Creationism vs Evolution

[wonderboy416]

This thread is about Creationism vs. Evolution, and the theory of evolution as an alternative to creationism. It's not about whether a certain gene in a frog becomes methylated at the promoter region in cold temperatures and whether this epigenetic alteration can be passed onto its progeny.

Evolution in the sense that all life began from prokaryotes and genetic alterations through natural selection resulted in more complex organisms and the appearance of different species is an evolutionary theory. Not fact.

I think I know what my own thread was about and stated just that with the first post...
I think you still don't understand the use of the word theory. It refers to a WORKING FRAMEWORK. Something that has been tested, verified and repeated time and time again. There are few other theories in all of science with the massive amount of factual evidence backing them as evolution. Thus, if you say evolution is merely a theory in the non-scientific sense of the word you are completely wrong. Evolution has been proved and accepted to the highest burden of proof standards known to man. Again, you really, really need to view that youtube link I posted because I just don't think you get it...

i think ganj is saying theory in the scientific sense and wonderboy is saying fact in the english dictionary sense. a scientific theory can never be a scientific fact. it's like saying gravity theory is my weight amount or magnetic theory is my compass. it doesn't make sense.

I was trying to clarify ganja's incorrect use of the word theory. A working theory is the ultimate goal of scientific discovery, evolution is just that, a working theory. You can't say it hasn't been proven or accepted on the basis that the word theory is used to describe it. As pointed out, evolution is both a fact (dictionary definition, it happened and cannot be refuted) and a working, testable, verifiable scientific theory. He tried to state that we cannot be certain of evolution because it's just a "theory" and that's utterly wrong. Science is as certain of evolution as it is there is gravity, would you say that gravity cannot be proven as it's just a theory as well? Because that's pretty much what he said.

Evolution may describe how organisms evolve, and adapt .... but scientifically it is still a theory.

Still a theory? As opposed to what? Has anything in science ever emerged from being a theory?
There are no competing theories with evolution, there is also no denying that it happened. It's a matter of explaining the process which there is clearly still much to learn. Evolution itself happened, it's a fact, and I'll repeat my previous offer, if you can find a scientist from a non-religious background (should be easy since 94% aren't religious) who will state that evolution is not a fact, I will eat my own hand.

For those that believe in only science, in only evolution, where does morality fall? Is morality just an evolutionary thing? Was it something that was an evolutionary necessity for society as a whole to survive, if so... we are in deep trouble because even if it is necessary for society - it could be a hindrance for individuals -- and with current technology if it is just an evolution some scientist could genetically engineer out for the benefit of a few.

Where did the idea of morality come from in religion?
PEOPLE.

Where does morality come from in our society?
The same place religion got its morals from, PEOPLE.

Is religion even that moral?
Is it moral to teach people to be good and to worship god so they can go to heaven? Is that truly the reason why we should be good to our fellow humans? To me that's morally corrupt and not a lesson I would ever want to teach my children. Lets be good to ultimately reward ourselves with the gift of eternal bliss... I'm sorry but what a crock of sh...

A pride of lions will live together, hunt together, share their meals together and will all follow the "rules" of living in a highly organized social structure.
Where did they get their morals from?

 

[Prometheus The Supremo]

What the theory fails to do is how this process began, and why we evolve the way we have.

the theory has nothing to do with how it began. it's like saying plate tectonics fails to explain how the earth was formed. that is not its job. regarding how it began, that pertains to abiogenesis.

also, evolution explains why we evolve the way we have. it also explains morality, etc. non-humans exhibit morality as well and as far as we know, they are not religious.

regarding evolution and creationism, especially young earth creationism, they are not compatible. young earth creationism isn't compatible with many scientific theories and the facts, laws & hypothesis' that those theories are composed of.

but it is still a theory (even if well supported by observation).

and your point is what exactly? did you even watch the video i posted in which scientists explain what a theory is and its importance?

