Evolution vs. Creationism

[ErlyRisa]

The problem with both religions is that neither wants to amalgamate. Their is room for both (although the thought that the solution to investigation is to just say 'god did that' ... pretty much halts evolution when it comes to scientific investigation, but on the same page, many like to miss-interprate Darwinism as being the be-all to end all theory, esecially so when it concerns 'a higher power')

 

--The higher power doesn't have to include a 'creator' ... which is the Theologists miss-conception

 

--Evolotution, doesn't have to discount the existance of a higher power, as long as it doesn't include the power of the 'insert god here' as the creator.

 

For example....Buddhism.

 

...the funniest conundrum is, that it's the fact that we as an evolving society decided on the 'one god' principal, to nurture our development....from Pharoahs to Evangalism... it's our religious base that has spawned stable evolving society... maybe theology is part of the Darwinian Equation, who's to say Dolphins don't believe in a higher power?

 

actually...you could theorise that 'the one god' principal stems as far back as 'the silver back' amongst the tribe... which could be a precursor to 'civilised' thought amongst a group ,spawning diversified communication, in effect, it's what makes the brain 'grow'.

[Eclogite]

I believe I understood your arguments, which were cogently presented, but I disagree with almost everything you said.

The problem with both religions is that neither wants to amalgamate.

Disagreement One: just because some practioners of science behave in an unscientific fashion, exercising faith and becoming buried in dogma, does not make science itself a religion.

Disagreement Two: Some scientists and some theists hold the other practice in disdain. For many the 'almagamation' already exists and has never been in doubt.

.. but on the same page, many like to miss-interprate Darwinism as being the be-all to end all theory, esecially so when it concerns 'a higher power').

Disagreement Three: anyone claiming to be a Darwinist has probably just woken from a seventy year coma. There ain't no such animal. Darwinists have evolved into something else.

Disagreement Four: if observation and theory do not require a higher power, why introduce one?

...the funniest conundrum is, that it's the fact that we as an evolving society decided on the 'one god' principal, to nurture our development....from Pharoahs to Evangalism... it's our religious base that has spawned stable evolving society... maybe

This is just wrong. The Egyptians, the Greeks, the Romans, were all pantheistic. Even Christianity, with its concept of the Trinity, and the subset of Roman Catholicism, with its saintly idolatry, is at heart a polytheistic religion.

...you could theorise that 'the one god' principal stems as far back as 'the silver back' amongst the tribe... .

Agreement One: the existence of alpha males within human society would certainly provide a strong compulsion to imagine a 'Great Sky Father'.

[Pyrotex]

If there is a horse race with an infinite number of runners, I believe the probability of any one horse winning is zero, yet the race will have a winner (I'm open to correction on this). There are proofs that 0.999.... equals 1, on this occasion 0% seems to me to be the conventionally correct term, again I'm open to correction, in any case it's the most convenient term for expressing a negligible probability.

I may be open to correcting you on this.

Infinity is not a number, nor a member of the set of countable integers. It is not even a quantity as that would be a numerical value. So "an infinite number of runners", though the words make sense, and we hear such phrases all the time, is not in fact, a mathematically sensible phrase. The phrase IS used as a "code phrase"--a shortcut to spelling out in tedious detail what is really meant, but it must not be taken too literally.

 

Like, "To infinity! And beyond!" :D :D :D

 

In mathematics, nearly always we see infinity used in the sense of considering a value n, or counting to n, where n approaches infinity. In elementary Calculus, infinity is always considered in this way--as a limit. Infinity does not "have" a numerical value. Infinity is a concept for exploring and describing the unboundedness of the set of integers; and for exploring the infinitesimal region around zero.

 

PS: There is a different infinity used for exploring the Reals. Oddly enough, Infinity (Integers) is LESS THAN Infinity (Reals). This result is NOT obtained by mathematics, per se, but by a process of "mapping" each Infinity to the set of Integers and the set of Reals, and then by showing that the Reals cannot be "mapped" onto the Integers.

 

Yet, even here, it would be a "mistake" to think that one Infinity is bigger than the other in any arithmetical way. It would make just as much sense to say that one Infinity is "heavier" than the other on a set of imaginary scales with a dial that goes: 1 Infinity, 2 Infinities, 3 Infinites.... :) :)

[ughaibu]

Pyrotex: Although the possibility, that human beings are the result of genetic manipulations by visiting extraterrestrials, can not be entirely discarded, I rate it as infinitely slight, I dont assign any number to it. As with the infinite number of runners, it's because there is no numerical value, that such a probability is rated as zero. That's my understanding of it, of course my understanding may be eccentric:

"Things get more complicated in the infinite case, since there cannot be a flat distribution over denumerably many outcomes, on pain of violating the standard probability calculus (with countable additivity). Rather, the best we can have are sequences of progressively flatter distributions, none of which is truly flat. We must then impose some further constraint that narrows the field to a smaller family in which there is a distribution of maximum entropy.[3] This constraint has to be imposed from outside as background knowledge, but there is no general theory of which external constraint should be applied when.

