Evolution: Religion or Science?

[Skippy]

LOL!!! You think I don't know that??? I wasn't talking about the units! The equation you used to calculate the volume of the vessel is used to calculate the volume of a CUBE, you know? the 3D shape?? A vessel is not cube-shaped. You must calculate the length times width times AVERAGE depth.:shrug:

I know that. I described a rectangular cube (which has four rectangular sides and two square sides - like the ark) or a square sided cube (which has six square sides). Real scientists have made scale models of the ark as described in Genesis, put it into a water tank and subjected it to the equivalent of 200 foot waves and found it very seaworthy.

YOU don't know volume equations my friend.

YOU don't know The Bible, or the flood story you are arguing against, my friend.

[Skippy]

Good answer. If there is evidence on both sides, but neither camp is definitive, doesn't taking either position require faith?

That, my friend IS the point. Bio, you have a way of summing up things nicely.

 

Next.....

[skuinders]

Nice talking with you. Eye opening to say the least... :shrug:

 

P.S. scale models, in this context , are irrelevant unless you also scale the robustness of the building material.

[Boerseun]

Sheesh... turn your back for ten minutes...

 

It seems as if the question hinges on people not accepting speciation as possible, and geologic features of the planet that would either prove or disprove either side.

 

I once more say that evolution has no pretentions towards being a religion per se, but, if in the development of science and specifically this branch of it, some features of religion are not necessarily disproved, but shown to be higly unlikely, that's the way science works, and should not be seen as intentional. Science goes where the evidence takes it, and sometimes it might be into tight, dark, and uncomfortable corners.

 

As to speciation: This can't readily be shown in labs, because of the time it would take It can be inferred, however. Donkeys and horses readily mate to produce mules. Therefore, a donkey and a horse isn't seperated in the reproductive sense. However, a mule can't reproduce. Every single mule has a donkey and a horse as parents. This can be show to be a first step in the evolutionary seperation of donkeys and horses. Same with donkeys and zebras. They can also succesfully reproduce, also with sterile offspring. And a zebra shows visible features very different from the rest of the horse family - what would they look like in another 100,000 years? They might be so different that the speciation should be obvious. It just can't be done in a lab, though - unless you've got a budget for a 100,000 year experiment.

 

Skippy - as to your 'mud on the seafloor' argument in defence of the flood:

The seafloor is the lowest possible place on the planet. If there was a flood, where do you propose the mud to haved washed to? How did they conclude the mud depth to be 400 metres? How many sample holes did they drill? How many cores have been taken? How reliable is your evidence? This isn't a 'grasping at straws' kind of argument from your side, is it?

 

As for the flood in general - in my view, this was a local event that got to be part of their folklore and was handed down orally for generations before being penned (or chiselled) down - and after so many generations, the story got bigger and bigger and bigger and eventually encompassed the whole of the Earth. Their earth was pretty small in any case, small part of the Middle East, but that's besides the point. So it was penned down as a globe-stretching catastrophe, because the people God created (as an omnipotent being) didn't behave they way he wanted them to behave (design failure) and he decided to smite them (vindictiveness, or trying to hide the evidence of his failure).

So - if the flood is indeed true, it says a lot about God's fallability, and that even this immaculate, all-powerful being makes a doo-doo every now and then.

You sure you still wanna believe in the Flood?

 

Evolution happens. My chihuahua and my neighbour's Great Dane is family. For how long, until their differences are so enhanced that they justify two seperate species? We have done wonders with dogs in the last couple of hundred years with intended, albeit artificial, breeding programs. What might happen with natural processes if you give it not thousands, but millions of years? I think if you look at the general similarities between an elephant's and a mouse's skeletons, you'd see that speciation is no fancy happenstance - it is a undeniable feature of evolution, and pretty obvious at that. If God created all the species, he must have got tired after the very first one, seeing as he used the same general blueprint for all the others. Which is a lot less likely than evolution.

 

Look at yourself. Your long arms and strong, opposable thumbs tell the story of how we swung in trees a couple of million years ago, with our simian ancestors. Your forward-facing eyes and reduced nasal cavity testifies towards seeing 3D in order to judge distance between two branches is more important that smelling with an extended muzzle. Excellent eyesight will show you where the ripe fruit are. Your hips tell the story of when some of your ancestors decided to roam the plains in search of food, and an upright stance was beneficial. Another example of hips slowly changing to an upright position would be that of a meerkat (Timone of Lion King-fame is a meerkat). Long, slender legs also gives evidence towards that.

