Darwin Among the Believers (theory of evolution crucial for many fields)

Tech Central Station ^ | 07/22/2005 | Frederick Turner

[Nicholas Conradin]

In a recent TCS essay ("Darwin and Design: The Evolution of a Flawed Debate") I attacked what I regarded as the excesses of both sides of the evolution-creationism debate. There were angry responses in the mail and the blogosphere from both the creationist and the evolution sides, which pleased me, since there were clearly oxen on both sides that felt they had been gored, and caps in my piece that were felt to have, uncomfortably, fit. The angry evolutionists were especially interesting, as they often wound up admitting implicitly that their real agenda was atheism -- while denying that there was any social policy message in that agenda.

In the essay I did state flatly that the theory of evolution had been proved. I wanted it to be clear where I stood. Much of the mail I received protested about that statement. I hold to it, and hold to it not as my own opinion, but as a fact, like the existence of Australia, which is not my opinion but a fact. But I do know that there are many who sincerely, and given their range of knowledge, rationally, do not believe in the theory of evolution.

By the theory of evolution I mean the origination of new species from common ancestral forms by an iterated process of genetic mutation, natural selection, and hereditary transmission, whereby the frequencies of newly altered, repeated, and old genes and introns in a given lineage can cross ecological, structural, and behavioral thresholds that radically separate one species from another. In one sense, this can be summed up in a syllogism, which must be true if we make the basic and essential act of faith that logic itself is true: survivors survive. Given enough time, variation among the genes of individuals, variations in habitat in space and time, the process by which genes translate into proteins, tissues, and organs, and the thresholds that define biological species, all of which can be observationally verified, the principle of the "survivors survive" syllogism must bring about a huge branching of different kinds of life.

The above summary statement of the theory will not convince opponents, who will be able to pick philosophical holes in it (which holes have been sewn up by countless scientists and philosophers in the last 150 years). But what opponents of evolution do not perhaps realize is what they are up against in terms of sheer human and civilizational achievement based on the evolutionary paradigm. This is not a proof of evolution, any more than the four-thousand year history of the survival of the Jewish people is a proof of Judaism or the worldwide congregation of Christianity is a proof of that religion; but it is an indication of the kind of scholarship that would be needed to refute it.

There are at least 50 major journals in the academic field of biology. All accept without question the theory of evolution as I outlined it above. They are not attempting even to prove the theory, any more than math journals attempt to prove that the sum of the internal angles of a plane triangle is 180 degrees, or engineering journals revisit the existence of gravity. But they would be nonsense without the theory of evolution, just as engineering would be nonsense without gravity. Each of those journals is published about four times a year; several of them have been in existence for over a hundred years. Each journal contains at least ten articles of about 2-20 pages, and each of those articles represents several months' or years' work by a team of trained biologists whose most compelling material and moral interest would be to disprove the work of all their predecessors and to make an immortal name by doing so. The work of the biological teams is required to be backed up by exhaustive experiment and observation, together with exact statistical analysis of the results. There is a continuous process of search through all these articles by trained reviewers looking for discrepancies among them and demanding new experimental work to resolve them. Since every one of these articles relies on the consistency and truth of the theory of evolution, every one of them adds implicitly to the veracity of the theory. By my calculation, then, opponents of evolution must find a way of matching and disproving, experiment by experiment, observation by observation, and calculation by calculation, at least two million pages of closely reasoned scientific text, representing roughly two million man-years of expert research and perhaps trillions of dollars of training, salaries, equipment, and infrastructure.

But the task of the opponent does not end here. For biology is not the only field for which the theory of evolution is an essential foundation. Geology, physical anthropology, agricultural science, environmental science, much of chemistry, some areas of physics (e.g. protein folding) and even disciplines such as climatology and oceanography (which rely on the evolutionary history of the planet in its calculations about the composition of the atmosphere and oceans), are at least partially founded on evolution. Most important of all for our immediate welfare, medicine is almost impossible as a research discipline without evolutionary theory. So perhaps the opponent must also throw in another 4 million pages, four million man-years, and ten trillion dollars -- and be prepared to swallow the billions of human deaths that might follow the abandonment of the foundations of medical, mining, environmental, agricultural, and climatological knowledge.

If what is at stake is a proposition in the theology of biblical interpretation that is not shared by a large minority or possibly a majority of Christians and Jews, perhaps it might be more prudent to check the accuracy of the theology, which, after all, is a human creation even if scripture itself is conceded to be divinely inspired. Might not God's intentions be revealed better in the actual history and process of nature, his creative expression, than in the discrepancies we might hope to find in its self-consistency and coherent development?