Let us turn now to uncountably infinite spaces. It is easy -- all too easy -- to assign equal probabilities to the points in such a space: each gets probability 0."

Interpretations of Probability (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

[Pyrotex]

Pyrotex: Although the possibility, that human beings are the result of genetic manipulations by visiting extraterrestrials, can not be entirely discarded, I rate it as infinitely slight, I dont assign any number to it. As with the infinite number of runners, ...It is easy -- all too easy -- to assign equal probabilities to the points in such a space: each gets probability 0."...

:D :D :shrug:

 

Well, Yes! Of course.

 

I thought that was what I said. :) :) :D

[ughaibu]

Okay, cool, I stand corrected.

[REASON]

If I may jump in here:

 

In my experience, I find that most Creationists have very little understanding of evolution, whereas believers of evolution tend to know a lot about the creation theory. Many of the creation oriented people I know, have barely studied any science at all, much less taken a biology course in school. But you can bet they have the Book of Genesis at the forefront of their minds. It is in no way surprising that their belief system does not extend beyond the information for which they have been exposed. You'll often hear the obligitory, "We didn't come from no monkeys! That's rediculous!" It's at this point that I realize that I'm dealing with someone that doesn't have a clue of what they are talking about with regard to evolution, and it may be more effort than I feel like expending to try and explain anything.

 

The sticking point seems to be around human evolution more than anything else. The ego seems to be strong with creationists, and convinces people that to accept a concept, that places humanity as having developed through the same processes by which a slug developed, is insulting at the least. To have developed the same as all other life means that we are no more important or significant than all other life, even as our superior intellect sets us apart. This is contrary to Creationist teaching and a very important aspect of their rejection of evolutionary principles. Most of those I know that believe evolution are not offended by such a notion. What does it really say about a society, or a group, that needs to be reinforced in the idea that they are superior to all other life? In my estimation, it only reveals a deep insecurity.

[ErlyRisa]

What I propose is that some scientists start working on 'Intelligent Design'... because this thesis has some merit.

 

Maybe the argument could be taken along that avenue.

 

Their are many creationist theologies.... but the most modern belief, about intelligent design, could uphold beliefs in both camps.

 

The old creationist Dogmas. Should be killed off... even the cotholic church upholds Evolution, and only interpretes Genesis as a STORY!... sadly it's US evangelists which are twisting words.

[REASON]

What I propose is that some scientists start working on 'Intelligent Design'... because this thesis has some merit.

 

Maybe the argument could be taken along that avenue.

 

Their are many creationist theologies.... but the most modern belief, about intelligent design, could uphold beliefs in both camps.

 

I understand your desire to find a compromise, but actually, ID has no scientific merit whatsoever. It is nothing more than creationism cloaked in scientific terminology and a lot of technical sounding jargon. The general premise of ID is that the development of physical and biological systems in the universe are too complex to have formed naturally and therefore imply the work of a designer>creator>God.

 

In a nutshell, this is the same argument made by ancients who wondered why the Sun, Moon and stars moved across the sky, or why the Earth shook, why people got sick, or why there were floods or droughts. With no clear knowledge or understanding of their environment, they believed it must be because some all powerful being had made it happen. Making the determination that it is too difficult to figure something out so we must again defer to the untestable, unverifyable, all powerful creator as the explanation is not science.

 

I suspect that many who believe in ID do so because they are knowlegeable of and may have some respect for evolutionary principles, but feel conflicted with their faith. For them, as you describe above, it is a happy-medium approach. Again, finding a happy-medium is not science. For others, it is a direct attempt to undermine legitimate science, particularly surrounding the education of children. These people are very astute to the importance of controlling information and creating a distrust of legitimate science in the minds of young people, particularly where it may contradict their religious ideology, in an effort to "save" them, and to perpetuate the church.

 

 

The old creationist Dogmas. Should be killed off... even the cotholic church upholds Evolution, and only interpretes Genesis as a STORY!... sadly it's US evangelists which are twisting words.

 

American Christian Evangelists and other Literalists religious sects, don't actually "twist" scripture, they take it's meaning exactly as it has been translated. It is more likely the interpreters that are doing the "twisting."

[Pyrotex]

...It is in no way surprising that their belief system does not extend beyond the information for which they have been exposed. You'll often hear the obligitory, "We didn't come from no monkeys! That's rediculous!" ....

Amen and rat own!

 

True story: I was visiting my brother-in-law waaaay out in the sticks from a small Texas town. My wife and I were walking down the dirt road admiring the horses and foals wandering free in front of all the farm houses. Came across a boy, about 16, grooming a young horse (yearling?) and we started talking to him.

