Creation vs. Evolution

[PS]

I like prettyboxes too.

 

[Touring Mars]

There is an interesting article (link ) in today's Guardian (G2 section) with Michael Behe... (actually today is the launch of the new-look (Berliner-format) Guardian and you can actually download the whole paper (including G2) as .pdf files today (link ) so knock yourself out... )

Behe is a 'leading propenent' of the ID (intellegent design) theory, although he's decidely coy about tying the ID debate to religion and God (wonder why?!)*... in the article he says -

"All the evidence from biochemistry points to is some very intellegent agent. Although I find it congenial to think that it's God, others might prefer to think it's an alien - or who knows? An angel, or some satanic force, some new age power. Something we don't know anything about yet."

Apart from being factually incorrect (all the evidence from biochemistry does NOT point towards ID), this statement alone is enough to leave you scratching your head (or is he talking about the FSM? ). But the central problem with Behe (and the ID camp in general) is a fundamental lack of understanding about the nature of the problem. You either seek to address questions about the unknown or you don't. Behe's argument is summed up by his statement -

"It's the appearance of design that people are trying to explain. So that if Darwin's theory doesn't explain it we're left with no other explanation than maybe it really was designed."

To me, that's purely absurd. Leaving aside the fact that I think Darwinian evolution can perfectly explain the appearance of design, Behe's argument is pointless... just because one doesn't understand or cannot explain something, doesn't mean that you should just give up and say that the only possible explanation is a supernatural one....

Behe believes that the problem of 'irreducible complexity' is the "baseline", or the "sticking point" for all discussions about the origins of life... a point that even Darwinian (or other) evolutionary theory cannot cross. But as Richard Dawkins (and many others) have argued very successfully, the problem of irreducible complexity is not so black and white... Behe says that something as somplex as an eye cannot function unless it is complete, that it is so complex and it's function so dependent upon it's highly complex structure, that it could not function if it were reduced in complexity. This is (as far as I am aware) simply not true. As Dawkins points out in his book 'The Blind Watchmaker' (which Behe enjoys referring to (but strangely not quoting)), the eye has evolved independently several times, even to the extent that -

"The swimming mollusc Nautilis' eye is basically the same shape as ours, but there is no lens and the pupil is just a hole that lets the seawater into the hollow interior of the eye"

For me, this (easily observable) scientific fact alone shoots down one of Behe's most prized central tenets of his irreducible complexity argument. "What good is half an eye?" he has asked. As Dawkins famously replied "50% of an eye is 1% better than 49% of an eye". The point being, though, that our highly complex human eyes, have (most likely) developed over the aeons from more primitive forms of eye (like that of Nautilis)...

Anyway, if anyone else has any views about the article or Mr. Behe, then this is the right place for them....!

*Since ID and creationism are inextricably linked, Behe and other proponents of ID are very careful to keep 'the 'G' word' out of ID discussions, as this would mean it could be construed as a religious argument (which actually it is, truth be told)...

 

[DQuaN]

I was talking with my dad about intelligent design the other day. What he couldn't get to grips with is why Religious people are so against evolution.

If god is so powerful, is it not possible that he created the Universe with the Earth in it and this soup that life can evolve from? Couldn't he have created all this knowing that it would grow over time? Why couldn't god create us using evolution?

^ This is not what I believe but i don't see why that theory is so hard to grasp for others. It makes much more sence than it being created in 6000 years (or whatever) and throwing evolutiuon out of the window completely.

 

[ledhed]

Most people of faith that I know do not take genisis literaly . They accept teachings from the Bible but try to reconcile the fact that science has discovered things since it was written . I have had it explained to me that God put the forces of the universe in motion and let them take their course knowing that from them MANKIND would be the direct result . Along with the Earth and the galaxys etc.

 

[PS]

To me it seems kind of hypocritical to put your faith in something, and then pick and choose which parts of that something you're putting your faith in. Then, what's the point?

 

[Touring Mars]

If god is so powerful, is it not possible that he created the Universe with the Earth in it and this soup that life can evolve from? Couldn't he have created all this knowing that it would grow over time? Why couldn't god create us using evolution?

