a disgrace to the human race and they need to know that.

Anyone who lives today and still denies humans developed from other animals, is mentally ill beyond any hope. Creationists are no less STUPID than somebody who still believes the earth is flat.

I have, many times, tried to patiently explain to creationists the massive fossil, genetic, and other evidence for evolution.

After hours of time spent talking to these subhumans, their reply is always "There is NO evidence for evolution".

Creationists are worthless scum. They are the most stupid people in human history. They teach their stupidity to their children. They yell at science teachers. They deserve nothing but constant ridicule.

Bob: I accept that there is plenty of evidence for evolution. However, accepting evidence does not require that I accept the theory. I hope you'll be more tolerant of other views or keep your posts to a minimum, as they're hardly constructive.

ML: In retrospect, perhaps gravity is not the best example. Please focus on the underlying idea and not that particular example. Thanks.

"I guess what I am trying to ask is how certain can we be that inductive reasoning stands the test of time? I.e., just because we can look back as far as we can remember and say "yes, gravity worked yesterday, and the day before...", how can we be certain that it worked the day before that?"

we can't, but no science claims 100% certainty. that's the WHOLE POINT of science: we're working with what we know and constantly changing and evolving as we learn more about our world.

plus, do you realize that inductive reasoning is intrinsic to the very nature of our physical universe??? that'd be like me saying, "How can we be certain the universe won't suddenly be filled with an infinite amount of cheese?" Both universes would be impossible for us to exist in. So that doesn't really work as an attack on the long-term viability of inductive reasoning.

"Do you seriously think a creationist, any creationist, has the ability to understand a simple scientific fact like evolution? Do you seriously think it's possible to reason with a childish idiot?"

God will deal with you.

"How can we be certain the universe won't suddenly be filled with an infinite amount of cheese?" -- Saint Andeol

Saint Andeol: It was worth asking the question just to get that reponse, haha. That's the first time I've legitmately laughed at something here. I've casted my vote for the blog quote of the day =).

I understand what you're talking about, and that's why I was concerned my example of gravity might have been a little too dramatic. So instead, I'll offer this: what if fundamental constants, like the gravitational constant for example, actually changes over time? Just because for the passed (insert time here) years we've studied it its been constant, how does that guaruntee that its been constant for all of time? Indeed, how does that guaruntee its even been similar to its current value for all of time? Wouldn't an alteration of this value affect conclusions we've drawn under the assumption that its always been the same?

Zach,

"what if fundamental constants, like the gravitational constant for example, actually changes over time?"

Surely you don't mean 'evolved' do you?

"Indeed, how does that guaruntee its even been similar to its current value for all of time? Wouldn't an alteration of this value affect conclusions we've drawn under the assumption that its always been the same? "

yeah, it would. that's science. it's not static. it's constantly evolving. your questions really don't challenge the validity of science. it would simply adapt to the new information.

unless a new gravitational constant caused all the stars to explode. then we'd be dead, and the point would be moot.

Creationism makes sense. Evolution also makes sense. Its all dependent on the persons' perspective. The only sane way to judge and debate the two theories, in my opinion, is to try and stay away from any one perspective and judge them based on their own merits.
I don't think a reasonable person would come to the conclusion that creationism is ridiculous, UNLESS that person decided the only way to look at creationism is based on a scientific perspective.
But then maybe its not so much a decision on the part of that person, since thats the only perspective that people are currently taught (pressured?) to use. I could certainly come to the same conclusion about evolution if I were to judge evolution based on a philosophical perspective.

Its naive to think science alone can tackle a question as complex as the origin of life. Only scientists think the question is so simple. Throw together some ideas, provide some evidence to back up your conclusions and you've answered the question right?

Scientists THINK they can resolve everything into simple (or not so simple) physical problems. Thats more their ARROGANCE speaking than anything else. Science has its limits. Though, I am sure that if scientists tried hard enough, they could convince themselves they have or will have a physical explanation for everything, after all thats what science assumes/preaches right?
Its no wonder outsiders come to the conclusion that science is approaching religion. There are certainly enough people that blindly believe in it to justify the conclusion. The practice of going through the scientific steps to claim understanding of something can just as easily be called a ceremony. All religions go through some type of change. And the fact that there is no explicit 'god' certainly hasn't stopped people from calling Buddism a religion. Come to think of it, those two have a lot in common.