 

As a matter of fact - a foetus goes through all these phases in developing towards a viable animal. Even a human foetus starts out with a tail, gills, going trough a complete fish-phase, before the tail and gills and all the other non-human features are assimilated into the baby-to-be.

 

Evolution happens, and it's the most magnificent of processes. We are not removed from nature. We are part of it. It does not take faith to take evolution as a fact, the evidence are there. And - like it or not, but in my view, the weight of evidence is heavily tilted in favour of evolution. For me to accept any belief in any being based on one single book, would take a heck of a lot of evidence to swing the scales back in favour of religion. If the Second Coming comes to pass, I get judged and thrown in hell, well, then maybe I'll come to my senses. But I don't see the possibility of that happening as very likely. And I'm not going to go on my knees and 'pray' for forgiveness and go to the weekly Sunday 'religious' money-suction 'just in case'. That would be bullshitting myself.

[Skippy]

Skippy - as to your 'mud on the seafloor' argument in defence of the flood:The seafloor is the lowest possible place on the planet. If there was a flood, where do you propose the mud to haved washed to? How did they conclude the mud depth to be 400 metres? How many sample holes did they drill? How many cores have been taken? How reliable is your evidence? This isn't a 'grasping at straws' kind of argument from your side, is it?

Only time to answer this right now...

According to the U.S. Department of Energy (pretty reliable I think), "In the 293 fields discovered off Louisiana, there are 6,471 oil wells, 2,061 gas wells, and 4,598 dry holes for a total of 13,130 holes spudded in the Gulf`s 25-yr history." By my calculation, that is 13,130 holes in the ocean floor in just one part of the Gulf of Mexico. Every one of those holes had a geologic survey, including core samples. Put that on a worldwide scale, and you have mounds of evidence from the oil and gas industry alone. Then add the number of strictly scientific research surveys and I think you'll agree that there is plenty of evidence for the assertions of oceanic floor mud.

[Biochemist]

...I once more say that evolution has no pretentions towards being a religion per se, but...

 

As to speciation: This can't readily be shown in labs, because of the time it would take It can be inferred, however........

 

Evolution happens. My chihuahua and my neighbour's Great Dane is family. For how long, until their differences are so enhanced that they justify two seperate species? ,,,

Goodness.

 

This is certainly a wideranging discussion. Let me offer a couple of MUCH narrower points. Thee are probably at odds with some of Skippy's assertions, but I am talking specifically to you, B.

 

1) Very few people (Christian or not) think that speciation never occurs. You are defending the wrong argument

2) I don't know anyone that suggests that"evolution has pretentions" at all. In fact the heart of thie issue is that many evolutionary biology proponents are biased against theistic positions. In that framework, evolutionists would explicitly set themselves up as non-religion. The central issue is whether some evolutionists tend to accept some items on faith because they want to, not because the evidence supports it.

 

The best example of #3, is NOT speciation generally, but specifically speciation via mutation. Mutation-based speciation is a central hallmark of gradualism (along with allopatric and sympatric speciation). I think that nearly everyone accepts allopatric speciation (that is, isolated populations tend to favor minority alleles and generate species vartiants that may become non-interbreeding populations.) There are some pretty good examples of this.

 

But allopatric speciation does not explain the majority of speciation. Evolutionary biologists then lapse into mutation-based speciation to fill in the dramatic changes.

 

The evidence for mutation-based speciation is REMARKABLY thin, and yet it is accepted dogma. Read any introduction to a biochemical evolutionist basic science paper, and you are likely to read assertions that relate to the existing biochemistrey begin a result of previous mutations.

 

The problem is that in the absence of accepting some sort of mutative model, there is no other generally accepted model for production of new body plans. This does not really bother the theists. It REALLY bothers a lot of evolutionists, so they attach themselves to a critical element of the global evolutionary theory, even when the evidence is very, very weak.

 

You might notice that Skuinders did not respond to my post #85 above. Even he acknowledged that his position has holes, and yet will not hold the opposing position as having merit. (at least not yet- Sku?)

 

This is a very common behavior, and IT IS NOT SCIENCE to behave this way.