There are many people who do believe that... although I don't. It boils down to the fact that half-way house arguments like this don't really hold any water from either perspective.

From a creationist point of view:- If God created humankind, why would He leave it to a primordial soup and the blind laws of physics to do it?.... If we are so perfectly suited to our environment by intellegent design, then it follows that we cannot accept that any part of that design was left to chance... therefore, creationists must believe that humans were created intact (or atleast their ancestors were). But if God created our ancestors and we have evolved from them since Creation, then you must also be prepared to believe that our ancestors also evolved from somewhere, and so on... in other words, creationists must also believe that evolution doesn't occur at all. Hence, to be a true creationist, you must believe that human kind was created as is, or as we see it now. The only problem is, we weren't. And there is now ample fossil and genetic evidence to back this up...

From an evolutionists point of view:- If God didn't create humankind, then why do you need to believe that God created the primordial soup? We may not understand (yet) how living systems can come to be from non-living precursor material, but this is even more reason to disregard the theory that life was intellegently created by a supernatural being. To try to explain that non-living precursor material was whipped up into life by another 'non-living' (or even living) entity, is completely pointless. Therefore, a true evolutionist could not accept that God created the primordial soup any more than they'd accept that humans were created intact.

With reference to the primordial soup argument, one central problem evolutionists have is explaining how such inter-dependent biomolecules such as proteins and DNA could come to be without the other already existing.... but the fact that both of these molecules are polymers and their basic structures are not actually that complex at all (although their functions most certainly are), lends itself to an attempt to explain how they could come to be at all.... an example of a self-replicating system can be seen in crystals. A crystal of a substance is an ordered array of the same molecule, such that when a crystal is dropped into a solution of the same molecule, it will cause that solution to crystallse itself (a process known as seeding). This demonstrates that even the most basic molecules are, in a sense, capable of spontaneously forming ordered structure from an otherwise completely random and non-structured 'soup'... i.e. the crystal has shown some of the properties of a replicator.

With that said, it starts to become clear that the molecules of life (like amino acids) only need to have certain simple properties before they can form more complex molecules....
1) They need to be chemically simple.... (http://www.biology.arizona.edu/biochemistry/problem_sets/aa/Glycine.html) which they are... they only contain 4 different (hugely abundant) elements, C, H, N and O....
2) They need to be able to polymerise (i.e. connect to themselves)... both nucleotides (that make up DNA and RNA) and amino acids (that make up proteins) can do this
...we know that DNA, RNA, amino acids and proteins are the most fundamental building blocks of life (in all forms), but we have no idea about what pre-living biochemistry was like.... In the primordial soup, molecules of all shapes, sizes and chemical composition were around, much as they are still around today. But it is the property of replication that is key to understanding how biomolecules arose. Molecules with the property of replication would be able to 'survive', expand, grow, mutate and eventually become completely self-dependent.... i.e. alive. But the property of replication is not a magical or mystical (or divine?) property... it's just chemistry.

 

[James2097]

Most people of faith that I know do not take genisis literaly . They accept teachings from the Bible but try to reconcile the fact that science has discovered things since it was written . I have had it explained to me that God put the forces of the universe in motion and let them take their course knowing that from them MANKIND would be the direct result . Along with the Earth and the galaxys etc.

Surely you can't maintain partial belief. You can't take parts of religion and still purport to think in a scientific manner, its just purely illogical and undermines the scientific process quite absurdly. Its like believing in two different realities. Only one exists. This kind of please-all outlook is a hybrid that will be outdated sooner or later, just like the cars, and we'll all be running on the same system - reality.

 

[Pako]

I heard this quote over the weekend and found it extremely pertinent to this thread.

Science and religion are not at odds. Science is simply too young to comprehend.

 

[Danoff]

I heard this quote over the weekend and found it extremely pertinent to this thread.

Pako what kind of education do you have in the sciences?

 

[Pako]

Pako what kind of education do you have in the sciences?

