Science academies around world urge evolution lessons

[dd_8630]

Yes

[dd_8630]

No - I think we are on the same page.

Well that was helpful.

Anyways, evidence for evolution from...

Palaeontology:

1) The fossil record, when layed out chronologically, clearly shows gradual morphological changes in the bone structure, which correleates to changes in, on, and around the Earth as documented by other fields.

2) The equine record is a notable example of said fossil record, in that it is quite complete.

3) Tiktaalik roseae (fish-land intermediary) and Ethiopean pre-human fossils have been recently found (Here and here respectively)

Comparative Anatomy:

1) The Pentadactyl Limb

2) Insect Mouths

3) The convergent evolution phenomenon, whereby orgnaisms evolve similar structures if in similar evironments dispite being relatively unrelated (bird, bat, & insect wings; insect & vertibrate joints; aquatic mammalian & fish tails & fins; vertibrate & cephalopod eye structure; etc)

4) Vestigal organs that have use in some organisms but not in other, more evoled, organisms.

Geographical distribution:

1) Continental drift: Pangea and its following landmasses predicts similar organisms where land was once joined (Long-tailed monkeys in Africa v short-tailed in South America; lions v pumas & jaguars; giraffes v llamas; all similar, but slightly different from isolation)

2) Australia has the worlds only 2 monotremes (egg-laying mammals) (echidna & platypus) and very few native placental mammals, and since they are primitive mammals, this supports the idea that Australia has been terrestrially isolated for a very long time.

3) Again, the fossil record shows us how various organisms migrated across the world (horses, camels, humans, etc)

4) Oceanic turbulance continually generates new islands, whose native animals are only birds and fish, since the aquatic barriers obviously do not impede them.

Comparative genetics:

1) Organisms morphologically similar have a similar genetic code, while older, more primitive organisms tend towards simpler, less complex, and more diverse genetic mechanisms.

2) The very fact that almost all organisms utilize DNA and ATP molecules, and that DNA & RNA codons are the same irrespective of the host organism (bacterial codons code for the same protien as they do in a human cell)

3) Cytochrome C is a classic example of biomolecular differentiation; I won't bore you with the details Google can surely provide.

Iterative programming:

1) Modern computers can simulate evolutionary environments in ever more complex virtual environments, providing back-up that the evolutionary priciple holds mathematically.

I will not be so arrogant as to claim this is conclusive nor complete, but I think its a nice taster. Any equally extensive Creationist evidences?

[Smalcald]

Hi DD,

My view of evolution as a scientific theory is that it is just that, a scientific theory, which will work until something better comes up, it is a tool, not an answer. I don't think it is airtight though as you claimed. I would question the robustness of these two earlier assertions that you brought up.

* Falsifiable and testable. Can be experimentally tested with the possiblity of disproval.

* Reproducible. Makes predictions that can be tested by any observer, with trials extending indefinitely into the future.

I realize that we have some lab evidence for micro-organisms which may meet number one and possibly number two, however the theory overall simply is not very good at doing either one of these. Why can't we predict the next evolutionary step for any particular organism or mammal? If it was a robust theory we should be able to say animal x will look like this in y number of years.

A fossil record cannot come close to meeting these requirements. Although it certainly is interesting and can lend clues. But a fossil record is simply a function of what is left and what we happen to find. We cannot make anything, which is falsifiable or in particular that we can make any predictions with. I don't think there are any cases that we have ever actually observed evolution among mammals for example? I don't mean related species I mean observed an animal changing in that way? But I could be wrong.

But for me I think it is important to learn the theory and to understand it, as long as it has explanatory power it is useful. I don't think it helps Christians to fight a scientific tool, as long as Christians are allowed to show why we believe what we believe is true. I think it is a mistake. I believe that God created the world in 6 days, however I also am impressed with the evidence I have seen for evolution, I find adaptation, mutation and natural selection fascinating, and to me it seems exactly as our God would design a process. I don

[CSLewis]

I would highly recommend the book "Finding Darwin's God" by Kenneth Miller. Very good and informative I agree with his stand on the issue.