[Biochemist]

Only time to answer this right now...

Gentlemen-

 

The topic of this thread is whether evolution is religion or science., If you want to discuss flood evidence, I suggest you start a thread in the theology forum. If you are going to stick to academic references, you could use the earth science forum.

 

Please stay on topic

[bumab]

Sheesh... turn your back for ten minutes...

 

No kidding.

 

I once more say that evolution has no pretentions towards being a religion per se, but, if in the development of science and specifically this branch of it, some features of religion are not necessarily disproved, but shown to be higly unlikely, that's the way science works, and should not be seen as intentional. Science goes where the evidence takes it, and sometimes it might be into tight, dark, and uncomfortable corners.

 

I agree with you here. But one must not let science's penchant towards those dark corners get ahead of itself. Science shows what it shows.

 

As to speciation: This can't readily be shown in labs, because of the time it would take It can be inferred, however. Donkeys and horses readily mate to produce mules. Therefore, a donkey and a horse isn't seperated in the reproductive sense. However, a mule can't reproduce. Every single mule has a donkey and a horse as parents. This can be show to be a first step in the evolutionary seperation of donkeys and horses. Same with donkeys and zebras. They can also succesfully reproduce, also with sterile offspring. And a zebra shows visible features very different from the rest of the horse family - what would they look like in another 100,000 years? They might be so different that the speciation should be obvious. It just can't be done in a lab, though - unless you've got a budget for a 100,000 year experiment.

 

Speciation has been achieved with bacteria, including endosymbiosis which created a dramatically new species, not just a sister species. Speciation has occured in fish very recently, sticklebacks in the Amazon I believe.

 

I'm not going to address all the flood stuff, it's off topic...

 

Evolution happens. My chihuahua and my neighbour's Great Dane is family. For how long, until their differences are so enhanced that they justify two seperate species? We have done wonders with dogs in the last couple of hundred years with intended, albeit artificial, breeding programs. What might happen with natural processes if you give it not thousands, but millions of years? I think if you look at the general similarities between an elephant's and a mouse's skeletons, you'd see that speciation is no fancy happenstance - it is a undeniable feature of evolution, and pretty obvious at that. If God created all the species, he must have got tired after the very first one, seeing as he used the same general blueprint for all the others. Which is a lot less likely than evolution.

 

If you mean created individually, sure. If you mean created the process of evolution, or created in the more general sense- "was responsible for" then there's no conflict.

 

As a matter of fact - a foetus goes through all these phases in developing towards a viable animal. Even a human foetus starts out with a tail, gills, going trough a complete fish-phase, before the tail and gills and all the other non-human features are assimilated into the baby-to-be.

 

Semi-true, but the idea that the foetus goes through all evolutionary stages was shown to be false. I can't recall the name of the process of the top of my head, but it was a leading hypothesis for a while, back in the 1800's I believe.

 

Evolution happens, and it's the most magnificent of processes. We are not removed from nature. We are part of it.

 

Well said!

 

For me to accept any belief in any being based on one single book, would take a heck of a lot of evidence to swing the scales back in favour of religion. If the Second Coming comes to pass, I get judged and thrown in hell, well, then maybe I'll come to my senses. But I don't see the possibility of that happening as very likely. And I'm not going to go on my knees and 'pray' for forgiveness and go to the weekly Sunday 'religious' money-suction 'just in case'. That would be bullshitting myself.

 

I wouldn't recommend doing it "just in case" either. That's pretty insincere and disengenuous. Rather- take some time. Think about yourself, you abilities, your free will, your neighbors. Read the book- it might make more sense if you read it with an honest, open mind. Don't assume it's going to conflict with science- I've not found a place yet. There are some sticky passages on the surface, but realize it's an old, culturally present book. There's poetry and alliteration. Just don't take a hostile attitude before you start (I'm sure you don't.). Above all, just approach the topic with humility. We're not the greatest thing since sliced bread, neither is our minds nor our "incredible" scientific process. Respect it for what it is... that's all. :D

 

Have a good day all!

[geokker]

Creationists, it seems to me, wish to put evolution (and biblical creationism) on religious terms, for it is in that region where creationism is most credible.

-Will

 

God in his infinite wisdom created the mechanism of evolution.

 

Why the creationists never used this argument I'll never understand!