What kind of education do you have in theology? Do you have a personal relationship with God?

I don't see how our personal credentials are pertinent unless we are stating our opinions as 'fact', at which point, it is our credentials that are scrutinized, not the statement of opinion that is being said.

 

[Famine]

Oldest known religious texts:

Rig Veda (Hinduism) ~ 3,500yo (oldest written form ~2,300yo)
Torah (Judaism) ~ 3,400yo (oldest written form ~2,200yo)

Now, let's name some scientists whose written recorded works are older than the first recorded written works of religion...

Plato (2,400ya).

Well, that was tough. In fact, the scientific method derives from the Socratic method - Socrates being the mentor of Plato (Aristocles) - but Socrates left no written works behind and is only referred to through the works of Plato, Xenophon (a poet) and Aristophanes (a satirist), the latter two prone to exaggeration.


Science and religion are not at odds. Religion is simply too young to comprehend.

 

[Danoff]

What kind of education do you have in theology? Do you have a personal relationship with God?

I don't see how our personal credentials are pertinent unless we are stating our opinions as 'fact', at which point, it is our credentials that are scrutinized, not the statement of opinion that is being said.

I think it's pertinent to understanding how you can think a statement like:

"Science and religion are not at odds. Science is simply too young to comprehend."

makes any sense.


Seriously, until you have tried to comprehend science, I don't see how one can support this position. So I ask again, what kind of background do you have in science?

 

[Touring Mars]

I heard this quote over the weekend and found it extremely pertinent to this thread.

It's only pertinent to this discussion in the way that it demonstrates how easily one entire side of the debate can be totally disregarded by a single remark that has no real merit or meaning...

 

[PS]

Oldest known religious texts:

Rig Veda (Hinduism) ~ 3,500yo (oldest written form ~2,300yo)
Torah (Judaism) ~ 3,400yo (oldest written form ~2,200yo)

Now, let's name some scientists whose written recorded works are older than the first recorded written works of religion...

Plato (2,400ya).

Well, that was tough. In fact, the scientific method derives from the Socratic method - Socrates being the mentor of Plato (Aristocles) - but Socrates left no written works behind and is only referred to through the works of Plato, Xenophon (a poet) and Aristophanes (a satirist), the latter two prone to exaggeration.


Science and religion are not at odds. Religion is simply too young to comprehend.

Pwneded.

 

[James2097]

I heard this quote over the weekend and found it extremely pertinent to this thread.

Its about as pertinent to this thread (a serious debate) as the price of fish in timbuktu. Like the bible, it may sound poetic and perhaps elegant to the uneducated masses who get swept up in the emotive vigour of the statement, but to the educated person its simply equal parts baseless rhetoric and blind mis-information. Of course, like all comments from religious people, it doesn't bring any evidence to the table: just hot air, a superiority complex and a closed mind which even the best hydraulic extrication tools could never force open...

 

[Pako]

I'm glad to see how passionate you guys are about this topic. Famine, being the literalist that you are, I thought I might have to further explain this quote, at least my understanding of the quote. It summarizes everything you have said. Science is always coming up with new theories as old theories have been proved wrong. This IS what science is according to you, of which I totally agree with. It also summarizes what I have said about our lack of comprehending what God is. We can try but not truly comprehend infinity as everything else around us has a finite existence in some form or another. The quote is not meant to be insulting or gratifying to either side, though I find it somewhat discerning how you all attacked it like vultures at a rotting corpse.

 

[Earth]

Like the bible, it may sound poetic and perhaps elegant to the uneducated masses who get swept up in the emotive vigour of the statement, but to the educated person its simply equal parts baseless rhetoric and blind mis-information. Of course, like all comments from religious people, it doesn't bring any evidence to the table: just hot air, a superiority complex and a closed mind which even the best hydraulic extrication tools could never force open...

What is the point in using big words? Are you trying to be a 'smart' evolution guy, seperating yourself from 'ignorant' believers?

The Bible is only poetic and elegant to uneducated people? Wow, not only is that untrue, but that is very arrogant. You should take that back.

