How Would *You* Prove Evolution?
By Daniel Miessler on August 27th, 2007: Tagged as Debate | Evolution | Macroevolution | Religion | Science
I need some help here. I have a friend with whom I’m debating evolution. He is a fundamentalist Christian (wait for it), but he has an uncharacteristic understanding of, and respect for, science.
So he’s an extremely intelligent guy who doesn’t deny the validity of science. In fact, he actually accepts microevolution. He’s familiar with the various moth studies and such, and accepts them as solid. What he disputes is the concept of macroevolution. For those not up on the terms, macroevolution is any evolution that occurs at or above the species level, meaning that over time the offspring species would become unable to mate with the parent species.
But Rick’s main argument concerns less subtle differences. He doesn’t care if moth A becomes moth B, and that after many generations they won’t be able to procreate with each other. He wants more than that. He quite simple rejects the notion of all life having a common ancestor.
So here’s the problem: his argument is that he and I both have beliefs; I believe in macroevolution and he believes in God. When I show him that my beliefs (and not his) are backed by empirical evidence, he refutes the evidence using assorted websites that dispute various parts of the findings. After this happened for like the third time I realized something.If I cannot explain macroevolution to him — or anyone else — that means I don’t totally understand it myself. And if I believe it without understanding it then it IS a belief. So on that point he’s absolutely correct.
All that remains is me thinking that my belief is based on more evidence than his belief, and that’s where the evidence comes in. Hence a never ending cycle simply because I don’t understand the science well enough myself to articulate and defend it.So that raises the question in the title of this post: how would YOU explain macroevolution to someone who believes in science but simply doesn’t believe there is enough evidence to support it? Is it possible to do without learning a whole lot of biology yourself?
--
Finally!
You have moved one step closer to belief. Congratulations. Welcome.
Next step: Science AS IT IS PERCEIVED BY MOST OF THE NON SCIENTISTS is based on belief too. You can only disprove a hypothesis, cannot prove it. If someone says that science ‘proves’ something, they only mean that it is proven if some assumptions are true, and those assumptions were not disproven in so many centuries. If you BELIEVE that not disproving an assumption for a millennium is the same as proving it, then you BELIEVE the resulting proof, and this is it.
So this empiric evidence that supports evolution is not proof. It is just more of the same ‘It looks more difficult to disprove if this evidence is here’. The sheer amount of evidence strengthens a hypothesis, but that perceived strength is just that - perceived. To Rick, the bible is more proof than a thousand fossils and a billion DNA tests. Did I say subjective in this comment yet? Yep, I just did.
I hope that you like me will get to the conclusion that you have to either shun all belief and be at an unstable point where everything that can cause you to change your mind will, or accept that what you feel strongly is true is in fact a belief.
– Arik
Comment by Arik — 8/27/2007 @ 9:49 pm
@ Daniel:
You’ve tackled the problem in your last sentence: It’s IMO rather difficult “without learning a whole lot of biology yourself”. Once you’ve read up on how DNA, genes and all of cellular biochemistry work on the molecular level, lots of things start to make sense. Without that knowledge, there is much room for uneducated guesses and personal takes on why things are the way they are. The other problem are the vast time frames, during which evolutionary changes take place. Everything that takes longer that one human lifespan is already somewhat hard to believe, but millions of years …?
One example of how species can evolve might be dog breeds. They (as far as we can tell) all originate from one species – the wolves (there is some doubt about the exact ancestor, but let’s assume it were wolves). They were artificially selected and evolved into a large number of subspecies, most of which are still able to interbreed. Not all breeds can mate with one another (think Chihuahua and Great Dane, anatomically impossible), although they might both still be able to reproduce with a third one, which makes them valid subspecies. But if you would take that one away, suddenly the two original breeds would be genetically separated. By the definition of species, they are no longer the same one, a speciation event has occurred.
Another great example is Australia with its unique flora and fauna, which strongly correlate with the moment of its separation from the other continents.
@ Arik:
The crucial point about science is that experiments can be repeated by anyone and yield the same results (if they don’t, they are flawed – bad experiments). So if somebody wants to make up his own mind about gravity, they’ll just throw a stone up a couple of times and see it fall back down 100% of the time. For a rational human, that’s proof enough that this is the way it is, regardless of personal beliefs etc. Religion, on the other hand, is based on words, (usually) ancient “reports” of god doing things, but there is no way to assure yourself that any of it is true. Those who follow a religion do so because they have been told that the bible (or any other “holy book”) is true by a large number of people. They grew up and kept hearing “god this” and “god that”, and sooner or later they just take it for granted.
So here is what i believe to be the fundamental difference between scientists/sceptics/agnostics/atheists and believers: The former rely on what they have experienced or can check for themselves and make up their own mind about it, while the latter rely on written or spoken opinions of other people, sort of like: “If all those people say it’s true, then it must be.” People seem to be wired either this way or that, and there’s little one can do to change it. Although i think, if a change is possible, then from believing in words to believing in proof, not the other way round. This might imply that relying on proof is the more “advanced” attitude, because one does the thinking and the work of second-guessing themselves, instead of just following the lead of the crowd.
Comment by elpres — 8/27/2007 @ 11:42 pm
I don’t have an answer, but I wanted to share the first few resources that come to mind.
First is Carl Sagan’s “Cosmos.” Sagan was to previous decades what Dawkins is today. Dawkins’ books would be next, of course. I’d feel confident that this is addressed in “The Blind Watchmaker” or another of his books. These guys would be the most suitable to answer your question because, per your requirements, their missions were focused on explaining tough topics to people without a lot of background in these studies.
Comment by Jason — 8/28/2007 @ 1:31 am
Anything you believe is always based on some sort of “faith.” Unless you run the tests yourself and come to a deep knowledge of subject at hand through personal verification you just have to trust the experts that they have been thorough and honest. It’s like when someone that’s not computer savy asks for your opinion about IT issues. They have to trust that you have actually researched the subject and have come to a well-founded conclusion. Since we (the human race) does not have any first-hand proof of macro-evolution it remains largely in malleable-theory status. Until we have recorded species and their evolution for an elongated amount of time so that we can track the evolution of a species away from it’s parent species, we have to rely on our interpretations of what we have found from the past. It’s not much different than Einsteins theory of relativity. It does a great job explaining everything we had come in to contact for a long time, but now that we are starting to reach the boundries of it we are having to research new theories that build on, but are augmented based off of the most recent tests of our physical universe, such as string theory. How many of us even really understand either the theory of relativity or string theory. We may have a basic understanding of it’s machanics, but the average person doesn’t really fully understand it. We accept that the scientists have done all of their homework and our being honest, thorough, and professional when they tell us these things seem to be true. As with all science (not just evolution) we should try to pick it apart, ask questions, find answers, and see if the scientists are really doing their job right. The latest ground-breaking scientific seems to always be that the previous scientific theories where not 100% correct.
Comment by Maxo — 8/28/2007 @ 3:03 am
Dude. Check Wikipedia for “Speciation” and “Ring Species”. Those are numerous documented examples of change at or above the species level, from all Kingdoms of life.
Comment by Liam — 8/28/2007 @ 3:09 am
I found this slashdot comment (the bit arguing against “the sheer numeric improbability of evolution”) enlightening:
http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=156877&cid=13153263
Comment by James — 8/28/2007 @ 4:00 am
Ask your friend to point out the part of the Old Testament where he stops taking the story metaphorically and starts taking it literally. It sounds to me like he wants to have it both ways — using science up to a point and then switching to religion.
How old does your friend think the earth is? How does that mesh with the story of Genesis?