I was trying to clarify ganja's incorrect use of the word theory. A working theory is the ultimate goal of scientific discovery, evolution is just that, a working theory. You can't say it hasn't been proven or accepted on the basis that the word theory is used to describe it. As pointed out, evolution is both a fact (dictionary definition, it happened and cannot be refuted) and a working, testable, verifiable scientific theory. He tried to state that we cannot be certain of evolution because it's just a "theory" and that's utterly wrong. Science is as certain of evolution as it is there is gravity, would you say that gravity cannot be proven as it's just a theory as well? Because that's pretty much what he said.

everybody knows that there isn't such a thing as gravity. it's just a theory. personally, i believe in intelligent falling: god holds us down & intelligent hanging: all the planets are suspended by supernatural ropes which prevents them from falling into hell. when humans die and go to heaven, it is their duty to maintain those ropes.

 

[Hipster Duck]

Where did the idea of morality come from in religion?
PEOPLE.

Where does morality come from in our society?
The same place religion got its morals from, PEOPLE.

Is religion even that moral?

Where did the idea of objective truth come from in science?
PEOPLE.

Where does objectivity come from in our society?
The same place science gets its objectivity from: PEOPLE.

Is science even that objective?

 

[ganjavih]

Since this appears to be another one of those threads that's going nowhere, I'll close with this post. In science, knowing where to look for evidence and assessing the quality of the evidence is an important concept. So at the risk of sounding pompous, I'll trust my background at the Institute of Medical Science at U of T over YouTube videos created by god-knows-who for my assessments of scientific concepts. Incidentally, I watched them and they really didn't add much to the discussion.

To summarise concisely, evolution, depending on what exactly you're talking about, can be described as fact or theory. Evolution, as an alternative to Creationism, in the sense of explaining the diversity of life, the evolution of one species into another, genetic drift, etc., is a scientific theory. Scientific facts are hard data. Theory is how we make sense of that data. My use of the word "theory" is completely correct and scientific.

Finally, let me caution those who get their education from the internet and make broad and general conclusions based on what Wikipedia says. There is the saying, "a little bit of knowledge can be a dangerous thing". So when someone reads that Richard Dawkins, a radical anti-religionist, says that there is no debate, evolution is fact not theory, you need to be able to put that into context. The consensus in science is that evolution can be fact or theory depending on what exactly is being described.

 

[wonderboy416]

Where did the idea of objective truth come from in science?
PEOPLE.

Where does objectivity come from in our society?
The same place science gets its objectivity from: PEOPLE.

Is science even that objective?

Science can be swayed by political interest... I agree that there is a real lopsided approach being taken to global warming as a political agenda is funding work that supports global warming, but is neglecting to answer the calls of the many scientists who say they can make a solid case that it's nowhere near as bad as it's being portrayed, or isn't happening at all. To me that's alarming, but that's an extreme case... and that's not to say the work itself isn't objective (although climategate certainly proves that not all scientists are honest with their work, they are people after all).

Corruption finds it's way into everything we do (science, the justice system, parliament etc etc).

That's the very reason why we should be skeptical of all ideas that aren't deemed to be a theory in science. In order to have a working theory there must not be any evidence that refutes it... That's a pretty high, objective standard to hold. That's the very reason why we don't hear about "the theory of global warming", the politicians wouldn't want to say that anyway because as the general public doesn't understand the scientific meaning of the word theory they would think that the word theory discounts it, when actuality it would make the argument much stronger. Evolution on the other hand has stood the test of peer-review and there is no debate about whether or not it happened/happens in scientific circles, only the mechanisms through which it works is debated. There's no higher objective standard applied to any other discipline than a working, scientific theory. We might as well cross the word out of the dictionary if we're going to discount scientific theory.

Theory is how we make sense of that data. My use of the word "theory" is completely correct and scientific.

Without facts you have no theory.
The highest attainable goal of any working hypothesis in science is to reach the point where it can be referred to as a theory. If there were competing theories it could not be classified as such. To do date there are no competing theories with as much as 1 published article in any scientific journal dis-proving evolution or providing peer-reviewed evidence of an alternate explanation.

Creationism is not a true alternative explanation to evolution, if it were there would be no "theory" of evolution as there would be evidence that refutes it, which there is not.
Evolution cannot be refuted by any verifiable means.
The theory of evolution has yet to be refuted by any verifiable means.

To suggest that one of the most successful operating theories has to be be proven is just absurd.
You must not believe in anything if that is the case.

It's amazing how people always seem to make an exception when it comes to evolution and religion and think it's ok to accept a possible supernatural explanation in only this instance and yet openly accepts all other working theories in science as factual. It's quite hypocritical.