 

I noticed two round, rough spots on the horses front legs, above the knee. They were gnarly, nasty looking, and I asked what was wrong with the horse. The boy said they were a natural feature of all horses, and these features had a name (I have forgotten) and then he said, "Them damned scientists teach that those spots there are where horses used to have two extra legs, but they evolved away. Stupid damn scientists!"

 

Being a stupid damn scientist, I casually said, "No, that couldn't be true. Scientists know that horses never had six legs. No real scientist would teach that."

 

The boy whirled around, obviously pissed off, and said, "YES THEY DO!!! My football coach is the biology teacher, and he said those f**ing evolutionists are saying stuff like that all the time!!"

 

The conversation didn't go any further than that. Obviously, the young man had not been exposed to much real biology.

[REASON]

The boy whirled around, obviously pissed off, and said, "YES THEY DO!!! My football coach is the biology teacher, and he said those f**ing evolutionists are saying stuff like that all the time!!"

 

The conversation didn't go any further than that. Obviously, the young man had not been exposed to much real biology.

 

Yeah, but what was their record in football? Priorities! Don't forget our priorities, Pyro!

 

I wonder if he was just as bad of a football coach as he was a biology teacher.

 

And why am I not surprised that they didn't have a real biology teacher.

[Novotov]

It's admirable that you have that mixture of science, because creationism has nothing to do with science at all.

 

Not true, and there are certainly large holes in evolution as well. Biological chemistry exemplifies this.

Do you know how sugar is metabolized? There are thirty-two chemical steps, fifteen of which involve specialized proteins. Four constructs in the cell are devoted entirely to metabolizing and creating energy. This is observed even in anaerobic metabolism and in single-celled organisms, where it is believed the cell is at its most efficient.

So, what are the chances that thirty-two steps, fifteen strings of protein code (each ~200 amino acids long, which makes ~600 lines of DNA code) and four organs (constructed by yet more proteins) evolved by chance? Not much.

 

Biological chemistry is an intensely complicated and dry field of research, and IMHO it is the death blow to evolution. There is flatly no way for these immensely intricate (and precise) chemical reactions to simply 'fall together.'

 

Sorry, but that's just the way it is. There are also piles of evidence against C-14 dating, as well as the primary fifteen dating techniques used by evolutionists. (Funny, but there are far more reliable techniques available, such as radium-polonium or polonium halo analysis, yet these are largely ignored by evolutionary fossils. Often they are not even performed at all.)

 

-Evolutionists in the past have been notorious fossil fabricators, even bringing into question the famous Archaeopteryx. (The fossil was neatly sawn in half by its finder. Nobody seems to be bothered that there are six more feathers on the left side than on the right. Or that there are marks from adhesive gum, gum which is primarily used in lithography, or the carving of designs onto flat surfaces, like limestone. The evidence is inconclusive, because the museum has a flat no-admittance policy for any creationist scientist who wishes to view or test fragments of Archaeopteryx. Suspicious? A tad.)

 

-The traditionally held belief that favorable conditions created a single working cell are vague at best. In fact, most evolutionists prefer to shy away from these beginning concepts, focusing instead on current flora and fauna. This itself is indicative. Continuing: the universe is not infinite, in fact it is smaller than previously thought, so the 'infinite chances' argument cannot hold. Then, on top of this, the chemistry behind the creation of a cell prevents it from occurring. All organic compounds oxidize, this is the definition of an organic compound. However, the solution needed to create amino acids and other substances would also break them back down again - ever notice how the Miller apparatus had a U-shaped bend in its tubing? That's so the amino acids would be quickly siphoned off.

 

There's plenty more I can rant on, but I get the feeling this isn't quite welcome in a Philosophy board, eh? Should I be sticking to the ideas instead?

[REASON]

The general premise of ID is that the development of physical and biological systems in the universe are too complex to have formed naturally and therefore imply the work of a designer>creator>God.

 

In a nutshell, this is the same argument made by ancients who wondered why the Sun, Moon and stars moved across the sky, or why the Earth shook, why people got sick, or why there were floods or droughts. With no clear knowledge or understanding of their environment, they believed it must be because some all powerful being had made it happen. Making the determination that it is too difficult to figure something out so we must again defer to the untestable, unverifyable, all powerful creator as the explanation is not science.

 

So, what are the chances that thirty-two steps, fifteen strings of protein code (each ~200 amino acids long, which makes ~600 lines of DNA code) and four organs (constructed by yet more proteins) evolved by chance? Not much.

 

Biological chemistry is an intensely complicated and dry field of research, and IMHO it is the death blow to evolution. There is flatly no way for these immensely intricate (and precise) chemical reactions to simply 'fall together.'

 

See what I mean?

[Pyrotex]

Not true, and there are certainly large holes in evolution as well. Biological chemistry exemplifies this.