I honestly thin he’s got a lot more to “prove” than you do. You’re just following the evidence.
Comment by jimbo — 8/28/2007 @ 4:12 am
How would I prove evolution? Well, the traditional way to prove something in science is with an experiment!
I would set up an experiment where you have a well-understood organism, both morphologically and genetically, living in an aquarium. We’ll use fruit flies for this experiment. Have enough that they can breed and maintain their population.
The aquarium will have a ’split’ environment. Half of it will be the kind fruit flies normally like, the other half will be inhospitable, but not deadly.
Put slightly less than enough food in their normal environment — say, dry land. Also, put some food in a place where they could go, but don’t normally live — perhaps the surface of water. After several generations, they should start showing adaptations to the new environment. After many more generations, they should evolve into a new species that’s well-adapted to the novel environment. So, we might have swimming or surface-gliding wingless fruit flies.
When a fruit fly dies, pull it out and put it on ice, so you can sequence its DNA and take pictures of it with a microscope. Then you will be able to trace the entire sequence of adaptive mutations throughout the generations, both morphological and genetic.
Comment by Steve — 8/28/2007 @ 4:13 am
Prove evolution? Why? That would end the debate.
The debate is useful; it sorts out the loonies from the normal ones.
Comment by Adams Morgan — 8/28/2007 @ 4:14 am
@Jimbo
He believes the earth is roughly 4000-5000 years old, and yes — he does believe that age is supported by Genesis.
Comment by Daniel Miessler — 8/28/2007 @ 4:15 am
Descent with modification and speciation are complex topics and I heartily encourage you to learn as much as you can about the subject since it obviously interests you (start with talkorigins.org). In the meantime, the short answer to your question is that through the study of DNA, molecular biologists have discovered molecular “clocks” and, by comparing the DNA of two closely related species, can tell approximately how long ago those species shared a common ancestor. In other words, the evidence for speciation is largely indirect since no one can run an experiment over a few million years to observe it directly. Following the chain back to it’s logical conclusion yields a single common ancestor for all life on Earth. The conversation you really need to have with your friend, though, concerns scientific inquiry per se. Theories are hypotheses that have been supported over time by evidence and have never been disproven (never let a creationist get away with defining a theory as a “guess”). They are, then, models that provide the best explanation of the observable facts, offer predictions that can be tested, and make the fewest possible assumptions. You mention belief as if it is a dirty word. It’s not. It simply means you have been convinced of something. Faith is belief without evidence. Your friend can’t have a scientific argument with you and then point to god to prove his assertions. You are defending the theory that best fits the observably facts, so challenge him to either disprove it with facts and evidence, or offer his own theory that makes fewer assumptions (citing a book of unknown authorship and dubious authenticity does not qualify as presenting evidence and positing a supernatural being automatically makes for assumptions than evolutionary theory). Try that tack since it sounds like it’s not your lack of knowledge that fails to convince him, but his refusal to reject his own flawed hypothesis.
Comment by Dave — 8/28/2007 @ 4:22 am
“When I show him that my beliefs (and not his) are backed by empirical evidence, he refutes the evidence using assorted websites that dispute various parts of the findings.”
This is where I would start. I’d look at the supposed evidence and what these disputing websites are. My belief is that you’ll find these websites making faulty arguments based on misunderstandings and false facts.
You could also start with radioactive dating. He must have information to refute this technique - what is it?
Comment by Aerek — 8/28/2007 @ 4:28 am
The short answer: you can’t prove it.
You can argue by ridicule — there are many, many biological systems that, frankly, suck from an engineering perspective. They just barely work and in some cases are counterproductive. Examples include the human appendix (which doesn’t have a use anymore, but sometimes kills its owner), the mammalian retina (which faces backwards, degrading its performance), the human sinus cavities, the bone structure of feet, our propensity to get cancer, the combination of breathing-tube and feeding tube in our necks, and even the lack of rotary motion in any macrobiological system (reciprocating pumps like the heart are subject to all manner of problems that rotary pumps are not!). If animals and humans were engineered, it was a piss-poor engineer (or at least a harried and sloppy one) who did the design work.
On the other hand, no-one has (to my knowledge) yet encountered a biological system that can’t be readily explained by the mechanism of incremental improvement via random variance, natural selection, and heredity. That system has known flaws (from an engineering perspective): it tends to leave most things just barely “good enough” while optimizing the few most important things for a particular niche.
Comment by Craig DeForest — 8/28/2007 @ 4:28 am
I take the bible literal and it would actually be 8-10,000 years old with the flood occurring 4-5,000 years ago.
I am going to form a response shortly, just go done reading the post. I will address all stated issues.. and as Daniel stated my issue is not with a ‘kind’ (i.e. fly, moth, etc) changing.. or breeds of dogs.. they are still dogs.
More to come.
Comment by Rick — 8/28/2007 @ 4:32 am
@Aerek
His evidence is the variation that sometimes occurs in testing.
Comment by Daniel Miessler — 8/28/2007 @ 4:36 am
4,000 - 5,000 years old? that one isn’t even remotely controversial, there are human records that are far older than 4,000-5,000 years old. even most fundamentalists aren’t ignorant enough to suggest it’s any less than 10,000 years old - equally absurd, but harder to prove incorrect. i wouldn’t even bother wasting your breath on your friend. he does not have respect or understanding of science. just like his faith he picks and chooses those pieces which fit in to his personal philosophy.
Comment by dashiel — 8/28/2007 @ 4:41 am
How does one explain the whole “something from nothing” thing? How did the building blocks get there in the first place? Where did that stuff come from?
Comment by Norm — 8/28/2007 @ 4:44 am
@ dashiel
Very bold to make such a statement without knowing what, or whom, you are talking about.
Comment by Rick — 8/28/2007 @ 4:44 am
Someone once wrote a book titled “The Origin of Species”. It’s kind of an old book, and is written in a rather weird style, but it does provide some explanation for speciation.
Comment by AmkG — 8/28/2007 @ 4:47 am
I’m no expert in biology, but from what I’ve heard from my biologist friends, the relationships between the genomes of different species make a pretty convincing case. We share most of our DNA with apes, and less of it with other mammals, and so on — you can trace it back.
It’s like you have thousands of copies of a novel (representing genomes of different species) in various states of revision. They all have the same overarching plot and main characters. Most of them are so similar that careful reading is required to tell them apart — they disagree on details like what kind of car Fred the landlord drives. Distantly related ones have different subplots and chapter organization, but are basically saying the same thing. And there’s always a pet iguana named Pixie in there somewhere.
Anyway, after typing this out I realize that someone could still argue that God created all the species at once, complete with their intricate patterns of similarity. But argue it to what end? In science you want the most likely explanation given the facts, and nothing less. What help is religion with this? I suppose you could even debate the merit of drawing conclusions from experience when you have the Bible as a source of absolute truth, but there’s only one (collective) experience of mankind with reality, whereas there are differing “absolute truths” (i.e. personal convictions).
Religion has its purposes, but historically it’s been line noise when it comes to understanding the physical world we inhabit.
Comment by DavidG — 8/28/2007 @ 4:48 am
Rick, if you read someone saying the earth is flat, you would (I really hope) be able to tell they were ignorant knowing without knowing anything more about them.
The evidence for the earth’s age being of another magnitude altogether than your arbitrary book (one of many such books written by ancient people without any evidence of divine inspiration) states is overwhelming.
Likewise, the evidence for macroevolution - at the molecular level, looking at atavistic growth stages of foetuses, the grouping of similar kinds of animals geographically, the fossil record, etc. all point straight at evolution.