I trust Richard Dawkins definition of theory (and the rest of the scientific community's) over yours.
He is not one of the most celebrated evolutionary biologists of our era because he strongly believes that religion causes irreparable damage to humanity, but because of his work. He's passionate enough about his work to see the harm caused by fictitious stories that seek to prevent people from gaining access to profound knowledge (and leads to violence, death and oppression among other things), I applaud him for that. You can go on doubting evolution all you want, it's a delusional idea.

If an adult says they have a special relationship with an imaginary friend named God or Jesus, most people wouldn't think much of it, if they called that imaginary friend Joe, they would be checking them into the nearest mental hospital. You don't see a problem here?

 

[Admiral Beez]

You seem convinced, but keep on repeating yourself in trying to convince us. There is no need. We get it, you're saying scientific theory has decided the matter of evolution vs. creationism, that religion is generally negative, that Dawkins is a trusted source, that evolution is a delusional idea. We get it, you have successfully communicated your POV.

 

[urbandreamer]

There'll probably be another explanation for all of this in about 500 years.

 

[gristle]

That's the very reason why we should be skeptical of all ideas that aren't deemed to be a theory in science.

You appear to be giving an special place to scientific theories. Are you suggesting that no one ought to be skeptical?

Without facts you have no theory.

You keep broadcasting the importance of facts. Why don't you provide a clear definition of a fact in the context you are using the word - and please - don't run to the dictionary. What I want to know is why you give "facts" such special status.

In your opinion, are there "facts" that exceed human understanding? How would you know this? How would anyone?

It would strike me that a fact is as limited as the people who agree that such a fact is a fact.

If an adult says they have a special relationship with an imaginary friend named God or Jesus, most people wouldn't think much of it, if they called that imaginary friend Joe, they would be checking them into the nearest mental hospital. You don't see a problem here?

You studiously avoid political ideologies such as Nazism or Stalinism. Tens of millions died in the 20th century courtesy of a belief in political and economic ideas that had nothing to do with religion.

 

[wonderboy416]

You appear to be giving an special place to scientific theories. Are you suggesting that no one ought to be skeptical?

Not at all (we should always use our own judgement when being skeptical of anything), I'm merely suggesting that scientific theories are subject to the highest burden of proof, if one cannot have faith in them, then there's very little we should have faith in.

You keep broadcasting the importance of facts. Why don't you provide a clear definition of a fact in the context you are using the word - and please - don't run to the dictionary. What I want to know is why you give "facts" such special status.

I see a fact as an event or observation that cannot be refuted and would be observed to be the same by any person, regardless of any personal bias (a common background may be required in instances as someone trained as a chemist will see things most obviously won't). I have a hard time believing in any explanation of natural phenomena without a solid base of facts... otherwise it's just entirely made up (ie. religion), hence why I feel they're extremely important.

In your opinion, are there "facts" that exceed human understanding? How would you know this? How would anyone?

I don't know this because I can't prove it to you, there certainly does seem to be processes which we've yet to explain and could not explain given our current level of technology and knowledge. 200 years ago no one could tell you why an object expands when heated, we now have a working model in place to do just that and it does so accurately.

You studiously avoid political ideologies such as Nazism or Stalinism. Tens of millions died in the 20th century courtesy of a belief in political and economic ideas that had nothing to do with religion.

I fail to see how they add or detract from the argument that religion is bad. Nazism and Stalinism aren't great ways to run a society, but neither is having access to personal slaves, an idea endorsed by religion.
The absence of religion from those regimes does not make religion suddenly good, nor does it make atheism bad. It's moot.

 

[Hipster Duck]

Not at all (we should always use our own judgement when being skeptical of anything), I'm merely suggesting that scientific theories are subject to the highest burden of proof, if one cannot have faith in them, then there's very little we should have faith in.

Their burden of proof is their own. It would be like if there was a thing called "Hipster Duck science" and according to my own rules, my explanation of a phenomenon makes total sense. Now, obviously, science is much more rigorous because it's highly formalized, practiced in countless institutions and has been developing for over 500 years. However, the gist of my argument - that a scientific theory is never refuted outside of science - is still the same. It would have to be, because science is a human construct; its formal rules and methods are not god given (no pun intended), they were developed by humans and have become entrenched and established.