[mlc9852]

Why is it when evolution is discussed, the subject of God always comes up? It doesn't come up when discussing calculus, geology, astrophysics, or any other scientific discipline. Why?

[nmh]

"The angry evolutionists were especially interesting, as they often wound up admitting implicitly that their real agenda was atheism -- while denying that there was any social policy message in that agenda."

It doesn't matter how many faulty measuring tools used for dating. It doesn't matter how many atheists and ignorant polly parrots echo evolution ... it doesn't make it so. Truth is not dependent on numbers of people believing it. The evidence of God is obvious to all that wish to see it. Either you believe an unlimited God who can do anything, as stated in the Bible or you believe limited man who denies Him with a diametrically opposing theory. There is NO middle ground or compromise when it comes to truth. Compromised truth is NO longer truth.

[cyborg]

I don't believe in evolution. Understanding the theory is crucial, not the belief. I still had to learn it to pass college biology but no prof is going to convince me I'm descended from a chimp.

[nmh]

Because God creates. Man doesn't "create". Man uses to "create" what God already gave to us for a resource. Calculus is just a measuring tool - it is not an explanation of how the earth started or life.

Christianity is a religion and so is atheism and that is part of the underlying argument - on creation. ONLY God creates.

[Junior]

Pingaling.

[JamesP81]

I have heard it said, by an engineer, no less, that if a genetic mutation occurred every nanosecond for the past 4 billion years that there still would not have been enough time for humanity to evolve from single cell organisms.

True? I don't know. But I know enough that the idea that evolution is somehow a proven fact is nearly as laughable as stating that the Earth orbits the moon. Mathematically, since all things in the universe are relative, this can be shown, but that doesn't make it so.

[Luddite Patent Counsel]

That argument has already happened. Read some Aquinas.

[orionblamblam]

> Either you believe an unlimited God who can do anything, as stated in the Bible or you believe limited man who denies Him with a diametrically opposing theory.

OK. So, the moon remains in orbit about the Earth not because of the interplay between gravity and inertia, but because God is running it around on a little track. And any variation from that view is a limited Man-centric view that denies God.

[orionblamblam]

> Why is it when evolution is discussed, the subject of God always comes up?

Not "always." Only when evolution is discussed by people who don't understand the theory and the overwhelming evidence for it, but who do have a religion-based opposing view.

[mrjeff]

This article is complete nonsense; riddled with logical errors. I wrote an extensive post on my blog about it.

[sirchtruth]

Why is it when evolution is discussed, the subject of God always comes up? It doesn't come up when discussing calculus, geology, astrophysics, or any other scientific discipline. Why?

Because Evos believe LIFE just happens by chance and the RIGHT circumstances. From evidence evos observe they concluded that life came into existance and progresses a certain way as a scientific theory. Creationist believe GOD creates life.

God enters into the debate because evolution is not FACT.

[orionblamblam]

> True?

Nope. What this "engineer" of yours is positing is going straight from amino acids to the human DNA strand all in one jump. *That* is statistically virtually impossible. But that's not what happened, anymore than a redwood grows from a seed to a 200-foot-tall behemoth without passing 100 feet on the way.

[Rifleman]

"I still had to learn it to pass college biology but no prof is going to convince me I'm descended from a chimp."


If that was your understanding of evolution then you should not have passed.

[cyborg]

My belief in God and the Bible trumps questionable scientific theories. I am just stating my opinion. Thanks :-)

[Physicist]

Why is it when evolution is discussed, the subject of God always comes up? It doesn't come up when discussing calculus, geology, astrophysics, or any other scientific discipline. Why?

Well, it does come up in a branch of astrophysics, cosmology, and for the same reason. Evolution and cosmology reach conclusions that conflict with certain specific statements in the Bible, and a subset of Christians find this unacceptable.

[Physicist]

find=finds

[Stark_GOP]

"OK. So, the moon remains in orbit about the Earth not because of the interplay between gravity and inertia, but because God is running it around on a little track. And any variation from that view is a limited Man-centric view that denies God."
---
Gravity and inertia are the "tools" that God has decided to use to keep it running on its "little track".
:)

[Stark_GOP]

"I still had to learn it to pass college biology but no prof is going to convince me I'm descended from a chimp."


If that was your understanding of evolution then you should not have passed.
---
If that is YOUR understanding of education then you should not have passed.
Have YOU agreed with everything your teachers have said?