Meanwhile, the evidence for the divine authority of your ancient book - and all the others in which you presumably have no faith whatever (when was the last time you read the Diamond Sutra?) - is non-existent. Millions sayin’ it’s so, don’t make it so.
Comment by Alan — 8/28/2007 @ 5:13 am
@ Alan
Those points are the exact ones Daniel is requesting aid in proving. At least some. I will also comically point out, some of the ones he started with have been restated again as fact, although they are easily dis-proven. And when I dis-proved them I did so all with creditable science not religious based info. I have on occasion linked to a particular Christian website that always uses foot notes to non-religious scientific sources. And to answer your assumption, I would know they were ignorant of the facts that has formed my understanding yes, but I would have a respectful, intellectual conversation with them… and not make a prejudged determination on their intellect.
On a side note, I find it interesting how many references to evidence have been made but yet none provided.
Comment by Rick — 8/28/2007 @ 5:22 am
First, a brief clarification. The theory of evolution is not the same thing as Darwin’s theory of speciation. Evolution is incontrovertible; however, Darwin’s specific explanation for how evolution happens is debatable in its accuracy.
Here is a (longish) one-page proof of evolution, no loopholes, no fuzzy edges, absolutely cut-and-dried. Point your friend to this site.
http://www.mala.bc.ca/~johnstoi/essays/courtenay1.htm
Comment by rainbird — 8/28/2007 @ 5:27 am
The same type of “adaption” or “evolution” that occurs in the microscopic world - as in a petri dish - occurs in the macroscopic world - as in the African plains - only on a slower timeline.
“All religions are valid, NONE are literal.” -Joseph Campbell
The question of “Evo vs Crea” is masturbation because religious people are too ignorant (or unwilling) to interpret their RELIGIOUS MYTHS (see: religious metaphors) as stories and fables that make the individual think and possibly learn something from history. Focusing on the absurd religious literalism of our holy books only proves how partitioned one’s mind can become. If humans would just read all books - as BOOKS - and not focus on the literal interpretation of their texts, all would be well…
Sadly, the governments of the world (including the American Empire)need ways of controlling the “sheeple” of their land - and religious ignorantus is always willing to kill another over their own or their enemies myths.
Any person who reads books, only has to maintain perspective and the spiritual truths one can gain from reading different cultures myths are brought alive within that individual. Ask Questions - Seek Truth…
Comment by JL Wallace — 8/28/2007 @ 5:33 am
The first comment in this thread misses the point entirely. Sure, ultimately things cannot be proved, only disproved: BUT out of the set of all possible disprovable theories(of which the theory of Evolution is but one).
Some survive repeated attempts at falsification /disproval and others are trivially disprovable (i.e. the earth is flat). Science goes with the theories that not only surrvive repeated attempts at falsification, but those that also repeatedly make testable predictions that turn out to be accurate and consistently explain other observed phenonema that were not described or anticipated by the theory (or statement’s) original proposers.
It’s a form of natural selection: the strong theories survive and the bad ones go to the wall. It works reliably and consistently, unlike prayer.
It is nothing to do with faith. Technology - the production of which is based on these successful theories - works whether you believe it or not, so they very likely describe some objective truths.
Of course there is a whole category of statements that are neither provable nor disprovable due to their vagueness or intrinsic nature e.g. “God Exists”, “America is Free”. Whether these statements have any meaning is generally up to the individual, although I wouldn’t be inclined to bet the farm on their validity. :-)
Comment by John Connors — 8/28/2007 @ 5:36 am
The issue that you “can’t prove” evolution is just like the fact that you can’t prove that we don’t live on the inner surface of a Concave Hollow Earth.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollow_Earth (Search for Concave hollow earths)
With appropriate mathematical transformations to all physical laws, this is completely consistent with all of modern science. Any form of Creationism that is made somewhat consistent with modern biology is the same — pure sophistry. Intelligent Design can be made consistent with modern biological theory, but Occam’s Razor cries out for the elimination of this bit of wishful thinking.
Comment by stcredzero — 8/28/2007 @ 5:44 am
Rick, for the sake of a thought experiment, assume you’d one day wake up with amnesia on an uninhabited island. The conditions are not hostile, there’s enough food and water etc. How would you know there is a god, if no one told you?
Comment by elpres — 8/28/2007 @ 5:46 am
@ Rick
I’m afraid the burden of (dis-)proof lies with you in this case. The sheer volume of evidence supporting the theory of evolution is well documented and available for anyone with the time and inclination to study it.
Comment by Ian — 8/28/2007 @ 5:50 am
@ elpres
I would assume to believe it the way the majority of man-kind has known it for thousands of years… an inherent belief.
Also, I would argue (in current mind, not sure if I was wiped clean of thoughts) that creation declares the handy work of God.
Comment by Rick — 8/28/2007 @ 5:50 am
The easiest and most simple example I can think of off-hand are ring species.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_species
Comment by Jeff Ehman — 8/28/2007 @ 5:51 am
How do we know the scientists are telling the truth when they talk about the evidence they claim to have? Without access to peer journals, it becomes difficult. At that point you have to have faith that the scientific community really is dedicated to uncovering the truth and reporting it as they find it. Conjecture is the name of the game: scientists try to explain what they see supported with the knowledge already amassed.
Peer review is really the key here. How do we know that the science is good? Because scientists have a vested interest in being able to prove or disprove evidence. Particularly during the cold war, international scientists were all about getting one up on their competitors. But their claims had to satisfy everyone, not just their political masters, so the math and logic chains had to be impeccable.
But suppose you don’t trust the motives of the scientists behind the work? Suppose there’s a massive conspiracy to undermine the veracity of religion? Then, as has been suggested, you can begin your own study based on the claims the scientists make. You can go to the sites where they claim to have found various fossils. You can set up your own experiments with simple lifeforms and control groups. You can use the scientific method to derive your own conclusions, and submit them for review. You can literally make the system work for you.
What’s the alternative? Accept that the fossils found were “planted” there by an invisible deity? Conclude that dinosaurs walked the earth alongside mankind? Insist that microevolution can’t possibly become macroevolution in the long term? If microevolution is possible then what’s so difficult about macroevolution, the notion that incremental changes eventually add up to a large overall change?
Most of the time, religionists’ complaints about evolution stem purely from the difficulty of reconciling their holy texts with actual data from the real world. You don’t hear about religious complaints about astronomical data any longer. They had them originally, but the data was overwhelming. Neither do you hear religious complaints about medicine, although that too came under fire from religion once we started relearning everything we’d lost during the Dark Ages. Evolution is the among the newest genres of science that directly attack devoutly held religious beliefs, so inevitably suffers the same attacks.
Attacking evolution by nitpicking the details is akin to attacking astronomy because we don’t have all the answers. Of COURSE we don’t have all the answers; we wouldn’t be studying it if we did. We don’t have direct knowledge of what we call black holes because we don’t yet have the capacity to visit and observe them in person. That doesn’t mean creationists are attacking astronomers because they don’t have all the answers. But like evolution we have sufficient data, including indirect observations, that allow us to make good theories about them. We can accept those theories because there’s sufficient peer reviewed material to support those claims. But even in the case of those questions that are impossible for us to answer at this time, like where the Universe comes from or how life got started, the most honest answer is “I don’t know.” Substituting some sort of God as an answer to the unanswerable is simply wish fulfillment.