[dd_8630]

Hi DD

Hello!

My view of evolution as a scientific theory is that it is just that, a scientific theory, which will work until something better comes up, it is a tool, not an answer. I don't think it is airtight though as you claimed.

I don't claim evolutionary theory to be airtight, merely backed up by overwhelming amounts of evidence. If it was airtight, we wouldn't be having this debate.

I would question the robustness of these two earlier assertions that you brought up.

* Falsifiable and testable. Can be experimentally tested with the possiblity of disproval.

* Reproducible. Makes predictions that can be tested by any observer, with trials extending indefinitely into the future.

I realize that we have some lab evidence for micro-organisms which may meet number one and possibly number two, however the theory overall simply is not very good at doing either one of these. Why can't we predict the next evolutionary step for any particular organism or mammal? If it was a robust theory we should be able to say animal x will look like this in y number of years.

We cannot predict evolution beyond the laboratory (or even inside it) because we simply do not have technology accurate enough to predict things such as radioative decay, brownian motion, entropy, etc. The slightest change in the position of a chiasmata can completely alter or invalidate the new gene. Such accuracy is just... impossible, at this stage.

A robust theory rarely predicts to the accuracy you ask for (outside of mathematics, of course) (of the form x = f(y)).

Need I quote again the Hawthorn Fly? Classic example of macroscopic speciation in an insect?

A fossil record cannot come close to meeting these requirements. Although it certainly is interesting and can lend clues. But a fossil record is simply a function of what is left and what we happen to find. We cannot make anything, which is falsifiable or in particular that we can make any predictions with. I don't think there are any cases that we have ever actually observed evolution among mammals for example? I don't mean related species I mean observed an animal changing in that way? But I could be wrong.

I agree that no mammalian speciation has been observed. But artificial selection and human-made sympatric barriers have created widely varied (though as far as I know still interbreedable) breeds of a species (cattle, livestock, foxes, various apes etc).

Changed in what way, may I ask? In that they cannot interbreed to produce fertile young?

I think we'll have to agree to disagree with the validity and completeness of the fossil record here, as the medium of the Internet does not allow us to examine it in its entierity.

But for me I think it is important to learn the theory and to understand it, as long as it has explanatory power it is useful. I don't think it helps Christians to fight a scientific tool, as long as Christians are allowed to show why we believe what we believe is true. I think it is a mistake. I believe that God created the world in 6 days, however I also am impressed with the evidence I have seen for evolution, I find adaptation, mutation and natural selection fascinating, and to me it seems exactly as our God would design a process. I don’t find my belief in a six day creation as shown in Genesis to contradict my understanding of evolution.

Though surely a 6-day Creation (and presumably a 6000 year old Earth) contradicts the fact that the evolution from abiotic substances to the life we have today needs a good few billion years? But then again, you do not say you belive in evolution, merely admire its... complexity? Evidence?

The only part that bothers me is when those who are trained only in the tools, claim some further knowledge about first things, about the why's, which they cannot possibly know. There is nothing in evolutionary theory, which should question any parts of the Christian faith, it can’t it is not asking those questions. The center of our faith is that a human being rose physically from the dead, well very few Christians believe that medical science holds this as possible, yet we don't fight medical science or basic biology which totally proves that dead human cells cannot be regenerated after three days.

I think that if Christ was divine in origin, he would have been able to bend the usual rules and reanimate.

May I ask what your mothertongue is? I'm having trouble understading your first sentence here.

If you want to find Darwin’s “god” you will not find him in Miller’s book – you will need to search in some “warm little pond” where there is a lot of ammonia and heat. You see Darwin’s “god” is naturalism – a worldview which makes God an unnecessary hypothesis and essentially superfluous. People like CS think they can have the Judeo-Christian God and the god of Darwinism at the same time but the truth is they are mutually exclusive concepts i.e., the two worldviews are not compatible in any way.

