What Are Creationists Afraid Of?

The New Individualist ^ | 1/2006 | Ed Hudgins

[Doctor Stochastic]

Their own nature?

[Ol' Dan Tucker]

Evolution does, however, ask true believers to take things on faith until the future day arrives which will finally prove it true. Evolutionists keep hoping all those missing "in between" fossils will show up eventually. ;-)

Ahem.

Creationism is what asks true believers to take things on faith until the future day which will finally prove it true.

Christians keep hoping that Jesus will show up eventually.

[Thatcherite]

Your response isn't really germane to the points I was making.

I was specifically talking about the high frequency of flightless bird species on oceanic islands. No two islands sharing the same species. Easily explained by evolutionary theory. Inexplicable otherwise, except in terms of "God created different flightless bird species on lots of different oceanic islands to make evolution look true even though it isn't."

[TChris]

So God couldn't have set up the initial conditions and physical laws of the universe in such a way that life would naturally arise and evolve? I thought he was supposed to be omnipotent.

You're confusing what He "could" do with what He "did" do. That can quickly descend into the silly, "Could God create a rock so big that He couldn't lift it?" musings.

He has revealed what he did do. He created. He didn't just mix up a batch of goo and sit back to see what happened.

[Dimensio]

I get lost at this point. How does a bird gradually loose its ability to do something like that?

If the bird population is in an environment where the ability to fly is not advantageous for continued reproductive success, or if it is even potentially detrimental to reproductive succes, then selection pressures would start to favour birds without the ability to fly. Note that it may not be as simple as "not being able to fly". It might be some other physical characteristics that improve reproductive success that happen to cause a detriment to flight in an environment where flight itself is simply not a necessary or useful ability.

If humans began using wheelchairs all the time, would they gradually be born without the ability to walk?

Not likely. First, there would need to be a significant percent of the reproducing population who were unable to walk, not simply who chose not to do so. Moreover, that subset would need some selective advantage that would give them, in general, a higher percent chance to reproduce in their lifetime. Finally, their inability to walk must itself be an heritable trait, so that it actually gets passed on to successive generations.

[jw777]

"That is to say that the mechanism that caused the first life forms to exist has no bearing on the mechanism by which those imperfect replicators branched off into diverse species, or, in clearer terms, evolution doesn't depend on life originating from any specific method."

that is all I'm getting at. THat there is a possibility that an Intelligent Designer (not like Ralph Lauren) or God created or initiated the originating replicator.

[mlc9852]

Why do you think Australopithecus africanus was not human?

[TChris]

And they had to pull the *calculations* out of their posteriors because it isn't POSSIBLE to make such calculations without knowing what the processes they claim to represent are.

They based them on the observed rate of mutation in successive generations of cells, if I remember correctly. That is the basis of evolution, is it not?

In any event, I must be getting home now. Thanks to all for an invigorating debate! :-)

[Ol' Dan Tucker]

"Have you ever wondered how a flying squirrel flies, it doesn't have wings, it's not a bird, so how can it fly? Well, the truth is, it doesn't fly, it glides, sort of like an eagle except it never has to flap any wings.

Um, sailplanes don't flap their wings, either, yet no one would dream of saying they don't fly.

[Dionysiusdecordealcis]

"Hayek showed" "Showed" means demonstrated, proved. Demonstration in logic or mathematics is hard proof. Strictly speaking this is the only time "demonstration" applies, if you follow Aristotle's Posterior Analytics.

Proof or "demonstration" in the natural sciences merely means that the theory is better supported by more empirically measurable data than alternative theories are supported by. Strictly speaking, it's not really demonstration, though the word is commonly applied to theories that enjoy widespread acceptance.

Demonstration or proof in the social sciences is roughly the same, though the data may involve less-measurable elements. In economics, most of the data are measurable, but . . .

So what did Hayek prove? He advanced a theory. A lot of people believe it to be a good theory that is supported by the data. Others disagree.

All that quite apart from the questions other posters have raised. This could have been a useful article if the author had actually thought about how explanatory models and theories work in mathematics, natural sciences, social sciences, philosophy, theology.

But that would require some complexity and perhaps even a tad bit of intelligent designing.

Besides, Adam Smith's "invisible hand" always struck me as the least convincing part of his system. It seemed like a cheap deus ex machina solution, just a tad bit like religious belief in providence, masquerading under "scientific analysis." Sort of like Newton's way of filling in the gaps he could not yet explain (for lack of sufficient data and sufficient analysis--sort of like an eye that has halfway evolved??).