Comment by Michael — 8/28/2007 @ 5:54 am
Again… the ring species shows the same kind with slight variation. That can all be explained without millions/billions of years and a single common ancestor for ALL life. Using the common term ’species’ is not accurate to reflect the conversation. It is more about ‘kind’. As Daniel stated… I accept the changes in a ’species’ as variation of the same ‘kind’. Such as breeds of dog. That is not evolution… (as we have seen it in the past two hundred years) but rather gene manipulation. If it happens in the wild… we call it evolution. I accept the change in a ’species’ to a different ’species’ but the same kind. I hope that helps hone the topics and conversation.
Comment by Rick — 8/28/2007 @ 5:58 am
Evolution is not a belief, you just haven’t been properly educated about it (it’s ok, almost no one is). Check out Talk Origins, especially 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: the Scientific Case for Common Descent. That will definitely answer your questions.
I also recommend reading some books, particularly Richard Dawkins’ evolution books (such as The Blind Watchmaker and Climbing Mount Improbable). Just beware of the pseudoscience and creationist books/websites, unfortunately there are a lot, and they are bad. Talk Origins refutes almost all of their “points” (they’re really lies), but it’s hard to keep up. All of those sites that your friend shows you are invariably just bullshit, totally incorrect or outright lies.
Hope this helps (but don’t expect to convince him, it won’t happen).
Comment by Stuart Coleman — 8/28/2007 @ 6:08 am
Believing in “microevolution” but not “macroevolution” is looney. That’s like believing in inches, but not feet, or ounces but not pounds. If you get enough of the former, you’ll end up with the latter. If a species can change 0.1% in a century, it can change 1% in a millennium and 5% in 5,000 years.
Comment by Waldo Jaquith — 8/28/2007 @ 6:11 am
That’s not entirely accurate, Waldo. Just because a species can change to a certain degree in a certain time period doesn’t mean it will continue that same degree of change proportionate to the increase in time. Evolution works on the principle that species change to meet the needs of their environment. For example, alligators haven’t been seen to change much since the age of dinosaurs (with the possible exception of losing some mass) because their environments haven’t changed much. They’re sufficiently adapted to the degree that they don’t need to change. They’re a dead-end on the evolutionary scale.
Some species demonstrate greater change than others because they’re attempting to adapt to sub-optimal conditions. That’s why when biologists run experiments for evolution, they create inhospitable environments for the species they want to change while creating an optimized environment for the control groups.
I understand what you meant, but I thought I’d nitpick on your generalization.
Comment by Michael — 8/28/2007 @ 6:27 am
@Daniel “He believes the earth is roughly 4000-5000 years old, and yes — he does believe that age is supported by Genesis.”
Does he know where this number comes from? And realizes it’s not stated in Gensis but just some guys adding up of ages?
Comment by apy — 8/28/2007 @ 6:47 am
@Rick: I would assume to believe it the way the majority of man-kind has known it for thousands of years… an inherent belief. Also, I would argue (in current mind, not sure if I was wiped clean of thoughts) that creation declares the handy work of God.
That’s begging the question.
First you assume there is an inherent belief in “God”, which is clearly not the case, as other cultures don’t believe in your God. Some believe in a different one, some believe in many. Most believe in something–why? Because people want explanations, and before there was any hint of science the only possible explanations were supernatural. That doesn’t mean the beliefs are correct–a “God of the Gaps” to bring up an over-used phrase.
Pointing at “the world” as evidence of “God” is as ridiculous as pointing at “the world” as evidence of the “Flying Spaghetti Monster”–there is nothing pointing at God as the cause, just that somehow all this is here. Having things written down stating “God is the cause” is useless, as there are any number of creation myths.
Comment by Dave — 8/28/2007 @ 6:51 am
Wow. Great discussion .. thanks especially to those who posted links to some well-thought-out essays. James … I especially liked the one you posted! ( http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=156877&cid=13153263 )
Carl
Comment by Carl M — 8/28/2007 @ 7:06 am
All of this comes down to belief in the end. He believes he’s right in Evolution because of the evidence that has been presented to him and came to a personal conclusion; and the other case is that I believe I’m right that there is a higher power that created the very existence of matter itself therefore another personal conclusion. Our human minds can’t not conceive or explain the existence of matter without a beginning to it. With that notion I have come to my own solution that there has to be a God. Especially when the same scientist that has informed me that Evolution created a Monkey therefore the human race and put a estimated timeframe on its creation also informed me that he can’t put a time frame on how long it took to make the human eye out of nothing. And then half way around the world they did carbon dating on a frog that had only been dead for 4 days, and confidently informed me that it was approx. 12,500 years dead. With so many inconsistencies in science I have come to my personal conclusion to give my life to the only entity that has proven to me that he knows creation and its existence, my God.
Comment by Matt — 8/28/2007 @ 7:11 am
http://www.trueauthority.com/cvse/carbon.htm
Comment by Matt — 8/28/2007 @ 7:11 am
It’s a fool’s errand. He’s already accepted some particular slant on the bible’s contents as true, and warps & wefts his other beliefs to be compatible. There’s no way to debate sanely with that, because he’s completely immune to any ideas that are in contradiction to those things he’s already accepted as axiomatic, and, hence, not amenable to debate.
Getting rational people tangled up in such arguments (and then moving the goalposts if you get too close on any given point) is the gold-standard way that religious “literalists” (my term) get to have their way, because when you can’t prove that black is white then they get to claim that all this “believing” is morally equivalent. Luckily, there seem to be enough rational people at the moment from allowing these folks to bring on the next Dark Age, but they’re working on it…
Comment by JimDesu — 8/28/2007 @ 7:12 am
Ahhh the great debate of religions. Yes, i said religions. I see many of you have listed evolution as scientific fact and creation as religion.
Well, lets look at the facts: Science is ‘the study of’. Since one cannot observe evolution (thats a fact since it would take millions of years) it is based on the belief that species evolve over time. Evolution is just as much a religion as creationism. Both sides claim to have evidence to support their theory. The real question is, which do you want to believe? I define faith as the accent of the mind based on the credibility of the source. Which religion do you have more faith in? Which one offers the outcome that you are more comfortable with? If evolution is true, you are an object of mere chance, there are no consequences for your actions, and when you die, nothing happens.
If creationism is true, you were created by God, He has a purpose for you, and wants your soul in heaven when you die. If evolution is true, how do we explain the soul. There is irrefutable evidence for the existence of them: Compassion, love….free will. Humans are the only creatures than can express these. They are the only creatures that do not act based on their instinct. How does one explain that? There are many things that science or religion will not be able to explain. Which questions are you comfortable not having an answer for? What happens to you when you die? Where did life originate? Perhaps if creationism is true, and the Bible is right about the beginning, then perhaps it is right about the end!
For scientific evidence on creation, I recommend http://www.drdino.com. Kent Hovind (a former Biology teacher and expert on creationism) offers a lot of great examples. Coving such topics as: the comets, planets rings, the flood, the age of the earth, dinosaurs, geologic column, carbon dating, micro-evolution, et al.
Comment by Lee — 8/28/2007 @ 7:18 am
His objection is correct and as it stands now there is no way to prove that all species have a common ancestor the way one might prove a Math theorem. The evidence that all species have a common ancestor is analogous to the Big Bang theory. The Big Bang theory was proposed because it was observed that all galaxies were moving away from each other. Turning the clock back you get what you do. It seems like a good explanation and is pretty much accepted in the field.
In the case of evolution, you have the fossil record for one. Ernst Mayr in his book “What Evolution Is” has excellent pictures of the evolution of horses: the fossils available of horses show how their legs have developed to be as they are now. From your article, I think your friend will not have any objection to this explanation because the original horse and the ones we see now are still the same species (minor differences, perhaps) and since we cannot prove that they cannot mate, we must assume that they CAN.