[Rifleman]

I think that you misunderstood.

Evolutionary theory in no way suggests that you evolved from chimps. Believe what you want, but if you demonstrate such a fundimental misimpression as that it becomes impossible to take your arguments seriously.

Personally, I find the fact that the laws of nature have produced the beautiful complexity of life and a creature that can know itself and the universe, to be a very interesting argument for a creator god who set the rules to allow this.

[cyborg]

I'm not looking for an argument. Evolution is wholeheartedly incompatible with my belief in God. I never did ask you to agree.

[Rifleman]

I often disagreed, but always tried to understand the subject matter.

"Descended from a chimp" is either a rhetorical strawman or evidence that the poster didn't have a single clue as to the subject of evolution.

[R.W.Ratikal]

So the world began with a Big Bang? So who do you suppose caused the Big Bang?

Secular humanism has one major flaw: it has no beginning.

[Mr. Mojo]

Gravity and inertia are the "tools" that God has decided to use to keep it running on its "little track".

If gravity and interia are God's tools, why can't evolution be as well?

[El Laton Caliente]

Gravity and inertia are the "tools" that God has decided to use to keep it running on its "little track".
______________________________________________

Evolution is a tool God has decided to use to make species...
_______________________________________________

What is the difference in the two statements?

[orionblamblam]

> Gravity and inertia are the "tools" that God has decided to use to keep it running on its "little track".
:)

Just as evolution is the "tool" God has decided to use to create the diversity of life on Earth.

[orionblamblam]

> Secular humanism has one major flaw: it has no beginning.

A: How is that a flaw? An unanswered question is not a flaw; it's a challenge.

B: God has no beginning. Hence, God is flawed. Does the logic hold?

[Stark_GOP]

Please humor me.
Doesn't the evolutionary tree include primates as our distant relatives? So, I believe that that makes the "Descending from a chimp" comment valid. I have read articles and seen diagrams by evolutionists purporting the very thing you seem to be upset about.

[TOWER]

No, a chimp is particular type of primate. Likewise, humans are a particular type of primate. Both humans and chimps descended from earier primates. But humans did not descend from chimps.

Now that I've cleared that up. Any attempt by a creationist reading this, and then continuing to accuse the theory of the evolution of stating that humans descended from chimps, is a liar.

[Stark_GOP]

No, a chimp is particular type of primate. Likewise, humans are a particular type of primate. Both humans and chimps descended from earier primates. But humans did not descend from chimps.

Now that I've cleared that up. Any attempt by a creationist reading this, and then continuing to accuse the theory of the evolution of stating that humans descended from chimps, is a liar.
---
Let me see if I got this straight. Both humans and chimps are "particular type of primate". Would I be correct in saying that they both have a common ancestor (evolutionary speaking)?
Would you be more comfortable if I said that you believe we descended from gibbons, orangutans, or apes?

[Ichneumon]

My belief in God and the Bible trumps questionable scientific theories.

That's how the Muslims feel too.

That's how the Pope and his Cardinals felt when they threatened Galileo with torture for declaring that the evidence indicated that the Earth goes around the Sun, and not vice versa.

Today's creationists are no different in their fundamental errors about how best to find the truth about the world. They believe that if careful study and repeated testing/verification of the reality around us indicates one thing, and their *interpretation* of what the Bible says indicates to *them* another, then by gosh, their *presumption* about what the Bible says trumps reality. Those who ignore the Dark Ages are doomed to repeat it.

This example is from a few hundred years ago, but the parallels to the anti-science attitudes, objections, arguments, and activities of modern creationists should be entirely obvious:

Biblical dogma: "The Earth is firmly fixed; it shall not be moved." -Psalms 104:5

Scientist (Galileo): "The doctrine of the movements of the earth and the fixity of the sun is condemned [by creationists] on the ground that the Scriptures speak in many places of the sun moving and the earth standing still… I think that in the discussion of natural problems we ought to begin not with the Scriptures, but with experiments and demonstrations.", "I accepted the Copernican position several years ago and discovered from thence the cause of many natural effects which are doubtless inexplicable by the current theories. [i.e., the new theory better matched and explained the observations - Ich.]" -- Galileo Galilei