Alot of people on this forum rely on the false assumption that by simply talking about religious ideas in schools, that it will lead to religious indoctrination (e.g., 'you cant talk about creationism in school because you cant teach religion in school'). That doesn't necessarily have to be the case. But it does make you wonder, what does this fear say about the way people are taught in schools.

And why is it that biology is a 'science' class. The literal definition of the word based on its greek root is, I *think*, study of life (read: not just the scientific study of life). From what I remember, biology text books generally begin with an explanation of the latin root of the word. Certainly changes the scope of what may be discussed right?
Unless...what you and your peers are really saying is that you can only understand and study life based on science.

--In short, every class should be a place where your personal religious views are touted. Luckily, we have the Constitution to protect us against such nonsense.
M.L.

It always astounds me to find how many people believe in creationism and refuse any other alternative hypothesis for the origin of life. Sure, it is easy to say now that life is so complex that a higher power must have created it, but you would never have thought so if you went back in time to about a billion years ago. Does that mean God didn't exist back then (which would go against your belief that he is omnipresent and omnipotent) or, as evidence suggests, is our current complex environment the result of naturally occurring changes over an extremely long period of time? But of course creationists can also easily explain away the backbone of science, i.e. data. I've heard such ridiculous arguments as 'God put fossils on earth to test us' and 'God invented science to test our faith'. Statements like that show that creationism isn't science. It's simply used post hoc argument for any and every piece of evidence it doesn't happen to like.

One other thing: scientists, unlike creationists, know the definition of science: theories that are testable and falsifiable. Scientists are trained to be open minded and aware of plausible alternative explanations. If one day they happen to find true evidence of God and that the earth was created in 7 days, most scientists would accept that, adapt their theory, and move on. That's what science is: ever changing to accommodate new knowledge. Creationism, on the other hand, leaves no room for knowledge: how do we improve upon, test, or falsify a theory whose argument for everything is 'God did it'?

Nobody,

Creationism as I said before would be considered as an altenrative theory if you could present evidence that everything was divinely created.

You say that universe is so complex that it has to be understood by something other than just science.

Ok here is your opportunity. What is that process that you offer as a credidible alternative? And I am asking you to show me something other than just words from the pages of one book and from physical evidence not just the subjective personal thoughts contained on your mind or other religious minds.

If you cannot offer credible physical,evidence or theories based upon testable natural laws for your viewpoint and assertions, then what do we discuss? How do you prove supernaturalism other than relying on the the unverifiable, non-transferrable testimonies of individuals speaking on faith about their beliefs?

As has been stated here in different ways, scientists do not have all the answers wrapped up neatly in one scared book for us to "worship" but they do have a compelling amount of hard testable data and logical hypothosis that make sense because they are based on laws of nature concerning chemistry, physics and biology that many,many people have confirmed and established through history as credible and reliable.

Nobody, Please answer these questions for me.

Why is the concept that humans originated from organic substances and other life forms through a progression of modifications so repulsive to creationists? How does this detract from the uniqueness and worth of us as individuals? Why is purpose only tied to something outside of our selves(individual or collective) or to the earth we live on?

I know this is a subjective thought also, but to me the whole process of evolution and the ideas of our chemical origins deep in time through to the complexity that exists now is something that fills me with awe and curiosity, much more satifying to my "spirit" and intellect than just saying oh well God did it and that is sufficient for me.

Seeing that all life is physically, biologically linked makes life to me even more "sacred", not just human life but all of it has meaning.

That is so much more breathtaking and emotionally satisfying for me than the way creationism and religion puts everything into compartments and seperate boxes of God/not God, black/white...flesh and spirit... these false dichotomies that you continue to put up to keep us all seperated from each other and the universe and life.

Ben -- actually, Zachary is right about gravity, in the sense that we still don't know why gravity works the way it does. We can describe it mathematically, and predict how fast something will fall, and so on, but all we're doing is describing what we observe.