Darwin does not make God unneccesary, but instead relegates him to a different role in creation than shown in the Bible (as opposed to creating everything fully formed ex nihilo, he guided the universe from the Big Bang to the evolution of humans, for example). Naturally, a literal interpritation of King James' Bible is going to have some difficulties, but the Judaeo-Christian God is not invalidated.

Further, I disagree with the term 'god of Darwinism', for that implies, well, a god of Darwinism! Granted, a certain amount of belief goes into the interpritations of the evidences, but nowhere near as much as that of Creationists and/or Intelligent Designists.

Edited July 11, 2006 by dd_8630

[Smalcald]

Though surely a 6-day Creation (and presumably a 6000 year old Earth) contradicts the fact that the evolution from abiotic substances to the life we have today needs a good few billion years? But then again, you do not say you belive in evolution, merely admire its... complexity? Evidence?

Hi dd.

I do find evolution fascinating I have to admit. Like I said it just seems like the type of process our God would put into play.

But on the 6 day creation, we know from scripture that God is time invariant. What I mean is that God exists in the past present and future, that time itself is variable for God, it does not come at God in little bits and pieces as we are constrained. Which actually makes sense from an astrophysics point of view. So we see Christ saying things like "before Abraham was, I Am", we have statements which say that "with God, 1000 years is AS one day, and one day is AS 1000 years". So for me timing is simply not a stumbling block. Particularly when we see things like alternative universes, different dimensions, the bending of time, so you know 6 years, 6 nano-seconds, 6 million years, however God wants to count things is fine by me. We have 6 days stated so I will go with that and hope to find out exactly what God means by that after I enter the Kingdom.

My first tongue is bad rushed typing combined with bad grammar.

But as far as believing evolution, I don't look at any science in that way. Evolution is a useful tool for understanding some things we observe, we can't really deny that, and I don't. However it only serves as a tool until a better explanation comes up, science does not deal in absolute truth, religion and philosophy seek these answers, but not science. As people of faith our beliefs come to us not through observation, but through revelation, thus it is a different way of knowing, but it does not have to struggle against other ways of knowing, such as the scientific method.

[dd_8630]

But on the 6 day creation, we know from scripture that God is time invariant.

Care to quote some? I'm not particularily familiar.

What I mean is that God exists in the past present and future, that time itself is variable for God, it does not come at God in little bits and pieces as we are constrained.

Neither does it for us, actually. Science has shown that time is an illusion, a fourth dimension along which we have no length, no position. But the nature of time is too complex and off topic for now

So we see Christ saying things like "before Abraham was, I Am", we have statements which say that "with God, 1000 years is AS one day, and one day is AS 1000 years".

Could this be a translational error, given that ancient aramic and olde english have quite different tenses and temporal cases

Evolution is a useful tool for understanding some things we observe, we can't really deny that, and I don't.

Agreed

However it only serves as a tool until a better explanation comes up/

Here I disagree. Major scientific concepts, like gravity and evolution, keep thier main fundamental priciples, especially since evolution is hardly has mathematically sound as gravity. I can't see something better then (and entirely different from) evolution arising without a major reworking of the laws of everything.

Science does not deal in absolute truth

Science deals with the empirically observable (that which is observed, and inferred from the observed), and the theories that arise to explain said observations. Empiricy gives us the facts, and is arguable the only absolute truth we can know (unless you call into question the nature of reality, in which case we get nowhere)

religion and philosophy seek these answers, but not science. As people of faith our beliefs come to us not through observation, but through revelation, thus it is a different way of knowing, but it does not have to struggle against other ways of knowing, such as the scientific method.

I disagree. Religion invokes the dogmatically supernaturale, philosophy the meta-knowledge of the world (forgive my overwhelmingly huge overstatments here). Further, faith can come from the observation (and means other than revelation).