 

:D

[niviene]

They have... over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, ad nauseum. Read back on some of the other threads. :D

[Skippy]

Gentlemen-

The topic of this thread is whether evolution is religion or science., If you want to discuss flood evidence, I suggest you start a thread in the theology forum. If you are going to stick to academic references, you could use the earth science forum.

Please stay on topic

Agreed. The only reason the flood or other biblical story is brought up by evolutionists is to show that belief in biblical stories is faith only and cannot be backed up scientifically as they contend that evolution can. If they are correct - IF evolution can be backed up with hard scientific fact and IF hard science can prove that God had nothing to do with it, then they believe they have answered the topic and evolution is not a religion.

 

As you, Bio, have pointed out yourself, "If there is evidence on both sides, but neither camp is definitive, doesn't taking either position require faith?" There are way too many gaps, guesses, suppositions and unproven maybes to make evolution anything but a faith-based study. Therefore, their zealous devotion to evolution is akin to our zealous devotion to The Bible.

[joeblow]

Hi,

 

I'm a brand new member here, just stumbled on this site while doing a Google search. This topic made me what to join..hehe

 

The original question should be "is Atheism a religion." It seems that most people use Evolution to defend an Atheist viewpoint, since Atheism didn't start with Evolution theory they aren't at all related, but they seem to have evolved as one over time. You should say the same with creationism, that it's not only "the flood" or a Christian viewpoint that should drive the argument.

 

For one- creationism is also an unproven hypothesis. Second, evolution is extrodonarily well supported. Third, evolution makes predictions and inspires thought.

 

At what point does creationism become somewhat valid though? If we can imagine a possible future where we will have a complete understanding of evolution and are able to control it. Is it possible that someday we will be able to create (all) life from what we learn of it, even if only in theory? If it is possible to create life doesn't that make a creator possible? I'm not saying just because something is possible makes it so, and that is the conclusion many want to jump to. But without drawing any religion in, the "hypothesis of creationism" isn't beyond proof. The opposite is also true. The more we learn, although a creator is possible, creation still could have occurred without the need for one.

If both are possible then you are drawing your conclusion from a belief you have without having any evidence.

 

That's why I'm in the middle ground, if you need a label call me Agnostic, it seems the only position to take without some sort of belief…..if I'm missing something here that should make me jump on either side, please let me know..hehe.

 

Cool forum, I look forward to exploring it more.

[Boerseun]

Only time to answer this right now...

According to the U.S. Department of Energy (pretty reliable I think), "In the 293 fields discovered off Louisiana, there are 6,471 oil wells, 2,061 gas wells, and 4,598 dry holes for a total of 13,130 holes spudded in the Gulf`s 25-yr history." By my calculation, that is 13,130 holes in the ocean floor in just one part of the Gulf of Mexico. Every one of those holes had a geologic survey, including core samples. Put that on a worldwide scale, and you have mounds of evidence from the oil and gas industry alone. Then add the number of strictly scientific research surveys and I think you'll agree that there is plenty of evidence for the assertions of oceanic floor mud.

Hardly.

 

Gasfields and oilfields are on the continental shelves. The continental shelves are raised quite high above the seafloor in general. The continental shelves are far from being the lowest points on the earth's surface, and the depth of mud on these shelves can not, by any stretch of the imagination, be seen as representative of the seafloor.

[Boerseun]

Sorry about the last post on seafloor-mud, Bio

 

I replied to it before I saw we're off topic.

 

I offer my apologies.

[Boerseun]

1) Very few people (Christian or not) think that speciation never occurs. You are defending the wrong argument

Then I probably didn't express myself well. Speciation occurs, and because of evolution. The 'Tree of Life', so to speak, generally branches off dramatically after some catastrophic event, like the Cambrian explosion, or the enormous increase in mamalian life after the dinosaurs' end came about. New niches means new possibilities for new species.

Voila.

2) I don't know anyone that suggests that"evolution has pretentions" at all. In fact the heart of thie issue is that many evolutionary biology proponents are biased against theistic positions.

...and then it can be said as well that many theistic proponents are biased against evolution, 'cause taking evolution for what it is contradicts some core elements in their faith. Why would the evolutionary's bias be more wrong than the theist's bias? The only answer would be, you should agree, to look at the issue objectively. And from an objective point of view, the theist's position is not necessarily wrong, its just very unlikely.