The second part is the observance of homologs in all animals. All mammals, for instance, have 5 fingers and 5 toes. Without exception. The bone structure is the exact same among all mammals, right from whales to giraffes to bats. Again, great illustrations may be found in Mayr’s book. I say exact same meaning they have the same number of bones, ordered in the same way and so on but each, of course, adapted to the organisms needs.
Then we come to evolution of species that split from their parental line. As regards this, the jury is still out. Nobody knows what exactly is going on or how it happens. There are a million stories all over the place, Richard Dawkins is the biggest story teller in the lot, but there’s absolutely no evidence for any of his stories. (When a scientist tells a story and expects you to believe it because he’s a scientist, he’s no different from a priest telling you the path to god on the basis that he’s a priest.)
One possible explanation for how species diverge from their parental line that makes some sense is the theory of “Punctuated Equilibrium” by Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould.
I personally do believe that evolution has occurred from single ancestry because it seems to explain the trouble we have. The way forward in science is to assume that there is no God. However it has no bearing on the truth of God whatsoever.
So my advice to your friend would be to maintain his skepticism. As long as he is skeptical, he will refine your own thinking and remove inconsistencies in your own thought processes.
Comment by foobar — 8/28/2007 @ 7:22 am
Hmm… this has generated a lot of comment. I will allow this to take its original intent and stay out of it. This will allow Daniel to review the comments and collect whatever (it has been limited) aid. He can then vet it and I will continue this with him.
I do appreciate all those that spoke up, pro/con, and participated in the exchange of ideas.
@Daniel… it will continue to be fun! LOL.
Comment by Rick — 8/28/2007 @ 7:32 am
There is no “micro” & “macro” evolution.
The journey of 1000 miles starts with a single step, and how long it takes you to travel those 1000 miles depends on a lot of things. It’s only been 200 years since Darwin proposed his initial concept of evolution, but it took thousands of years for all the life around us to evolve.
It’s not like one day there’s a dog who had bear-cub’s instead of puppies; evolution for larger plants/animals takes time. Where wolves end & bears begin is like asking where red ends and orange begins; red & orange are man-made concepts to describe the differences we see in the color spectrum. The concept of species is a man-made concept to describe the world as we perceive it.
Comment by new.atheist — 8/28/2007 @ 7:44 am
Sometimes this debate gets tiring. Any resolution will be refuted by someebody else with another belief paradigm. I always considered science as the “how” of existence and religion and the “why” of existence. If both sides are honest, this seems to be reasonable. I do recommend a couple of enlightening books for your perusal: “Why Darwin Matters”, by Michael Shermer and “I Have Landed”, by Steven Jay Gould. Very interesting perspectives on the debate, as a whole. Gould quotes in his book something we should all remember: “The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence.”
Comment by Ron — 8/28/2007 @ 7:47 am
KEEP READING… you just became target number one for any eChristian now trolling your site.
Comment by imbeta — 8/28/2007 @ 7:59 am
@New-Atheist
Actually there IS such a thing as these things. Check into it.
Comment by Daniel Miessler — 8/28/2007 @ 8:07 am
@Lee
“If evolution is true, how do we explain the soul. There is irrefutable evidence for the existence of them: Compassion, love….free will. Humans are the only creatures than can express these. They are the only creatures that do not act based on their instinct.”
You’re actually saying we have no evidence for the existance of evolution but that there is irrefutable evidence for the soul? And your proof for this statement is? Compassion, love, free will are not solely the domain of human beings. Certain animals, it has been shown, can and do express emotion, compassion, even love (i.e. elephants). Your entire argument is just incredibly arrogant. Please bring more to the table than just, “Humans are superior to all other species, hence we must have a soul and be created by God.”
Just to state my position in this argument, I am neither for nor against either evolution or the God theory. I like to think that God created us all (as in ALL the residents of planet Earth), but I also do not take the Bible as literal, historical truth. I cannot. There have been too many rewrites, translations, and edits of this book throughout history that for anyone to reasonably expect the version we read today to be REMOTELY accurate to its true meaning is just laughable. How can you not see this? And how can you not think this has a drastic affect on the argument? I agree that science does not have all the answers and that in the future, as we learn more, evolution may become just another discarded theory. But for now it works best with the evidence we have before us. Somehow, thinking that God created all the fossils “just to fool us” is a theory that strikes me as, well, desperate.
Comment by Richmond — 8/28/2007 @ 8:09 am
Here’s the opinion of a crazy man. I believe in a creator, but not in the terms religions define. I also believe in evolution, as why would God want to do all that work. Rather a system of rules, like a computer program could be formed, so that matter might follow a pattern in it’s creation and distribution. Imagine that God were a mirror, a pane of glass, and upon shattering, those shards populated the universe with life. Something cannot come from nothing. Life is an elemental process, like fire, electricity, that no matter where it ends up, sooner or later, the upward spiral begins. The spark ignites. Perhaps God wanted someone to play checkers with, I don’t know the why, perhaps loneliness, what filled the universe prior to life’s arrival? What I have observed, in all things living, is a tenacity, to survive, be it a microbe, or a higher lifeform. The organism adapts to it’s environment, by somehow sensing a specialization might allow further procreation. It is an elaborate dance. I’m not saying mutation is determined by the organism, but rather somehow, sooner or later, a species upgrades itself, or faces extinction. Some species reach their evolutionary perfection, such as sharks, they’re virtually unchanged, as they’re near the top of their food pyramid. Other organisms constantly change, as they might reside in a highly competitive environment, if they don’t change, their predators upgrade, and wipe them out, or changing weather patterns do the same. Explain to your friend, the idea of the tree of life. It’s reoccuring in many cultures, but as a symbolic idea, it’s explains it quite well. Life as a whole, and us individually morphs constantly, in an upward struggle to produce greater variety, thereby increasing the chance of survival, in the void of the universe. Scientists continue to find organisms living in environments, that they thought would never support life. Recently, it was ice worms, under Antartica, they’re microscopic worms, that live in methane vents, at the bottom of the sea. If the world was really just a theatre for man, would God create such an elaborate stage? Or rather, if one were to accept, that we are not the literal only children of God, but one of infinite species, formed by the creator, through the process, he/she put into operation, does it not become visible, that by designing life with such tenacity, the lowest lifeform, such as a methane eating worm, could give birth to a a primordial world, seeding the universe with life. One species gives birth to the next, and this competition increases the evolution of both organisms, till a third is created, and with time being of no concern, millions of years, produce millions of new organisms, each following it’s own path, but affecting those around it, influencing the evolution, of it’s neighbors. Perhaps God just wanted someone else to see his/her creation, before it blew away like a Buddhist sand painting. We must be worthy of the view. All life is a woven tapestry, the threads leading back to that moment, when God seeded the universe, with himself/herself. Something cannot come from nothing. Why believe both? Paradox. Two sides to the same coin. There’s always two sides to a story. One story though, and the truth usually is somewhere in between. Art vs Science. One discipline. Just different perspectives. Just thoughts from an addled brain. Enjoy the painting.
Comment by yarleybrown — 8/28/2007 @ 8:32 am
@Richmond: Compassion, love, free will are not solely the domain of human beings.
It wouldn’t even matter if they were; calling the existing of those things as proof of a “soul” begs the question.
Comment by Dave — 8/28/2007 @ 8:38 am
@Ron: “The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence.”
The absence of evidence is not license to just make stuff up either. I agree with Gould on much of what he wrote but “non-overlapping magisteria” is just intellectual dishonesty.