Creationist rebuttal: "But to want to affirm that the sun really is fixed in the center of the heavens and only revolves around itself (i. e., turns upon its axis ) without traveling from east to west, and that the earth is situated in the third sphere and revolves with great speed around the sun, is a very dangerous thing, not only by irritating all the philosophers and scholastic theologians, but also by injuring our holy faith and rendering the Holy Scriptures false. [...] And if Your Reverence would read not only the Fathers but also the commentaries of modern writers on Genesis, Psalms, Ecclesiastes and Josue, you would find that all agree in explaining literally (ad litteram) that the sun is in the heavens and moves swiftly around the earth, and that the earth is far from the heavens and stands immobile in the center of the universe. [...] Third. I say that if there were a true demonstration that the sun was in the center of the universe and the earth in the third sphere, and that the sun did not travel around the earth but the earth circled the sun, then it would be necessary to proceed with great caution in explaining the passages of Scripture which seemed contrary, and we would rather have to say that we did not understand them than to say that something was false which has been demonstrated. But I do not believe that there is any such demonstration; none has been shown to me. It is not the same thing to show that the appearances are saved by assuming that the sun really is in the center and the earth in the heavens. [...] I add that the words 'the sun also riseth and the sun goeth down, and hasteneth to the place where he ariseth, etc.' were those of Solomon, who not only spoke by divine inspiration but was a man wise above all others and most learned in human sciences and in the knowledge of all created things, and his wisdom was from God."
-- Cardinal Robert Bellarmine, April 12, 1615 letter to Foscarini.

Papal condemnation/sentencing of Galileo: "Whereas you, Galileo, son of the late Vaincenzo Galilei, Florentine, aged seventy years, were in the year 1615 denounced to this Holy Office for holding as true the false doctrine taught by some that the Sun is the center of the world and immovable and that the Earth moves, and also with a diurnal motion; for having disciples to whom you taught the same doctrine; for holding correspondence with certain mathematicians of Germany concerning the same; for having printed certain letters, entitled "On the Sunspots," wherein you developed the same doctrine as true; and for replying to the objections from the Holy Scriptures, which from time to time were urged against it [i.e. for disagreeing with Bible-based criticisms - Ich.] [...] This Holy Tribunal being therefore of intention to proceed against the disorder and mischief thence resulting, which went on increasing to the prejudice of the Holy Faith, [...] The proposition that the Sun is the center of the world and does not move from its place is absurd and false philosophically and formally heretical, because it is expressly contrary to Holy Scripture. [...] The proposition that the Earth is not the center of the world and immovable but that it moves, and also with a diurnal motion, is equally absurd and false philosophically and theologically considered at least erroneous in faith. [...] Furthermore, in order to completely eliminate such a pernicious doctrine, and not let it creep any further to the great detriment of Catholic truth, the Holy Congregation of the Index issued a decree which prohibited books which treat of this and declaring the doctrine itself to be false and wholly contrary to the divine and Holy Scripture. [...] Likewise, you confessed that in several places the exposition of the said book is expressed in such a way that a reader could get the idea that the arguments given for the false side were effective enough to be capable of convincing, rather than being easy to refute. [...] We say, pronounce, sentence and declare that you, Galileo, by reason of these things which have been detailed in the trial and which you have confessed already, have rendered yourself according to this Holy Office vehemently suspect of heresy, namely of having held and believed a doctrine that is false and contrary to the divine and Holy Scripture: namely that Sun is the center of the world and does not move from east to west, and that one may hold and defend as probable an opinion after it has been declared and defined contrary to Holy Scripture. [...] Consequently, you have incurred all the censures and penalties enjoined and promulgated by the sacred Canons and all particular and general laws against such delinquents. [This includes torture - Ich.]

Under threat of torture, and mindful that the Church had already burned at the stake Giordano Bruno for the same "crime", Galileo publicly renounced his "false" doctrine that the Earth revolves around the Sun: "I, Galileo Galilei, son of the late Vincenzo Galilei, Florentine, aged seventy years, arraigned personally before this tribunal, and kneeling before you [...] I wrote and printed a book in which I discussed this doctrine already condemned, and adduced arguments of great cogency in its favor [horrors! - Ich.], without presenting any solution of these [i.e., without reconciling it with the Church's interpretation of Scripture -- Ich.]; and for this cause I have been pronounced by the Holy Office to be vehemently suspected of heresy, that is to say, of having held and believed that the sun is the center of the world and immovable, and that the earth is not the center and moves. [...] with sincere heart and unfeigned faith I abjure, curse, and detest the aforesaid errors and heresies, and generally every other error and sect whatsoever contrary to the said Holy Church; and I swear that in the future I will never again say or assert, verbally or in writing, anything that might furnish occasion for a similar suspicion regarding me"
-- Galileo's forced recantation, June 27, 1633

Despite this Inquisition-ordered renunciation of the truth, Galileo was held under house arrest by the Inquisition until the day he died, many years later on January 8, 1641...