There have been some attempts to get a little further behind the observations. For instance, some physicists have simulated universes in which gravity worked by other laws than the Newtonian (e.g. inverse or inverse cube rather than inverse square), and found that they can't give rise to a universe like ours. But that still leads to questions we can't answer about why a universe like ours should exist in the first place.

[[I do remember specific instances where biology teachers at my public college would use evolution to disprove God. The line that most sticks out was about how the "thumb" of the giant panda evolved. The professor said "If there was a God, why would he choose to create a thumb in this way?" This oversteps the bound of teaching science to college students and is just as wrong as telling students "Evolution is so complicated, God must have done it."]]

I agree. That teacher was out of line. I hope this kind of thing isn't widespread, but I fear it might be.

[[Do you seriously think a creationist, any creationist, has the ability to understand a simple scientific fact like evolution? Do you seriously think it's possible to reason with a childish idiot?]]

I don't think any distinction in intelligence between creationists and believers in evolution has been demonstrated. So, yes, I think they do have the capacity to understand it. That doesn't mean that they do understand it.

[[I call them stupid and crazy because they are stupid and crazy. And I was being nice. These idiots are a disgrace to the human race and they need to know that.]]

You don't appear to have understood what I was saying in rebuking you for doing that. The name calling is in and of itself a logical fallacy. You don't do anything to disprove their argument by calling them stupid and crazy. You may make yourself feel better, but it does nothing to advance your argument.

[[Anyone who lives today and still denies humans developed from other animals, is mentally ill beyond any hope. Creationists are no less STUPID than somebody who still believes the earth is flat.]]

Have you demonstrated that creationists score higher on psychiatric intake tests (e.g. the MMPI), or lower on IQ tests, than anyone else? I don't think you have. And again, name-calling does nothing to advance the argument. If you can demonstrate that the creationists are wrong, do that. No one here is interested in how vehement your insults can get.

You have stated previously that you think that science will eventually solve the scientific riddle of how life began, how non-living chemicals somehow formed living cells. There is absolutely no scientific data to back up your faith that this happened -- as we have discussed previously, science is very far from any understanding of this subject.

I think it is important that all parties to these discussions be honest, and very upfront, about what their assumptions and beliefs are. Creationists and IDers wear the beliefs and assumptions fairly conspicuously. I believe evolutionists are pretty effective at hiding theirs under a cloak of scientific jargon.

--As we have pointed out before, you have no clue how far science is or isn't from understanding this phenomenon. I do expect it will be shown to be have happened naturally, since a vast number of phenomena that were once explained supernaturally have succumbed to natural explanations. You falsely label this "faith," but what it actually is is the reasonable presumption that what has been true in the past will continue to be true.

What you say about the people you call "evolutionists" is nonsense.
M.L.

I've come across another thought: what is it that makes science so sure that the data we analyze today had the same properties however many years ago it was formed? Or what would bar said data from changing unexpectedly somewhere along the line from creation to analysis?

I guess what I am trying to ask is how certain can we be that inductive reasoning stands the test of time? I.e., just because we can look back as far as we can remember and say "yes, gravity worked yesterday, and the day before...", how can we be certain that it worked the day before that? I've come across another thought: what is it that makes science so sure that the data we analyze today had the same properties however many years ago it was formed? Or what would bar said data from changing unexpectedly somewhere along the line from creation to analysis?

our vitriolic buddy Bob, crass as he may be, has inadvertently revealed an interesting problem on the side of the evolutionists: the Rage.

a lot of you know what i'm talking about. someone says that the Earth is only 6,000 yrs old because you can count backwards in the Bible to Adam and Eve; someone says that fossils were planted as a faith-tester, or that dinosaurs lived in the Garden of Eden.

This is so obviously contrived that the idea that someone would try to bring up one of these points to refute science, it makes you a little mad.

is the Rage one of the barriers of rational discourse? if we kept our cool, could we finally convince people that there is no debate, that evolution and creationism aren't competing theories of equal validity, that they deal with separate realms of human thought? is that too much to hope for?