Comment by DaveM — 8/28/2007 @ 8:44 am
Check out the book “The Plausibility of Life” by Marc Kirschner (amazon.com), it does a good job of explaining how it all works.
Comment by Art — 8/28/2007 @ 9:04 am
@DaveM
“…not license to make stuff up either.” I agree. I think intellectual honesty and respect on all sides of an argument are necessary to procure any value from said discussion. As for Gould’s NOMA, I did not have a problem with the concept. Enlighten me, am I missing something here? Where should they overlap?
Comment by Ron — 8/28/2007 @ 9:33 am
I recently read a book by the former head of the Human Genome Project, Francis Collins, who makes a strong case for macro-evolution, but doesn’t find that to be in conflict with the Bible or his personal faith. He would fall under the label “born again” but is by no means an intellectual slouch or hampered by silly things like the “young earth” theory. I recommend this book for people on either side of the debate who are intellectually honest enough to be challenged by his presentation.
“The Language of God: Francis Collins”
Comment by D. Bruce — 8/28/2007 @ 9:45 am
@elpres
Sorry, I’m late to this discussion.
responding to — > elpres — 8/27/2007 @ 11:42 pm
you wrote:
“So here is what i believe to be the fundamental difference between scientists/sceptics/agnostics/atheists and believers: The former rely on what they have experienced or can check for themselves and make up their own mind about it”
This is patently absurd. Of course believers experience God. It certainly would not be worth believing for me or anyone I know if we did not have spiritual experience. The Bible is great, but it would never in a million years be worthy of belief if experience did not back it up. This comment shows a fundamental lack of understanding of spiritual matters. And, you don’t have to be Christian to understand this. There are spiritual people all over the world from every religion who understand this.
Who else is making up my mind if not me??? This is the height of arrogance!
JBL
Comment by JBL — 8/28/2007 @ 9:48 am
Here is a link to a radio program interviewing Francis Collins, head of the Human Genome Project, believer in macro-evolution, and born-again christian.
http://odeo.com/audio/15170293/view
Comment by D. Bruce — 8/28/2007 @ 9:49 am
I think the problem is that you have a poor definition of science with which to begin. Science demands falsifiable evidence. Evolution is a falsifiable theory. Creationism is not. All of the evidence we have supports the theory of evolution. Thus, the theory of evolution is universally accepted. You cannot prove that evolution is true, just as you cannot prove anything in this world. You can only look at all the evidence and come to some kind of rational conclusion. The truth is that the Earth is not exactly round. However, there is a fundamental difference between the wrongness of saying that the Earth is round as opposed to the wrongness of saying that the Earth is flat.
Comment by Joe — 8/28/2007 @ 9:52 am
hello everybody…
just a quick reply - BOOOOO me ive read the original question but am about to go on holiday and havnt read the replies so sorry if im repeating someone else’s comment - this is a subject that i feel very strongly about and want to leave a quick message which by no means i pretend to be conclusive or expert in anyway.
i studied biology, i did not continue it at university but did continue to read up on the various topics that I found most interesting about the subject. These included cellular biology and genetics - i would recommend any one interested in these subjects to give them a go, they are not as daunting as you would first think. Obviously go for the elementary material first. (I mean elementary as in basic as opposed to the american school stage)
Anyway my point is (finally) what i have understood to be proof of our (animal) common ancestry is the presence of the cell organelle mitochondria (at a basic level this organelle is responsible for energy creation/release with our cells/body. They are responsible for the oxidation of carbohydrate to produce usable energy for the body - ATP.)
These organelles, the mitochondria, are the remains of a very ancient parasitic bacteria that have become incorporated into every single cell of every animal. These were not ‘originally’ part of our DNA. They have their own genome or their own DNA and so started out as separate organism.
Surely the fact that each animal has mitochondria present in their cells, and is therefore affected by this endosymbiosis, is proof that originally there was an original organism that was infected by this mitochindrion parasite which then differentiated (evolved) into the different organisms on earth.
Just to complicate this further, from what I have read these mitochondrion are related to plastids in plants, an example of these are chloroplasts (green energy creation pigment of green plants) therefore suggesting that not only do we share a common ancestry with animals but also with plants too, derived from an organism that existed before animals and plants evolved into separate organisms when they were infected by this second organism.
Phew - hope you didnt TLDR that. Again these are just my humble thoughts and I dont pretend to be an expert by any stretch of the imagination so please refute, argue, correct away…
i look forward to your replies…
Comment by junior barnacles — 8/28/2007 @ 10:00 am
@Ron
It’s dishonest because Gould wasn’t talking about religion but about pure morality, a fiction he invented for his little thought experiment. Almost no one defines religion as narrowly as he.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/religion
“Religion,” as it is popularly understood and defined, makes all sorts of irrational claims. Why should those claims not be the subject of sceptical inquiry? Postulating supernatural beings is a positive claim and demands the full rigor of rational analysis. Religion should not get a free pass. Irrationality is dangerous. If you don’t agree, think about the fact that the US president claims he only answers to god. As for respect, if irrational racists are undeserving of respect, then why should irrational religionists get it? (Please don’t take this as flamebait. It’s a valid question.)
Comment by DaveM — 8/28/2007 @ 10:27 am
@JBL
“This is patently absurd. Of course believers experience God.”
wow, thats quite a claim! You would have thought these experience would have been better documented by religious authorities.
could you elaborate on these experiences? did you catch any of it on film?
Comment by aletoledo — 8/28/2007 @ 10:47 am
@DaveM Yes, I see where you are probably correct on the narrowness of the definition. Thanks. As for subjects of sceptical inquiry, all sides are open for that. However, my sceptical inquiry into the claims of the irrational religionist would be based on exegisis, hermeneutics and theology, not necessarily from the magisterium of science. My sceptical inquiry into the claims of the irrational racist would come from sociology, philisophy, economecs, etc., not necessarily from the side of science. That was the meaning of the NOMA concept to me. As for respect, I merely meant they should be heard for the sake of perspective. I am a newbie to this discourse and I thank for your insight. (As for our President answering only to god, that is bloody scary. Even the delusional can get elected!!)
Comment by Ron — 8/28/2007 @ 11:30 am
Here, I’ll repost something I wrote a while back.
So even hard core creationists have to agree that micro-evolution exists, i.e. that species adapt and change. But where they will argue with you endlessly on is macro-evolution, that new species change and diverge. But the reality is that it is ridiculously easy to proove. So I present to you the majestic….mule. It is prima facie evidence that an equine species is, at this very moment, diverging.
Horses and donkeys share a lot of genetic material, but differ by two chromosomes. In fact they are so similar that they can mate together to create an offspring, the mule. But mules are almost always sterile, and can’t produce offspring themselves. Note that I said almost always, that’s an important point, because if their offspring were always sterile, they would be considered different species, and if they were always viable, they would be the same species, but sometimes they are and sometimes they aren’t, depending on the exact individuals involved. They are exactly at that middle ground in the process of diverging. Give them a little more time and they will diverge to the point they can’t ever produce any viable offspring, and then eventually to the point where they can’t even mate anymore to even create mules.
There are some other examples too of other similar animals having the exact same behaviour. And then there are some species where type A can viably mate with type B, and type B can viably mate with type C, but type A can not viably mate with type C. So are they all the same species or not?
These blurring lines are exactly what we would expect if there was macro-evolution. This is already a slam dunk case, and has been for many years now.
Comment by Alex Hagen — 8/28/2007 @ 11:45 am
Response to DaveM
“Religion,” as it is popularly understood and defined, makes all sorts of irrational claims. Why should those claims not be the subject of sceptical inquiry? Postulating supernatural beings is a positive claim and demands the full rigor of rational analysis. Religion should not get a free pass.”