Galileo was right -- the Church was wrong.

How long does it take creationists to admit they were wrong about an obvious scientific truth? Galileo's banned book stating the "heresy" that the Earth revolves around the Sun, "Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems", was finally taken off the Vatican's list of banned books in 1835 -- almost 200 years after Galileo was forced to denounce it.

How long before they finally stop fighting the "false heretical doctrine" of evolutionary biology?

I'll close with some various appropriate quotes from Galileo -- note how much they sound like what various evolutionists have been posting here on FreeRepublic:

"To command the professors of astronomy to confute their own observations is to enjoin an impossibility, for it is to command them not to see what they do see, and not to understand what they do understand, and to find what they do not discover."

"And who can doubt that it will lead to the worst disorders when minds created free by God are compelled to submit slavishly to an outside will? When we are told to deny our senses and subject them to the whim of others? When people devoid of whatsoever competence are made judges over experts and are granted authority to treat them as they please? These are the novelties which are apt to bring about the ruin of commonwealths and the subversion of the state."

"Facts which at first seem improbable will, even on scant explanation, drop the cloak which has hidden them and stand forth in naked and simple beauty."

"It is surely harmful to souls to make it a heresy to believe what is proved."

"It is very pious to say and prudent to affirm that the holy Bible can never speak untruth -- whenever its true meaning is understood. But I believe nobody will deny that it is often very abstruse, and may say things which are quite different from what its bare words signify."

"My dear Kepler, what would you say of the learned here, who, replete with the pertinacity of the asp, have steadfastly refused to cast a glance through the telescope? What shall we make of this? Shall we laugh, or shall we cry?"

"In order to convince those obdurate men, who are out for the vain approval of the stupid vulgar, it would not be enough even if the stars came down on earth to bring witness about themselves."

"I repent having given the world a portion of my writings; I feel inclined to consign what is left to the flames and thus placate at last the inextinguishable hatred of my enemies."

"By denying scientific principles, one may maintain any paradox."

"I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use."

"It vexes me when they would constrain science by the authority of the Scriptures, and yet do not consider themselves bound to answer reason and experiment."

"Nothing physical which sense-experience sets before our eyes, or which necessary demonstrations prove to us, ought to be called into question (much less condemned) upon the testimony of biblical passages."

For more details, see:

The Galileo Project

The Trial of Galileo

Sidebar on the "Biblical evidence" for an Earth-centric Solar System which the Pope and his Church relied upon to "refute" the "heresy" of Galileo's Sun-centric Solar System:

"And if Your Reverence would read not only the Fathers but also the commentaries of modern writers on Genesis, Psalms, Ecclesiastes and Josue, you would find that all agree in explaining literally (ad litteram) that the sun is in the heavens and moves swiftly around the earth, and that the earth is far from the heavens and stands immobile in the center of the universe. Now consider whether in all prudence the Church could encourage giving to Scripture a sense contrary to the holy Fathers and all the Latin and Greek commentators."

[...]

"I add that the words 'the sun also riseth and the sun goeth down, and hasteneth to the place where he ariseth, etc.' were those of Solomon, who not only spoke by divine inspiration but was a man wise above all others and most learned in human sciences and in the knowledge of all created things, and his wisdom was from God. Thus it is not too likely that he would affirm something which was contrary to a truth either already demonstrated, or likely to be demonstrated. And if you tell me that Solomon spoke only according to the appearances, and that it seems to us that the sun goes around when actually it is the earth which moves, as it seems to one on a ship that the beach moves away from the ship, I shall answer that one who departs from the beach, though it looks to him as though the beach moves away, he knows that he is in error and corrects it, seeing clearly that the ship moves and not the beach. But with regard to the sun and the earth, no wise man is needed to correct the error, since he clearly experiences that the earth stands still and that his eye is not deceived when it judges that the moon and stars move."

-- Cardinal Robert Bellarmine, as "Master of Controversial Questions" for the Church, in April 12, 1615 letter to Paolo Foscarini

FYI, Bellarmine had a big role in the trial of Galileo.