--Yes.
ML

Ron,

if you scroll up a bit, someone already asked about the viability of inductive reasoning. see the universe of cheese response. it's deep stuff, and i'm not just saying that because i thought it up. the whole "What if everything we know suddenly becomes wrong" argument is so purely speculative it holds no weight in this discourse.

Saint Andeol: The viability of inductive reasoning is a very important question, because so much of scientific fact is based on the assumption that inductive reasoning is infallible. You all seemed to have side stepped my questions... anyone have any thoughts on the matter?

Saint Andeol: In addition, inductive reasoning is NOT intrinsically connected to the universe, just to our current methods of reasoning. The universe is the way it is, regardless of whether our predictions of how it got here are correct or not.

Mr. Petit:
sorry, i wasn't trying to sidestep the question. let me try again.

first of all, i don't think the word "infallible" is ever seriously used by any legitimate scientist in regards to their studies or inductive reasoning. i think you're assuming that that assumption is being made by the scientific community, when it isn't.

i think that inductive reasoning is a discovery, not a creation of man. we discovered that time flows forward, that every action has a reaction. so a universe in which inductive reasoning isn't viable would be like a universe in which time suddenly started flowing backwards. it wouldn't concern us, because we couldn't exist as we are in that state.

hence my infinite cheese argument.

Saint Andeol: Our methods of induction and deduction must certainly be infallible, or the entirety of scientific fact is in serious jeopardy. For those who aren't following because of a lack of and understanding of induction, here's a brief description:

Induction is a system of reasoning that relies on the validity of a "base case" to allow assumption of initial correctness in pursuit of validity of the theory as a whole. For example, say we want to prove that the addition of any two integers results in another integer. By using induction, we choose a base case: 1 + 1 = 2. Since our theory holds, we are allowed one assumption: some integer, n, added to another fixed integer, k, results in another integer, m1. Now, we must show that the next case, n + 1, also results in an integer, call it m2. Our arguement is very straightforward: since n + k is an integer, and since adding 1 to any integer results in an integer, we see (n + 1) + k = (n + k) + 1 = m1 + 1 = m2. Therefore, our conjecture is valid.

And this seems to always hold in the realm of abstract thought. But the difference between abstract thought and real world application is that in our minds, we can restrict our systems to as few variables as need be. However, when dealing with real physical phenomena, there are an infinite number of variables and we admittably ignore those we find trivial to our exploits.

So now I ask my question again: if (for example) the half-life of carbon-14 is 5200 years today, how can we safely assume that this was the same 5000 years ago? Do we have any documented evidence proving that this was the case?

I think this is the real problem with scientific thought. Because we cannot account for such changes (whether they actually occured or not), we eliminate them from speculation and continue on with our work. And then we broadcast our ideas as "truth".

--Amazing, isn't it, that despite this problematic thing called "scientific thought," we've managed to send satellites to the outer planets, design and build the computer you're using and create vaccines and antibiotics to fight disease. All on this laughably flimsy thing we call "science."
M.L.

"Our methods of induction and deduction must certainly be infallible, or the entirety of scientific fact is in serious jeopardy."

you're being a little sensationalist. NO ONE in the science community is claiming total infallibility. that's the Pope's job. "scientific fact" is a misnomer, because our knowledge is constantly changing as we continue to grow and learn.

"if (for example) the half-life of carbon-14 is 5200 years today, how can we safely assume that this was the same 5000 years ago? Do we have any documented evidence proving that this was the case?"

we don't. if we discover new evidence that would imply that atomic half-lives aren't static, that will be incorporated into our current scientific theories. knowledge will adapt.

"I think this is the real problem with scientific thought. Because we cannot account for such changes (whether they actually occured or not), we eliminate them from speculation and continue on with our work. And then we broadcast our ideas as "truth"."

yeah, but you have to realize there are an infinite amount of speculative questions that could be posed against our current "scientific truth". there's a billion different ways we could be wrong. there's a billion different random changes that could totally change our view of the universe.

but that's not science. science is just working with what we know so far. no one's saying we've figured it all out yet.

>>

Yes

C14 dating is corroborated nicely by other means of dating. We have in fact many independent ways of dating things; plain historical documentation for one, optically stimulated luminescence, dendrochronology, courting ice-layer