A Question for Evolutionists

February 3rd, 2002 | Sabertooth

[Sabertooth]

A Question for Evolutionists

Here's where I see the crux of the Creation vs. Evolution debate, and most appear to miss it:

Forget possible transitional forms, stratigraphy, and radiological clocks... at some level, both Creationists and Evolutionists wander back to singularities and have to cope with the issue of spontaneous cause.

Creationists say "God."

• Since God has chosen not to be heavy-handed, allowing us free will,
  this is neither scientifically provable nor disprovable.
• This is more a commentary on the material limitations of science than it is about the limitations of God.
  Both Creationists and Evolutionists need to come to grips with that.

Evolutionists say "random spontaneous mutagenic speciation."

• Where has that been observed or demonstrated?

[Sabertooth]

• What is the evidentiary basis for the Evolutionists' faith in the god named "random?"

• How is the presumption of random causation anything other than a dogmatic leap of faith?

[Sabertooth]

(((ping))))

[RaceBannon]

Their evidence is soley in the pictures they draw, and the theory they espouse. There is no scientific evidence for evolution of life from non-life. Life is always found where life always was before.

To state otherwise is to embrace the rule of faith. We creationists cannot scientifically prove Creation from observations of creation, we have to infer it from observed processes and from the results of processes unobserved in the past that happened after creation: The fossil record, geographic formation of rock layers, sedimentary deposits, observed changes in the speed of light (If this proves true). We also infer it from observations of decay that we can measure and compare it using the same method evolutionists use: uniformatarianism; Magnetic field decay, radiogenic helium, the lack of evidence of starting rates of K-AR, C14, and the like.

Either way, both systems rely on faith as regarding origins, but I believe only Creation is the accurate system that is proved through observed processes, and is the only rational answer for unobserved process results.

[Rudder]

One of self-admitted limitations of science is that is does not investigate unanswerable questions. Thus, questions concerning God are not found in science. Based upon evidence science has created theories about--not human creation--human evolution. It seems to me that non-scientists (e.g., creationists) are trying to nail science for doing what it does not purport to do and is, thus, creating a false dichotomy: evolution vs creation.

[Torie]

Is that part of the canvas that science cannot fully explain at present the realm of God? Or is it only that portion that science can never explain? How does one know what science will never be able to explain? And how do we know that what science will never be able to explain is the handiwork of some sentient force? Isn't that a leap of faith?

[Sabertooth]

It seems to me that non-scientists (e.g., creationists) are trying to nail science for doing what it does not purport to do and is, thus, creating a false dichotomy: evolution vs creation.

Ahh... no. While Creationists do this plenty, there are many evolutionists who do the same. Gould is forever spamming quack theologies. Others will show up on this very thread.

But tell me.. where has a single scientist ever observed "random spontaneous mutagenic speciation?"

Simple question.

[Rudder]

Stephen Jay Gould? --- He's just sensationalizing for his own self-aggrandizement.

"random spontaneous mutagenic speciation?"

Few scientists have observed speciation, let alone random spontaneous mutagenic speciation. The answer is "no".

[Torie]

Some birds that are phsyically able to procreate with each other do not, because their bird calls have become differentiated. They are on their way to becoming separate species. But I am not the scientist or expert here. Others who engage in this debate are. I will leave the heavy lifting to them.

[f.Christian]

Syllables: tau-tol-o-gy

Part of Speech noun

Pronunciation taw ta 0lEji

Inflected Forms tautologies

Definition 1. unnecessary repetition of the same idea in different words; redundancy.

Definition 2. an instance of such a repetition.

Related Words circumlocution

Derived Forms tautological, adj. ; tautologically, adv.

Science--evolution--atheism...

[Sabertooth]

Great questions! I'll take a shot...

Is that part of the canvas that science cannot fully explain at present the realm of God?
Or is it only that portion that science can never explain?

Well, I believe that it's all the realm of God. I believe that scientific truth informs our understanding of God. All truth does.

How does one know what science will never be able to explain?

We really don't. My issue is as much with those who parrot "Because God said so," at everything, as it is with those who assume that everything can be expalined without God.