I agree. There are too many closed-minded people on either side of this debate.
You may want to read Francis Collins (head of the Human Genome Project) book called the “language of god” as he started as an agnostic, applied his considerable skills of skeptical inquiry and concluded that there is a God, and that he used Evolution in his creation.
Comment by D. Bruce — 8/28/2007 @ 2:20 pm
Although several have made much the same points, probably better than I can, but here is my two cents.
Daniel, the reason you probably have difficulty with macroevolution vs. microevolution is that they really are one and the same. If you understand the concept of microevolution, then you understand evolution. Macroevolution is really a creationist/ID definition, meaning to evolve from one “kind” to another “kind”. Biologists talk of speciation, which is a much more precise term. Speciation has been reproduced in the lab (such as the appearance of the “nylon bug”), but creationist/ID proponents reject this as an example, because both species are the same “kind” of creature. This infuriates biologists, because “kind” is always vague and arbitrary. HOWEVER! the important thing to keep in mind is that both “kind” and “species” are simply human definitions. We categorize living things into different groups, but they are simply labels we give to things. We can say “Dog, Dog, Dog”, or we can say “Poodle, Coyote, Fox” and they are just man-made labels. The important thing to keep in mind is that evolution doesn’t care what labels we give living things. Life evolves. Slowly and over time. The single mutation that signals the appearance of the nylon bug is no different than any other single mutation.
That being said, if Rick accepts microevolution but not macroevolution, then he must be able to cite a clear mechanism which limits variation to within kind. This means there must be a clear genetic mechanism acting as a limiting factor. You could point out that in all the creationist/ID sites this is NEVER addressed. (This is because no such mechanism has ever been observed. Quite the opposite, in fact.) Instead, the argument is that since Dogs and Cats can’t interbreed, they could not have a common ancestor. But many creationist sites will consider horses and donkeys to be the same “kind”, though they cannot generally produce fertile offspring.
You mentioned that Rick also believes in the young earth model. This barrier would have to be breached first. If the world is only 6000 years old, then there simply hasn’t been time for evolution to produce the variety of life from a common ancestor. The first step I would recommend is tree rings. The oldest living bristle cone pines are more than 4,000 years old, and we can literally count tree rings, matching living specimens with older (dead) ones to go back 11,000 years. The literal, 6-day creation story is wrong.
You might also consider some religious arguments:
Even if one assumes the Bible to be inerrant, that is not equal to literal. Even an inerrant Bible is subject to fallible human interpretation. For example, the Church once used passages in the Bible to declare that the Earth did not move, and was the center of the Cosmos. Now that creationists accept the Earth really does move around the Sun, the same Biblical passages have been re-interpreted to be in agreement with science. One can also re-interpret passages to agree with both an old Earth, and evolution.
Others have mentioned Francis Collins, and I agree his book “The Language of God” would be an excellent place to start. For anyone who wants both science and God in His heaven, Collins makes a compelling case.
Good luck.
Comment by Brian — 8/28/2007 @ 3:04 pm
Brian said:
Uh, you’re not the first one to say that in this thread, but it’s untrue. Micro is evolution below the species level, and macro is at or above the species level. These are REAL terms used extensively by the scientific community.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/macroevolution.html
Comment by Daniel Miessler — 8/28/2007 @ 4:27 pm
@elpres
“For a rational human, that’s proof enough”
There it is. This sentence encapsulates your belief in the ability to derive a proof based on an experiment, where in fact it is possible that you experiment with gravity again and get a different result. You can drop the apple on your head 999 times and you still cannot prove that it will fall on your head for the 1000th.
But, as you said, “a rational human” would create a hypothesis, and claim that the hypothesis has proven to be right, when in fact it is only shown to be right 999 times. This is all you know and all you can claim as absolute truth. Which is also a fallacy because the only thing holding that truth is your memory which is fallible.
I’m sorry if it disappoints you, but you are, still, a believer.
One more point: You claim that ‘They grew up and kept hearing “god this” and “god that”, and sooner or later they just take it for granted’. This is not the only way to come onto religion - what about people who come onto a specific religion later on in life, or, like me, switched religions? I switched from moderate Jewish deism to a much less mild Atheism. I did not hear about Atheism as a child, it’s a choice I made when I was late in my teens. It’s a pretty difficult belief system to come to terms with, and it was by choice, after experiencing Agnosticism for a while and not liking it one bit.
Take care,
– Arik
Comment by Arik — 8/28/2007 @ 7:19 pm
After reading the comments, noone seems to have a good answer.
I feel for you too dude. I think I’m going thru a “crisis of faith” in evolution too. The damn creationists/IDists are starting to get to me. I’m starting to think evolution is a belief as well. Just a belief with proof/evidence I like.
But at least, it’s a useful belief. Because here’s the thing, at least for me. Even if you can’t understand the nature of a theory, but the theory has predictable results, then it’s still a useful theory. We may not understand the complete mechanics of the theory and consequently cannot describe the theory well. But if the theory WORKS, then complete understanding may not be relevant for some purposes. Myself, I’d leave complete understanding to the pure science researchers. I want applied science!
So you counter his skepticism with the usefulness of evolution theory. We all know at least some of the predictive value of evolution theory - knowing how bacteria will adapt a resistance to antibiotics teaches us to rotate the antibiotic regimen while exploring methods to fight bacterial infection such as bacteriophages, radiotherapy and such. Knowing how mutation works allows us to develop genetically-modified grains with higher yields and greater disease-resistance.
Look up more such examples of the value of predicting “macro-evolution”, to your taste. Meanwhile, question the predictive value of creationism/ID. What is the value to applied science and technology development in believing in creationism and ID? How does the “fact” that a grand plan exist allow us to develop science and technology? And how do we follow that grand plan if it did? How is that grand plan revealed?
He may counter that if we listen to the gods and follow their direction, then we can develop the technologies we need (if any). At this point it becomes a whole new kind of discussion.
Comment by Lucifer Cain — 8/28/2007 @ 10:20 pm
@ Rick:
“I would assume to believe it the way the majority of man-kind has known it for thousands of years… an inherent belief.”
Inherent beliefs tend to be somewhat subjective. I dare say that our inherent belief is that the Sun rotates around the Earth. It took careful observations of the visible paths of the other planets done by Copernicus to figure that out. The man used science to disprove that inherent belief.
Or how about optical illusions? They are nothing more than hacks to turn our brain’s “inherent beliefs” against itself. There’s even a whole profession based on that, they are called “illusionists” or “magicians” (and the bible advises to inflict lethal violence upon them, or at least promises that they will burn in hell).
@ JBL:
What aletoledo said (comment #61), and how do you know, that whatever “believers experience” to be god was in any way involved in the creation of the universe or anything else that god is attributed with? Does it introduce itself during the first meeting: “Hello there, I’m God and you know me from ‘How to create a Universe in seven days’ and ‘How to flush your flawed creation down the toilet with a mighty deluge’.”? Sorry if this sounds silly or bashing, but when you make statements about experiencing “The Almighty Creator” first hand, you should at least give a little more detail of why do think it is what you think it is and why do you think all other possible explanations do not apply.
Comment by elpres — 8/28/2007 @ 10:45 pm
[...] From dmiessler blog. [...]
Pingback by Indo-European language blog » Blog Archive » Argumentation, debate, and dialectic in Science, applied to Linguistics — 8/29/2007 @ 12:04 am
@aletoledo — 8/28/2007 @ 10:47 am
“wow, thats quite a claim! You would have thought these experience would have been better documented by religious authorities.”