I see a fact as an event or observation that cannot be refuted and would be observed to be the same by any person, regardless of any personal bias (a common background may be required in instances as someone trained as a chemist will see things most obviously won't). I have a hard time believing in any explanation of natural phenomena without a solid base of facts... otherwise it's just entirely made up (ie. religion), hence why I feel they're extremely important.

See above. The scientific endeavour is all interrelated. The old line: biology is chemistry, chemistry is physics that you might have heard in high school is sort of true. Why does that biological process occur at that particular organelle? Because the enzyme can interacted favourably with its substrate there. Why does an enzyme interact with its substrate? Because the conditions for a chemical reaction are conferred by the physical chemical structure of the enzyme and substrate (like a pocket) and because the reaction is thermodynamically favourable. Why is the molecular structure the way it is? Okay, because of the physics of atomic structure. Can you describe the particular atomic structure? Well, it has an arrangement of protons and neutrons in its nucleus and electrons whizzing around it - its ability to transfer electrons defines its chemical properties. Okay, what is the position and momentum of these electrons upon which everything else rests? Now, here we sort of reach the end of the road. Are you ready to open this door, wonderboy? In 1925, Heisenberg posited that the momentum and position of a particle could not be precisely determined. If you isolated the position of an electron, you would necessarily disturb the particle's momentum and vice versa. As a physicist, Heisenberg used this to establish that uncertainty was a phenomenon of the natural world; he didn't throw in the towel and demand that they go back and do more research. He showed the necessary limitations of understanding the world through quantum mechanics and let the rest of science know that uncertainty was a condition of the universe. But, if quantum mechanics is uncertain, the whole scientific establishment upon which it is pinned is uncertain.

Now, wonderboy, I invite you to use irrefutable scientific proofs to demonstrate to me that the current scientific endeavour has uncovered completely unassailable truths. Gristle and I demonstrated this is impossible through a philosophical thought experiment about human constructed methods and the limits of rationality. Now Heisenberg - who, I would wager, knew a little bit more about the scientific nature and origin of the universe than you do - has shown that it is unattainable within the constructs of science.

So, please, go ahead, wonderboy. I am really looking forward to your shatterproof demonstration that there are things that we know for absolute certain in the world. If you can do this, I will be the first person on the phone to Stockholm to make sure you win every Nobel prize in the world from now until eternity.

 

[wonderboy416]

Their burden of proof is their own.

You make it seem like science operates in its own little bubble and is oblivious to everything else.
You're right, it is a human construct, I'm just saying the burden of proof is equal to or better than any other discipline...
While science is a very young field, can you name a single established theory in modern science that has been debunked?
I can recall Einstein correcting a lot of Newton's laws and obviously the flat earth hypothesis has been proven incorrect. But under the standard for which theories are now held to, has a single one been refuted? Surely if evidence were produced to the contrary scientists would be eager to explore it, it's not like the book closes... Since science deals with the exploration of the natural world its explanations are limited to such. I already know your counterpoint to this as we've been here before this thread...

So, please, go ahead, wonderboy. I am really looking forward to your shatterproof demonstration that there are things that we know for absolute certain in the world. If you can do this, I will be the first person on the phone to Stockholm to make sure you win every Nobel prize in the world from now until eternity.

I don't think it's necessary to do what you're asking. There are some things which we can never be certain of, but is that to imply complete uncertainty of EVERYTHING? Your argument hinges on everything being completely interrelated, can you prove that? Does this mean that I can never truly understand why a piece of paper splits into two when I rip it because we can't fully explain a black hole or countless other phenomena? I am certain that I will type the same word twice, watch this: bullocks bullocks. That's about what I think of your theory. I will note that I stated I was certain of that prior to typing it and not after it to prevent cheating. You could suggest that an event could of happened in the less than 1 second it took to type that which would have interfered with my ability to type the words, so maybe I'll need to perform some more magic here, hmm... ok. I'm certain that when I look into space and see a star I'm actually seeing it as it was millions of years ago, care to cast any doubt on that certainty?

 

[Hipster Duck]

You make it seem like science operates in its own little bubble and is oblivious to everything else.