[Smalcald]

Hi dd,

No there are numerous passages showing the time invariance of God, existing in past present and future concurrently, which of course as you say makes sense as time itself is an illusion. It is not any sort of error. It is actually fascinating and shows a very advanced concept of time in the bible, which also of course makes sense. Are you familiar with Holy Scripture?

If time is an illusion, than 6 days or 6 minutes or 6 million years, what is the difference really? So if God reveals to us through the ancients that it was 6 days, I have no problem with that at all.

Science deals with the empirically observable (that which is observed, and inferred from the observed), and the theories that arise to explain said observations. Empiricy gives us the facts, and is arguable the only absolute truth we can know (unless you call into question the nature of reality, in which case we get nowhere)

Of course I am calling into question the nature of all reality. This is the realm of philosophy and religion. Science is only ONE way of knowing. Religious faith relies on direct revelation from God, philosophy of course tries to answer these natures of reality questions using human logic, but science does neither, nor can it, nor should it.

Here I disagree. Major scientific concepts, like gravity and evolution, keep their main fundamental principles, especially since evolution is hardly has mathematically sound as gravity. I can't see something better then (and entirely different from) evolution arising without a major reworking of the laws of everything.

They keep their principles only as long as a better explanation comes up; they are not absolute truth, as science does not attempt to define absolute truth. Which is VERY important for the scientific method. Consider if science did claim absolute truth, well go back 100 years and freeze what we believed? Sure something

[dd_8630]

No there are numerous passages showing the time invariance of God, existing in past present and future concurrently, which of course as you say makes sense as time itself is an illusion. It is not any sort of error. It is actually fascinating and shows a very advanced concept of time in the bible, which also of course makes sense. Are you familiar with Holy Scripture?

Again, I ask for specific biblical verse which support God's temporal isolation (or, prehaps, supersedence). I am not a complete novice in that I know some biblical verses, inconsitencies, themes etc. I remember 'First and the Last, Beginning and the End'; is this an example of what you are talking about? Also, I'd debate the fact that non-linear time is a 'very advanced' concept (but this is just my pedanticness )

If time is an illusion, than 6 days or 6 minutes or 6 million years, what is the difference really? So if God reveals to us through the ancients that it was 6 days, I have no problem with that at all.

Time's illusion may be apparent to God, but the 'ancients' (writers of the Torah?) had a very linear view of Time. So, if God revealed Creatoin to have taken 6 days, I think he would've meant 6 days as they pertain to the 'ancients', rather than confuse them by having 6 days mean something different (an interesting note: according to science, Creation took 0 time, in that before there was no spacetime continuum, and after there was a singularity that 'exploded'). If God meant 6 million years from the perspective of the 'ancients', then why not use 6 million years? Time clearly began when God created the universe (according to Genesis, anyway), since some time is passing from the perspective of an internal observer.

Time's illusion is only apparent from on external observer; we experiance the flow of time because we are internal (presumably God is external (to the universe)). So, 6 literal days would be just under 144 hours (given that 1day<24hrs) for an observer at their own Creation, which is how God would've described it as (would be dumb not to, really). Hope that makes some sense

Of course I am calling into question the nature of all reality. This is the realm of philosophy and religion. Science is only ONE way of knowing. Religious faith relies on direct revelation from God, philosophy of course tries to answer these natures of reality questions using human logic, but science does neither, nor can it, nor should it.

Initially, we were dealing with evolution being taught in classrooms, not the nature of philosophy, religion, and science.

Science deals with the observable and inferable, no more. What more is there?

Religious faith does not rely directly on divine revelation; my own spiritual beliefs do not stem directly from any divine source.

I beg to differ that Science does not, cannot, and should not deal with the nature of reality. The advent of relativity and quantum mechanics (and, recently, M- and String- Theory) have completely upsided our view of reality. Further, why should science not deal with reality?