Both are intellectually lazy dogmatists.

And how do we know that what science will never be able to explain is the handiwork of some sentient force? Isn't that a leap of faith?

Yes, ultimately this is something we can only "know" by faith.

[Dave S]

Forget possible transitional forms, stratigraphy, and radiological clocks... at some level, both Creationists and Evolutionists wander back to singularities and have to cope with the issue of spontaneous cause.

Why do they? When you get back to a singularity, you are outside of time. Time does not exist. Evolution does not deal with events before the big bang and the start of wordly time. Thats an area that is unknowable. Its a matter of faith. You dont have to be an athiest to belive in Evolution. In fact, Darwin was a Christian.

[Billy_bob_bob]

I'm of the opinion that the question is not able to be answered as of right now, because we don't have the tools it would take to be able to approach the question in a useful way. Consider the science of fractals, and what it can do for certain tasks, like a computer rendering a realistic image of a sunny sky, with clouds and everything. Before fractal equations were available the only way to render an image like this would have been to access huge databases of various clouds, each one digitally encoded as an enormous file, with millions of bits representing the image of a single cloud. Now give the computer a few fractal equations instead, filling up less than a single page of code, and that will be enough to render a better image of a summer sky than the one you would create using gigabytes of database data and billions of computations.

There is a new science that is taking shape, the science of "cellular automata" as presented by Stephen Wolfram. I'm of the opinion that this new science just might hold the keys to understanding many things, possibly even the origins of life itself. His forthcoming book, "A new kind of Science" will address the subject of "cellular automata". I look forward to it being published.

[equus]

Creation is another word for "I don't know how it happened, so God did it." Science doesn't know and neither does religion. Religion has stories about it and so does science. Neither can be proven. Science works hard to prove what it can and it is getting closer all the time. If "life" can arise from "nonlife" and they can make it in the lab then maybe we should redefine life. Where does life begin anyway? What's a virus? What's a prion? Does it start at bacteria? And who gets to have a soul? Only humans? What about your pets? All these questions and their answers are simply viewpoints. Science has tended to strip religion of some of its previous beliefs--Copernicus did that and Darwin did that. Creationists like the image of Michael Behe's "black box"--the things Darwinism can't explain, and Richard Dawkins says, "Try harder." Just because we can't explain it now doesn't mean it can't be explained.

[Sabertooth]

Stephen Jay Gould? --- He's just sensationalizing for his own self-aggrandizement.

We agree. What an oafish media whore.

Few scientists have observed speciation, let alone random spontaneous mutagenic speciation. The answer is "no".

I appreciate your honesty. In fact, no scientists have ever observed speciation.

Yet, without such observations, how can Evolution be called "scientific fact?" Isn't the "Origin of Species" rather critical? Don't misunderstand, I'm no young-Earther...

But wouldn't "Postulate of Evolution" be more intellectually honest?

[Torie]

This may be a silly question, but how do creationists explain/describe the arrival of a new species specifically? This assumes of course one accepts the view that all species that ever were, were not all there at the "beginning."

[The Raven]

Creation vs. Evolution....That's it??? No third choice?

Assume there are infinate explanations for the beginning of time - including an explanation that there never was a beginning.

Then you can easily say...."It's too complicated for us humans right now."

[Rudder]

I am a life scientist and I call evolution a scientific theory.

[Sabertooth]

Why do they? When you get back to a singularity, you are outside of time. Time does not exist. Evolution does not deal with events before the big bang and the start of wordly time.

Yeah, it really does. Biological evolution is a consequence of the evolution of matter, is it not?

I used the word "singulartiy" not in the sense you're referring to, from the standpoint of Physics. I was using it in the sense of causes and first cause being unique and unrepeatable.

A species, being unique, can only evolve or be created once. It is a singular event.

Confirmation or "proof" of scientific hypotheses depends on the repetition of experimental results. It is the nature of some hypotheses to be outside the realm of experimentation, and I think Evolution is one. Small scale experimental standards of scientific proof aren't really applicable to issues of vast time scales such as evolution or cosmology.

That's why I suggested the phrase "Postulate of Evolution" above. "Big Bang Postulate" would be another.