The relevant portions of the mentioned books of the Bible are:

Ecclesiastes 1 (Verses 5-6): 5 The sun riseth, and goeth down, and returneth to his place: and there rising again, 6 Maketh his round by the south, and turneth again to the north: the spirit goeth forward surveying all places round about, and returneth to his circuits.

Joshua 10 (Verse 13-14): And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day.

Psalm 19 (Verses 4-5): 4 Their line is gone out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world. In them hath he set a tabernacle for the sun, 5 Which is as a bridegroom coming out of his chamber, and rejoiceth as a strong man to run a race.

Psalm 92 (Verse 1): The Lord hath reigned, he is clothed with beauty: the Lord is clothed with strength, and hath girded himself. For he hath established the world which shall not be moved.

Psalm 103 (Verses 3-5) Who coverest the higher rooms thereof with water. Who makest the clouds thy chariot: who walkest upon the wings of the winds. 4 Who makest thy angels spirits: and thy ministers a burning fire. 5 Who hast founded the earth upon its own bases: it shall not be moved for ever and ever.

Isaiah 40 (Verse 21-22): 21 Do you not know? hath it not been heard? hath it not been told you from the beginning? have you not understood the foundations of the earth? 22 It is he that sitteth upon the globe of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as locusts: he that stretcheth out the heavens as nothing, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in.

Read the above material. Really *read* it. The only difference between today's anti-evolution creationists and the persecutors of Galileo is the torture -- the mindset and the fallacies are identical. And judging from the emails I've received, some of them would like to bring back the torture if they could.

[Stark_GOP]

One statement is true and one statement is not true.
That is the difference.
That is the crux.

[Zeroisanumber]

...but no prof is going to convince me I'm descended from a chimp.

Not a chimp, just a common ancestor.

[Ichneumon]

. I still had to learn it to pass college biology but no prof is going to convince me I'm descended from a chimp.

So put more plainly, no matter how strong the evidence from the real world, you'll reject a conclusion if you find its implications personally distasteful?

How do you rationalize away the evidence of shared endogenous retroviruses, for example?

[Ichneumon]

One statement is true and one statement is not true. That is the difference. That is the crux.

...and you determine truth from nontruth by...? What reality-checks do you perform on your notions of what is true or not?

[theBuckwheat]

>> perhaps it might be more prudent to check the accuracy of the theology,<<

Perhaps it might be more prudent of the evolutionists to check the accuracy of their belief in a system that cannot demonstrate how life came about from non-life.

[TOWER]

Gibbons are a type of primate that we share a common ancestor with, but we did not descend from them.

Orangutans are also a type of primate that we share common ancestor with, but we also did not descend from them.

As for apes, technically humans are apes. Orangutans and chimps are also apes. All apes are primates, and all apes share a common ancestor.

So feel free to say that humans descended from earlier apes (or earlier primates) to your hearts content. But humans did not descend from chimps, gibbons, nor orangutans. However, we do share a common ancestor.

[jec41]

>> perhaps it might be more prudent to check the accuracy of the theology,<<

Perhaps it might be more prudent of the evolutionists to check the accuracy of their belief in a system that cannot demonstrate how life came about from non-life.



I am neither a evolutionist nor a creationist. I simply state the argument for the position that is most plausible of the two. One is supported by logic and a scientific method and the other is based on faith and belief with little evidence. It would be more logical and I would prefer to argue proofs for and against evolution based on the tenets and proposals of proof for evolution. Concerning creation I would would argue for and against the philosophy of creation using Descarte's Six Ontological Proofs for and against The Existence Of God. If one can prove the existence of God then by extension he has also proved the Theory of Creation. The question then becomes how was God the Creator created or invented. To simply argue the case of Creation against Evolution is mostly a waste of thought. The case for or against either cannot be argued logically because there is no determined format for proofs that might be acceptable. The argument for Creation does not accept scientific method and deduction as a proof even though the the very civilization they live in was comprised and accomplished with scientific method and deduction. Their argument for creation is I think it, believe it, have faith in it, I was taught it, I say it is so, and I don't need proof. This position cannot be refuted within the context of their thought. Creation VS evolution also excludes other possibilities that are rarely presented in a thoughtful manner.

[Uncle Fud]

I don't propose to know how life came from non-life, but I do believe it can be demonstrated in many ways that the period from the first living thing to the present was multiple billions of years long and characterized by many extinctions and false starts.

There may well be a Designer, but if there is He works very slowly and makes extensive use of the trial and error method.

[Ichneumon]

Let me see if I got this straight. Both humans and chimps are "particular type of primate".

Yes.