Do you know how sugar is metabolized? There are thirty-two chemical steps, fifteen of which involve specialized proteins. Four constructs in the cell are devoted entirely to metabolizing and creating energy. This is observed even in anaerobic metabolism and in single-celled organisms, where it is believed the cell is at its most efficient.

So, what are the chances that ...

Okay, your logic fails at the point where you ask "So, what are the chances that...". That is the wrong question.

 

Evolution did not happen by the miraculous assembly of huge proteins and enzymes, but by fiddling little changes in existing precursor molecules. Even if zillion to one odds WERE involved, there were TWO zillion precursors floating around--so the total odds were damn near 100%. Evolution was possible, indeed, was inevitable, because there were zillions and humptillions of parallel chemical experiments going on every microsecond of every day of every eon.

 

Not knowing the specific details of one evolutionary step does NOT constitute a "HOLE" in our knowledge, or a breakdown in evolutionary logic.

[snoopy]

-The traditionally held belief that favorable conditions created a single working cell are vague at best. In fact, most evolutionists prefer to shy away from these beginning concepts, focusing instead on current flora and fauna. This itself is indicative. Continuing: the universe is not infinite, in fact it is smaller than previously thought, so the 'infinite chances' argument cannot hold. Then, on top of this, the chemistry behind the creation of a cell prevents it from occurring. All organic compounds oxidize, this is the definition of an organic compound. However, the solution needed to create amino acids and other substances would also break them back down again - ever notice how the Miller apparatus had a U-shaped bend in its tubing? That's so the amino acids would be quickly siphoned off.

 

There's plenty more I can rant on, but I get the feeling this isn't quite welcome in a Philosophy board, eh? Should I be sticking to the ideas instead?

 

I find you quite scary Novotov as I think you actually believe what you are saying and you know enough science to twist science in a way that could be confusing to others or attractive to others.

 

Theories on how the cell could have formed are that the various mechanisms inside the cell once upon a time lived outside the cell and made their living out in the harsh world and that they eventually became symbiotically entwined with the cell and therefore part of the cell. (obviously this is highly simplified) Richard Dawkins book `The Blind Watchmaker` explains how the cell could have formed without `supernatural events` I recommend that anyone with doubts that Evolutionists dont `explain` how the cell formed read this book.

 

The universe was never `physically` thought to be `infintite` that would take an infinite amount of energy in a universe that was constantly creating itself `steadystate theory`.

 

SpaceTime is thought to be `infintite` but you dont need `infinite chances` for life to take hold though carbon based life is tough durable and strong. We live in a universe that practically makes `life` a certainty.

 

These are some of the lies that Creationists tell about science and I think that the people who circulate them know they `are` lies.

 

You also say the defintion of `an organic compound` is that it oxidizes. This is not true the defintion of an organic compound is one that contains both hydrogen and carbon within its molecules.

 

A polymer is an organic compound. Polymers do not oxidize.

Plastic does not rust.

 

You say many other things in your post but I am not going battle you on every point. I dont see the point in doing that. I wish you well and most of all I wish you better reading material.

[ErlyRisa]

ID (intelligent Design), would have merit if it weren't pedagogical Evangalist scientists pedaling it.

 

...Mathematically, chaos thoery in particular, can't account for simple things like 'how amongst chaos' order arises.

 

Example.

Evolution of the Monkey.

 

Our Ancestor, is still around. Why?

 

Well, it was only one group of monkeys that ended up evolving, leaving the others behind.

 

THE SCENE

 

Tribe of monkeys, chasing one of the weaker ones, out of the forest, the weak monkey, trips, and stumbles upon a fire, already started by lightning a day ago. The brave little chap, USES the magical fire as protection from the tribe (knowing that ,as monkeys, we are scared of the magical heat).

This monkey, of course is now 'the powerful monkey' amongst the tribe, the smart one, the brave one... and teaches the others about the fire.... human evolution starts.

 

Now, in a world of chaos...how can this situation ever come to be... there is higher probability for the monkey to have been just as scared of the fire, or to have died from smoke inhalation, etc etc.

 

There is an ' ascended ' force... which Intelligently, designs through slight nudges, throughout the universal chaotic process.

 

Something as simple as as the first Gravitational Pull, can be considered to be 'intelligently' placed, in order to continue the evolution of the Universe.

 

--This intelligence, though doesn't have to be , an 'all knowing' being, it can be as simple as a small algortithm... a base for 'unified universe theory' ... this algorithm, is intelligent, only to the piont where, it can procure it's own evolution, but can 'push' the evolution around it.

 

...are we getting the Matrix yet?

[Zythryn]

I really don't think creationists want creationist 'theory' taught as science. Forming a hypothesis around 'god' means there hypothesis must by falsifyable. And proving god doesn't exist (while it really can't be done) isn't something most creationists want to do;)