[Dimensio]

By definition, such transitionals would be better suited to their environments than previous species, so they should have the advantage and abound in nature.

What makes you think that there aren't any existing transitional species?

[Coyoteman]

Evolution Theory is not science.

From an NSF abstract:

As with all scientific knowledge, a theory can be refined or even replaced by an alternative theory in light of new and compelling evidence. The geocentric theory that the sun revolves around the earth was replaced by the heliocentric theory of the earth's rotation on its axis and revolution around the sun. However, ideas are not referred to as "theories" in science unless they are supported by bodies of evidence that make their subsequent abandonment very unlikely. When a theory is supported by as much evidence as evolution, it is held with a very high degree of confidence.

In science, the word "hypothesis" conveys the tentativeness inherent in the common use of the word "theory.' A hypothesis is a testable statement about the natural world. Through experiment and observation, hypotheses can be supported or rejected. At the earliest level of understanding, hypotheses can be used to construct more complex inferences and explanations. Like "theory," the word "fact" has a different meaning in science than it does in common usage. A scientific fact is an observation that has been confirmed over and over. However, observations are gathered by our senses, which can never be trusted entirely. Observations also can change with better technologies or with better ways of looking at data. For example, it was held as a scientific fact for many years that human cells have 24 pairs of chromosomes, until improved techniques of microscopy revealed that they actually have 23. Ironically, facts in science often are more susceptible to change than theories, which is one reason why the word "fact" is not much used in science.

Finally, "laws" in science are typically descriptions of how the physical world behaves under certain circumstances. For example, the laws of motion describe how objects move when subjected to certain forces. These laws can be very useful in supporting hypotheses and theories, but like all elements of science they can be altered with new information and observations.

Those who oppose the teaching of evolution often say that evolution should be taught as a "theory, not as a fact." This statement confuses the common use of these words with the scientific use. In science, theories do not turn into facts through the accumulation of evidence. Rather, theories are the end points of science. They are understandings that develop from extensive observation, experimentation, and creative reflection. They incorporate a large body of scientific facts, laws, tested hypotheses, and logical inferences. In this sense, evolution is one of the strongest and most useful scientific theories we have.

Modified from RadioAstronomers's post #27 on another thread.

[xzins]

Hayek showed how in a free market the complex processes of producing and distributing goods and services to millions of individuals do not require socialist planners

This is almost laughable in its illogic.

This author is saying that individuals do not set up distribution channels and methods...that they came about "spontaneously."

ROTFLOL!

Tell that to your friendly neighborhood entrepreneurs. I'm sure they'll get a kick out of it.

[mlc9852]

Are you saying there are no same species of flightless birds located on different islands?

[Dimensio]

in the context of this discussion it is presented to me that Evolution excludes the existence of God.

Whoever presented that to you was lying.

I simply argue to have both matters presented and allow the reader to decide.

False dilemma fallacy. Why do you assume only two possibilities?

[mlc9852]

Okay, we agree that flying squirrels don't fly by flapping their wings.

[Thatcherite]

I get lost at this point. How does a bird gradually loose its ability to do something like that? If humans began using wheelchairs all the time, would they gradually be born without the ability to walk? I guess I'm asking what is it inside of them that changes? I know I didn't form this question very well, so forgive me if you can't figure out what I'm saying :-)

Your confusion is arising because you are imagining individual birds evolving. Individual birds don't evolve. Populations evolve. It is all about differential productive success. If flying isn't an advantage in the bird's current environment, and flying comes at a high cost, then individual birds that happen to be born as not very good fliers but perhaps lay more eggs or are more tolerant of a varied diet will outbreed the good fliers. Every individual born is somewhat different from its parents, and that individual will during its lifetime either successfully breed children or not. Those that breed more children pass their genes on, and those that don't successfully raise children lose their genes. Mutations and sexual gene-shuffling do the rest by causing the variation of offspring that drives natural selection.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

" They based them on the observed rate of mutation in successive generations of cells, if I remember correctly."


They couldn't POSSIBLY have been able to calculate all of the variables. They pulled the numbers out of their butts and fooled those who didn't think too hard on what was being *explained*.

[Rightwing Conspiratr1]

The Objectivist Center.

The Objectivist Center is a group of hate spewing athiest communist Christian-hating Jew-hating monsters. 'nuff said.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

" This author is saying that individuals do not set up distribution channels and methods...that they came about "spontaneously."

Hayek said no such thing. Do you think that central planning IS necessary then? Are you a socialist?