Would I be correct in saying that they both have a common ancestor (evolutionary speaking)?

Yes.

Would you be more comfortable if I said that you believe we descended from gibbons, orangutans, or apes? Gibbons, no. Orangutans, no. Apes, yes.

Gibbons and orangutans are specific types of apes which are not on the ancestral lineage of human beings. They either arose after the human lineage split off from the rest of the apes, or their own ancestral branch split off from ours before their branch differentiated into gibbons and orangutans.

"Apes", on the other hand, is an all-encompassing term for the "higher" primates, and the human ancestral lineage did indeed diverge from within this larger group.

But I think you may be laboring under a misapprehension. While we did descend from ancestors which could accurately be classified within the ape group, we're *still* apes. Apes of the human variety. Just as we're still primates, still mammals, still vertebrates, and so on.

[mike182d]

If gravity and interia are God's tools, why can't evolution be as well?

Because it wouldn't be "evolution," it would be a single, perpetual act of creation that could not be understood by empircal means. If the ultimate cause is God, then we can never understand the "why" or "how" of creation without understanding God. This drives scientists crazy because you can't measure or test the mind of God, but you can measure the workings of various amino acids.

The focus of the debate is over the "cause" of life. Evolution isn't a process in the mind of scientists, its an independent cause. To believe in God and evolution is to be a Diest who posits their faith in a God that spins the top, so to speak, and sits back to let it spin on its own. This is not the God of classical theism and this is why evolution is incompatible with a belief in the God of classical theism. It is believed that God is the cause of every movement in the universe, not just the first movement that got the whole thing started.

[Stark_GOP]

...and you determine truth from nontruth by...? What reality-checks do you perform on your notions of what is true or not?
---
And, I ask you the same about your notions.

[TOWER]

Since evolution does not attempt to demonstrate how the first life came to be, I find your ability to debate this subject lacking.

[Rifleman]

"Please humor me.
Doesn't the evolutionary tree include primates as our distant relatives?"

The tree also includes clams, cockroaches, and liver flukes as our distant relatives, but we are not descended from any of those, any more than I am descended from my third cousin. We do have a common ancestor.


" So, I believe that that makes the "Descending from a chimp" comment valid. I have read articles and seen diagrams by evolutionists purporting the very thing you seem to be upset about."

Noting again that descent != related, produce 'em. Give me pointers to such articles. And I am not upset, just pointing out what I believe to be error.

[SamuraiScot]

Both humans and chimps descended from earier primates. But humans did not descend from chimps.

Now that I've cleared that up. Any attempt by a creationist reading this, and then continuing to accuse the theory of the evolution of stating that humans descended from chimps, is a liar.

That's a little rash. I think "chimp" is a close enough describe a non-human primate, without getting precious about it.

Over the course of 20 years, I wrote about evolution as describing the origin of man for for mass-market magazines. Talking to scores of evolutionary specialists among biologists, anthropologists, and zoologists, I never found a convincing, or even logical explanation of how you get one species from another through reproduction—as in, how we get to Mozart from a non-human primate. They weren't even interested in the question. An undirected mechanism driving the multiplication of species on earth was just a given for them. That's why the article author's riff about the number of articles a creationist would have to refute is meaningless. The number of articles that even address the issue is infinitesimal, and the rest take a God-free origin of species as an assumption.

Where the human (or chimp) species came from is a different question from whether species undergo natural selection, which I view as one of God's tools, like the law of gravity. Natural selection is reasonable and observable—as the author said, "what survives, survives." A better statement might be "What survives, lives to reproduce itself." If you're a bird who wants to fish in a pond and you have webbed feet, you'll probably survive and leave more offspring than a bird that doesn't. Darwin's inspiration was watching animal breeders select for desirable traits along the generations. Could that be happening in the natural world? It was a good hypothesis.

But the origin of species is something completely different, and much thornier.

The definition of a species is that it can't reproduce with anything outside the species. This gets really tough when you're talking about sexually reproducing species—such as chimps and us. Let's say you get a freak that has a different number of chromosomes from its parents, a new species. Where do you get two of them (male and female), to reproduce? A brother and sister? The offspring of such unions have a low survival rate—and we're asked to believe they flourish and multiply better than the competition? And yet this is assumed to have happened, not just once, but for all of the billions of sexually reproducing species on, pardon the expression, God's green earth.

The closest attempt I've seen to explain the origin of a new species through unintelligent design was an argument that an asexually reproducing bacterium had mutated into a genotype different from its forebears. But that doesn't get you there.