They keep their principles only as long as a better explanation comes up; they are not absolute truth, as science does not attempt to define absolute truth. Which is VERY important for the scientific method. Consider if science did claim absolute truth, well go back 100 years and freeze what we believed? Sure something

[Nero's Fiddle]

So we see Christ saying things like "before Abraham was, I Am"...

Could this be a translational error, given that ancient aramic and olde english have quite different tenses and temporal cases

No, this is very purposeful. I AM is the name of God. It identifies Him as the eternally self-existant... that is, there was never a point when He didn't exist.

In this statement, Christ is doing a play on words, identifying Himself as the eternally self-existant, thus as God.

You say that a Creator, eg God, has the right to claim authority over rules & punishments thereof; how? Does this right extend to parents? Are parents not held accountable if they brutally rape, torture, or murder their children as some (though thankfully few) do? Just because you create something does not give you free reign over it. One of the few things that is seen throughout mankinds psyche is that infringement on anothers free will is (morally) bad (hence the difference between theft and gift, murder and euthanasia, making love and rape, etc etc). Holding God as excusable for anything simply because He begat us is morally ignorant and irresponsable.

Parents can only be held responsible for anything because it violates morality, and there is a higher authority to check that violation. Since God created ALL things, He is the standard for morality and good. He is not only the higher authority, but the code by which all that is good operates.

If a child decided that it was wrong that its parent didn't give it ice cream for dinner every night, would that make the parent wrong and immoral? No.

Free will... ahhhhh. You're speaking a Christian's language again! In order to give us free will to love Him by our own choice, He was willing to allow us to sin... Which caused Him to have to give up His Son to die on a cross. The epitome of selfless love.

He didn't "beget" us. Jesus is His "only begotten Son". He created us.

*puffs on pipe in pretentious manner*

Smoking is bad for you.

He does show up the holes and incompletness of evolution, to his credit

If there are holes and incompleteness, then it DOES require some degree of faith (not religious necessarily) to believe that the missing pieces are out there to be found.

2: Hah, agreed. Hebrew is a lil harder than (ie, completely different to) the Russian I study, soz! Must be someone who knows it...

Yep. I studied German and Spanish in high school... I've started studying Hebrew on my own but am still at the transliteration level. I hope to take Hebrew and Greek classes, if my schedule is ever less than completely packed.

"soz"?

3: Point? The hebrew bible, as far as I know, wasn't accepted at all by non-Jews, so there wasn't much dispute.

I'm not talking non-Jews. I'm talking the people who built their lives around the intense study of the Scriptures. I'm talking the original recipients of the texts. Are we really so arrogant as to think that we are the first people to learn how to read with comprehension?

It is a scientific theory, not a theological one. There are not contending theories... I'd also like to point out that an 'unproven theory' is a bit redundant, as a theory is de dicto unproven, else it would be scientific Law.

The stickers do not name any other theories. They simply remind students that evolution is, in fact, a theory... one would think that the word theory would be enough to give away that it is unproven, but American society proves otherwise.

But evolution (at least, here in England) is not taught as watertight, complete, and absolute. We acknowledge its assumptions, potholes, and basic lack of completeness.

If the contrary is taught o'er the pond, then I see your angst and resistance to it; I would too, though prehaps not abandon it entierly.

Have you read American textbooks? Even children's books? Evolution is presented as fact. Some textbooks have an eeny-weeny little section that says "Some people don't believe in evolution, etc." but paints those people as foolish, or "outsiders" to science, and continues in teaching evolution.

From the earliest age in pubic school, tenets of evolution are taught in no uncertain terms as being TRUE. If this is not the case in England's public schools, mabye we're on different wavelengths here.

A fair comment, and I won't insult you by attacking your conclusion

Thanks muchly.

(insofar as my 17yo intellect and free time will allow).

Do you Englanders start college at seventeen? If so, congratulations on your matriculation!

I was most quizzical, for example, at how plants know what colour and smell to evolve to attract the right types of insects, but then it hit me in a rather clich