 

[Duke]

What is the point in using big words? Are you trying to be a 'smart' evolution guy, seperating yourself from 'ignorant' believers?

Accurate words convey subtle or complicated ideas more clearly.

 

[Danoff]

I'm glad to see how passionate you guys are about this topic. Famine, being the literalist that you are, I thought I might have to further explain this quote, at least my understanding of the quote. It summarizes everything you have said. Science is always coming up with new theories as old theories have been proved wrong. This IS what science is according to you, of which I totally agree with. It also summarizes what I have said about our lack of comprehending what God is. We can try but not truly comprehend infinity as everything else around us has a finite existence in some form or another. The quote is not meant to be insulting or gratifying to either side, though I find it somewhat discerning how you all attacked it like vultures at a rotting corpse.

No, it's meant to say that science and religion will arrive at the same point down the line - which is gratefying to religion isn't it? Since it means the the religious got it right a long time before science did. It's awfully presumptive, since it assumes that both sides are correct. It also admits that the person who wrote that was not a scientist, or they would not have said that it is "too young to comprehend".

I restate my question, what kind of a background to you have in science to support a claim such as this?


(The message here is that you should not make such statements about things you don't understand... and neither should anyone on my side of the fence)

 

[Swift]

just hot air, a superiority complex and a closed mind which even the best hydraulic extrication tools could never force open...

You just described a lot of famous scientists and explorers. Until their points were proven. Until that time, even by the scientific community, many scientists were and are described just that way. Interesting huh?

 

[Danoff]

You just described a lot of famous scientists and explorers. Until their points were proven. Until that time, even by the scientific community, many scientists were and are described just that way. Interesting huh?

This is not a rebuttle. You're trying to say that one day you will be proven right and will be vindicated. But anyone who believes anything can say the same. The flying spaghetti monster will prove everyone wrong when he returns to judge us all. See? You can make this claim regardless of what you think. It doesn't help you case.

 

[Grand Prix]

This is what I think is happening in this thread:

Creationists trying to prove that Evolutionists are immoral.

Evolutionists trying to prove that Creationists are irrational.


Maybe this should be locked for the time being?

 

[Swift]

This is not a rebuttle. You're trying to say that one day you will be proven right and will be vindicated. But anyone who believes anything can say the same. The flying spaghetti monster will prove everyone wrong when he returns to judge us all. See? You can make this claim regardless of what you think. It doesn't help you case.

My point was not to rebut. But to show the futility of making statements such as he did.

 

[Swift]

This is what I think is happening in this thread:

Creationists trying to prove that Evolutionists are immoral.

Evolutionists trying to prove that Creationists are irrational.


Maybe this should be locked for the time being?

Immoral? Hmmm....I don't know about that. That'd be a pretty strong attack against the general character of a person on the basis of one opinion. I for one am certainly not going to call someone immoral because they belive in evolution as the origin of species.

 

[Grand Prix]

Immoral? Hmmm....I don't know about that. That'd be a pretty strong attack against the general character of a person on the basis of one opinion. I for one am certainly not going to call someone immoral because they belive in evolution as the origin of species.

Maybe not immoral. Too strong a word. Howabout, "Flawed"?

 

[Swift]

Maybe not immoral. Too strong a word. Howabout, "Flawed"?

Well, we both think that we're flawed in our thinking. So, I guess we're still looking for a word huh?

 

[Danoff]

My point was not to rebut. But to show the futility of making statements such as he did.

Fair enough.

 

[PS]

...Wow, not only is that untrue...

Prove it.

 

[PS]

Well, we both think that we're flawed in our thinking. So, I guess we're still looking for a word huh?

The way I see it, is that Creationists are expecting all the evidence in the world for Evolution, and Evolutionists getting irritated with having their facts thrown back at them and ignored.

 

[Grand Prix]

Well, we both think that we're flawed in our thinking. So, I guess we're still looking for a word huh?

Nah, "flawed" for both sides is good. That or "irrational". Point is, I think this is becoming a bit more of a personal fight rather than open discussion. Meh, as long as you're having fun.