That's why the question of why we're us instead of chimps, I mean non-human primates, is more completely explained through theology than biology. At least, at present.

[Ichneumon]

Perhaps it might be more prudent of the evolutionists to check the accuracy of their belief in a system that cannot demonstrate how life came about from non-life.

You err in three different ways:

1. The validity of evolution in no way depends on the question of how life first arose, just as the validity of meteorology (the study of weather) depends in no way on where the air came from originally. Whether the atmosphere was poofed into existence by God, coalesced out of a solar nebula, was belched out by volcanos, or was poured into place by gigantic alien space ships, the properties and behavior of the atmosphere remain the same and depend only on its current composition, and meteorology is just as valid no matter what the source of the atmosphere. And it's the same for evolution -- evolution concerns the history of life on Earth, and the properties of living things and how they change over time due to the relevant processes, once life existed, no matter *where* it "came from". When you drive a car, does the physics of energy and momentum by which it works -- and you drive -- depend upon the source of the metal it's made from? No. Does the operation of an internal combustion engine depend upon the source of the gasoline it burns -- or only upon its chemical composition? *Wherever* life came from, evolution accurately describes what has happened to it since.

In fact, anyone familiar with evolutionary biology would understand that it is *isolated* from whatever processes originally formed life. Evolution can only take place when *reproduction* exists. Since reproduction obviously was not occurring before the first things which we might accurately label as "living", the original formation of life *necessarily* occurred by processes other than evolution. The nature of those processes, whatever they might have been, are irrelevant to evolution itself, and evolution is irrelevant to the original formation of life. It is either ignorant or dishonest to try to pin the validity of evolution to whether or not anyone can demonstrate how the NON-evolutionary origin of life occurred. It's like blaming the Bush administration for events which occurred before he took office. Abiogenesis was pre-evolution, and occurred by different processes. Evolution stands or falls on its own, it is not dependent upon any theory (or lack of theory) of life's ultimate origins. Even if God dropped the earliest life forms onto the planet, evolution *still* demonstrably shaped them thereafter.

2. Evolutionists *have* "checked the accuracy of their belief" in a mind-boggling number of independent methods, countless times over the past 100+ years. It has passed these tests with flying colors, and has survived all potential tests of falsification.

3. Contrary to your unfounded presumption, research into abiogenesis (the origins of life) have been extremely fruitful. The picture is still incomplete of course (but then, so is the atomic theory of matter and every other scientific field of study), but there have been a vast number of findings which, while not conclusive, *very* strongly indicate that the "life arose naturally" hypothesis is on the right track. Your apparent notion that science "cannot demonstrate" or support any aspect of this paradigm is extremely mistaken. The hypothesis of abiogenesis makes a huge number of predictions about what we should find when we look at the evidence, and in the many ways which we have to date been able to test these predictions, they have been confirmed.

[Stark_GOP]

Since evolution does not attempt to demonstrate how the first life came to be, I find your ability to debate this subject lacking.
---
One word. Abiogenesis.
You do it all the time!

(Yuck! I think I have some primordial ooze on my shoe.) ;)

[TOWER]

Yes, abiogenesis. While it does not contradict the theory of evolution, it is not part of the theory of evolution. Thus anyone who states that evolution is wrong because life cannot be created in a lab (or other various "first life" hasn't/can't happens) is just proving that they don't know what the theory of evolution is.

Bottom line. All of the work concerning abiogensis could be completely wrong. But the theory of evolution won't care one bit. The theory of evolution stands on its own merits, not on the merits of abiogensis.

[little jeremiah]

I bet you'd like "Forbidden Archeology - the Hidden History of the Human Race" by Michael Cremo. There are two versions - one is long with many scholarly footnotes etc, and one is somewhat shortened for lay readers. I have both.

You should try to get it. I found it fascinating, and of course, evolution believers scoff at it. Cremo states that there is a knowledge filter and that archeologists and others in the field who find evidence, for instance, of much older modern appearing humans are black balled, fired, evidence covered up or denied, etc. There is a strong vested interest in the status quo.

He has a website, and a new book "Human Devolution - an Alternative to Darwin's Theory" which evolutionists naturally scoff at even more.

I know! Wedding present time! Freepmail me how I can send you a present!

[narby]

Because Evos believe LIFE just happens by chance and the RIGHT circumstances.

Christians could also believe that God created chance and built the right circumstances for evolution.

But that would be over their heads.