In that framework, evolutionists would explicitly set themselves up as non-religion. The central issue is whether some evolutionists tend to accept some items on faith because they want to, not because the evidence supports it.

Frankly, I'm amazed. Theist's take their position very serious indeed. Based on flimsy evidence, to say the least. I think the contradiction here should be obvious.

I agree with you that there are some instances where evolutionists would speculate, say, on the possible existence of an intermediary form between an elephant and a hyrax. The fact that a fossil for this hypothetical animal hasn't been found yet, doesn't make the case for it any less weak. The fossil record is not complete, its a work in progress, and will be for many years to come. So that'll have to be taken not on faith, but on understanding the difference between what's scientifically the most likely, and fairytales.

The evidence for mutation-based speciation is REMARKABLY thin, and yet it is accepted dogma. Read any introduction to a biochemical evolutionist basic science paper, and you are likely to read assertions that relate to the existing biochemistrey begin a result of previous mutations.

The evidence for the opposing side is, well, thick. Its a single book. Roughly a thousand pages or so. Also 'accepted dogma' for a fair size of the population. Evidence for mutation-based speciation might be contained in comparatively 'thin' books, but luckily there's so many different titles and authors to choose from. Choice is rather liberating.

The problem is that in the absence of accepting some sort of mutative model, there is no other generally accepted model for production of new body plans. This does not really bother the theists. It REALLY bothers a lot of evolutionists, so they attach themselves to a critical element of the global evolutionary theory, even when the evidence is very, very weak.

It should certainly bother the theists, if they want to be consistent. It might not bother you, but then again, you should have a relatively open mind regarding scientific matters. Your participation on these forums should be evidence enough of that. Referring to evolutionist's evidence as being 'very, very weak' is contradictory when you speak from a theistic point of view. The theist's evidence is not only weak, but highly unlikely as well. And I'm not saying that evolution as a theory is the end-all and be-all of all theories, its just currently the most likely. A heck of a lot more likely than the theistic-held view.

You might notice that Skuinders did not respond to my post #85 above. Even he acknowledged that his position has holes, and yet will not hold the opposing position as having merit. (at least not yet- Sku?)

I'm sorry. I might be biased. I once again say that evolution might be disproved tomorrow, or replaced with a better theory. It will have to overturn a pile of evidence, but, its not impossible. And then I'll accept that evolution is dead and buried. But the theistic argument simply has no merit in my view, and I can't blame Skuinders for not replying. Evolution might have holes, but the evidence pours in daily to close some of them. Theism is just one big hole, and beyond repair. Theists and evolutionists are batting in different leagues.

This is a very common behavior, and IT IS NOT SCIENCE to behave this way.

I assume you're referring to Skuinders not replying? Theism is also a very common occurrence, and that's DEFINETLY not science. Its just amusing to see it being defended in science terms.

[Biochemist]

...Evidence for mutation-based speciation might be contained in comparatively 'thin' books, but luckily there's so many different titles and authors to choose from. Choice is rather liberating.

...

I really think you sidestepped the issue here, B. When I say the evidence for mutation-based speciation is "thin", I am being kind. It is nearly absent. There is one single study about a mutation altering the behavior of an enzyme that digests ribulose. And I think that one is irrelevant. Most other examples are in plants, and are equally dififcult to apply.

 

Most authors impute mutation as a mechanism in the absence of proof. Further, the entire PE thesis essentially calls gradualism into question. The biochemical support for mutation-based speciation is essentially absent. The fossil record is at odds with it.

 

My point is that the support for mutation-based speciation is so thin that it is vaporous, and yet the acceptance of this notion is broad. If your response is that this "faith" is no worse than theists, you have proved my point. I think it is identical to the theists.

[Biochemist]

...I once again say that evolution might be disproved tomorrow, or replaced with a better theory. It will have to overturn a pile of evidence, but, its not impossible...

I know I am a broken record on this, but there is almost no evidence to overturn on the issue of mutation-based speciation. Did you know this?

 

B- I frankly have forgotten what your technical background is, but Google the evidence for mutation as a speciation mechanism. It seems to me that you are trusting that this evidence exists. We did a pretty good review of it in the thread entitled "punctuated Equilibria theories" a while back, but you would have to wade through several hundred posts to look at it.