No, one of the only bubbles science operates within is the bubble of human construction. Mind you, that's a pretty big bubble.

You're right, it is a human construct, I'm just saying the burden of proof is equal to or better than any other discipline...

That doesn't mean it has revealed absolute truth.

While science is a very young field, can you name a single established theory in modern science that has been debunked?

Theories are being debunked all the time. I worked for a chemist whose team was always theorizing about which molecule would be a suitable active ingredient for a drug. They went down the road several times to no avail, and the theory had to be revised. I never said that science was inflexible, but given this, how do you know we've attained truth in anything so far?

I don't think it's necessary to do what you're asking.

That's because you know you can't.

There are some things which we can never be certain of, but is that to imply complete uncertainty of EVERYTHING? Your argument hinges on everything being completely interrelated, can you prove that?

My argument does not hinge on anything. Try this test for yourself: are there any phenomena in the universe that arose spontaneously out of nowhere that had no prior interactions with any other phenomena and exist in a vacuum completely isolated from all other phenomena that have ever existed or will exist? No? Then, by definition, you cannot have a certainty of something without having a certainty of other phenomena. How much interaction is there? An almost infinite amount, if we account for each phenomena existing inifinitely through almost infinite time and space and being influenced by other large phenomena.

Does this mean that I can never truly understand why a piece of paper splits into two when I rip it because we can't fully explain a black hole or countless other phenomena?

Can you? Start your explanation about what is going on when you are ripping the paper, and explain to me in scientific terms exactly what is happening to the paper, starting from breaking chemical bonds down to the exact position and momentum of the subatomic particles in the paper. Also explain to me what phenomena led to this and what will be influenced by the tearing of this paper in the future.

I am certain that I will type the same word twice, watch this: bullocks bullocks.

Okay, once again, explain what is happening there. Sure, you can reproduce it a million times, but that doesn't mean you understand why. Also, about complete reproducibility, I haven't introduced the phenomenon of Black Swans into this argument, nor have I entered into a philosophical debate about observable events being the ones that we look for.

That's about what I think of your theory.

Okay fine. Since I have used your arguments against you to poke holes in your theory, now it's your chance to engage me in a philosophical argument that shows that humans can, in fact, reach objective truth. While you're at it, maybe you can demonstrate that there are phenomena out there that are not interconnected to anything else and that we can isolate the truth about those phenomena before we move on to understanding the totality of the universe. Use whatever tools are at your disposal: quantum mechanics, philosophy, logic, or any of the sciences you supposedly uphold.

EDIT: I probably wouldn't feel the need to come off so pompously, but it is pretty clear from our thread here that you have very little experience as a scientific practitioner and have next to no awareness about how knowledge is produced. This, however, has not stopped you from displaying an incredibly cocky attitude about a world that you know so little about.

 

[wonderboy416]

EDIT: I probably wouldn't feel the need to come off so pompously, but it is pretty clear from our thread here that you have very little experience as a scientific practitioner and have next to no awareness about how knowledge is produced. This, however, has not stopped you from displaying an incredibly cocky attitude about a world that you know so little about.

No, I'd just as rather not engage you any further.
You're hell bent on your idea that philosophy, a human construct of all things can be certain that we can't be certain, and you see no problems with this. Ironic isn't it?
I've never made any bold claims that haven't been echo'd by those much more knowledgeable than I and I've never claimed to be someone who has studied any of these disciplines we're discussing other than reading at my own leisure. I've also never claimed that we understand anything to its fullest extent, I merely questioned your use of the word certain as I feel (as most other sane people do) that there are times when we can be certain of an outcome (regardless as to whether or not we can fully explain it, certainty most certainly does exist). I get the sense in everything you type that you're trying to position yourself to be above me, that might work with your significant other but not me.

 

[Admiral Beez]

No, I'd just as rather not engage you any further.

Thank God, or Darwin, for that.

 

[gristle]

I get the sense in everything you type that you're trying to position yourself to be above me, that might work with your significant other but not me.

Wonderboy, you have a tendency to take criticisms of you statements as being attacks on you. If you're going to propound the superiority of one form of human activity as being superior to others without adequate reasoning for doing so, then you should be prepared to be questioned. If anything, the questions and criticisms indicate a fair degree of misunderstanding on your part (both of science and philosophy).