They have been documented. The Bible is not the only text that describes spiritual experiences of individuals.
“could you elaborate on these experiences? did you catch any of it on film?”
Catch any of it on film??? I think you have misunderstood.
The original comment I was responding to was this….
elpres wrote: “”"So here is what i believe to be the fundamental difference between scientists/sceptics/agnostics/atheists and believers: The former rely on what they have experienced or can check for themselves and make up their own mind about it, while the latter rely on written or spoken opinions of other people”"”
elpres was saying that he could experience and check out for himself, but a man of faith could not experience for himself.
Maybe I misunderstood his comments, but I have in fact experienced God personally in numerous ways. elpres is not the only one with experiences. People of faith also make up their own minds from their personal experiences.
@elpres — 8/28/2007 @ 10:45 pm
(BTW, I never said that I believed in a 6 (literal or 24 hour) day creation scenario. Why have you assumed this?)
I would be glad to give a little more detail about my experiences. But, my stories will not be too different from many stories in the Bible (David’s psalms, Job’s questioning, John’s revalation, the Ethiopian eunuch). If you have not been satisfied with these, I’m sure you be no further impressed with my stories. The Bible is not a scientific text. It is a story book. It explains the life and times of the people who experience God personally. There are still plenty of people who share in this common experience.
Originally, you seemed to be talking about personal experience. If you were meaning to discuss material (physical) proof of communication with God, then I apologize; I completely misunderstood.
I have no different proof of any creation event than you have.
Comment by JBL — 8/29/2007 @ 5:08 am
if you are going to base your beliefs on which theory has more evidence, then it should be noted that all the evidence for evolution has been proven wrong or fabricated. From the artists interpretations of zygotes to peppered moths to pangea to cromagna man to the geologic column (where the fossils date the rock layers and the rock layers date the fossils). The premise of evolution is that new information can be added to a genome. This has never been observed in any instance! Any college biology prof could tell you that. Even mutations, again is a loss of information. Dr Hovind has a standing offer for half a million dollars for anyone who can show him evolution. he has had some attempt, but its never been proven.
If evolution is true, and a species needs certain attributes and features to survive in an environment, then how does the species survive before it “evolves” these characteristics? the Australian mallee fowl builds a huge nest, the female lays one egg in the nest which must maintain 33 degrees C for the chick to hatch, 2 or 3 degrees off and the chick dies. Why do we still have mallee fowl? And there are thousands of examples like this across the animal kingdom. Comets lose their tails after a few thousand years. If evolution is true, why do we still have comets? Not all the planets in our solar system are spinning the same rotation, some are going “backwards”. if everything came from a big bang, then (according to the law of conservation of angular momentum) all the planets should be spinning the same way. Where did matter come from? How did the time/space/matter continuum come into existence (since it would have to be instantaneously)? How did the Colorado river supposedly carve grand canyon when it does not enter the canyon at the canyons highest altitude? rivers do not flow uphill. I don’t think God created the world pre-aged as he did Adam. I believe he has let it age enough to provide us with sufficient evidence against evolution. Thus the reason for a flood, more evidence left behind.
To me it seems all creation screams out against evolution. All these evolutionary principles i learned or picked up throughout childhood have not measured up to science and reason. Some people choose to believe in evolution until the bible is proven right, i have choose to believe in the bible until it is proven wrong.
Comment by Lee — 8/29/2007 @ 7:19 am
@ Comment by Lee — 8/29/2007 @ 7:19 am
Dude, Hovind is in jail. And, it’s not for religious persecution. It is for tax evasion. Please don’t go around quoting “fallen” leaders. It just makes Christians look retarded.
Comment by JBL — 8/29/2007 @ 7:24 am
Well these comments have simply been excellent. Thanks for all the input; it’s really helpful. I’ll be going through and re-reading at least once.
Comment by Daniel Miessler — 8/29/2007 @ 9:08 am
Paul was in jail for about 7 years… where he wrote some of the New testament. Hovind being in jail doesn’t make him any less of a reputable source.
Comment by Lee — 8/29/2007 @ 12:31 pm
@ Lee
You’re right, the fact that Hovind’s in jail doesn’t invalidate his arguments. The fact that his arguments are wrong, have been throughly discredited, and are considered embarrassing by a lot of other creationists invalidates his arguments.
Comment by James — 8/29/2007 @ 1:52 pm
Daniel,
You are right about macroevolution. But then I’m a physicist, so evolution reduces to chemistry which reduces to physics :-)
Seriously though, if you are citing talk origins to counter me, then all I can say is read through their cite. They are an excellent source on evolution, and they document it well. They do it better than I ever could.
Comment by Brian — 8/29/2007 @ 3:57 pm
Cool Brian, thanks for the follow-up. I like your site, by the way. :)
Comment by Daniel Miessler — 8/29/2007 @ 4:14 pm
How about plants and trees? How the heck did they evolve? Where did they come from?
Comment by Norm — 9/11/2007 @ 9:42 am
NORM, read a book.
Comment by isiah — 9/14/2007 @ 6:09 am
Your friend Rick seems pretty cool considering he’s willing to hear both sides, the majority in his situation are not. If Rick already sees the logic behind micro-evolution it probably won’t be too long before he sees the continuation of that logic into ‘macro-evolution’.
Sometimes you have to flip the argument. If he’s asking you to prove you’re right, shouldn’t he have to do the same? For example: God is perfect according to the book that creationism is based on. Given this fact, wouldn’t God’s creations be perfect? Every living thing is made up of cells and cells are definitely imperfect, their genetic mutation is the foundation of micro-evolution (which Rick accepts). The perfect designer (God is perfect so he’s a perfect designer) wouldn’t choose such a faulty building block for his creations.
As far as changing ‘kinds’ go, the leggless lizard is a good example. Look at a legless lizard and compare it to a lizard, it’s pretty obvious they’re not the same kind of animal even though they share common ancestry. Creationists might argue that a legless lizard is ‘devolved’ but there is no back or forward in evolution, there is only what is more suitable to the continuation of the species. If an eathquake caused a group of thousands of lizards to fall into a pit and the only food source in the pit is in cracks in the walls, the lizards with the smallest legs are going to have more chance of surviving because they can get deeper into the cracks. If they’re stuck there for a few thousand years you can see how evolving to have no actual legs would benefit the species and actually cause a new species. The lizards with the smaller legs survive to reproduce more often, making the genes for smaller limbs more commen. In the same pit there might also be another new species of lizards arise that is more adapted to climbing, allowing it to escape the pit and get to other food sources.
Having to attempt to prove this to someone caused me to brush up on my knowledge of genetics and evolution and I’m better off for it. I think you and your friend will be too wether he ends up accepting evolution or not.
Comment by Andrew — 1/2/2008 @ 4:32 pm
Isiah,
Thank you so much for your suggestion. While it’s been helpful to have read books by Gould, Johansen, Darwin, Leaky and Asimov, I can’t seem to get any explanation as to “how” rather just a quick history of blue-green algae then suddenly we seem to have an archaeopteris, and maybe a bit about how friendly and helpful abscisic acid can be.
Did the algae creep onto land somehow? Did the waters recede leaving the algae with little choice to either change or be dried up? How and why did wood fiber evolve? How and why did fruit evolve? What is the benefit of the apple to the apple tree? Why all the delicious pulp? Why not just a seed to continue the species?
Other than some very smart people saying “a lot of beneficial accidents over millions of years” there hasn’t yet been a satisfying answer.
I eagerly await the title of your book that I should read. Thank you.
Comment by Norm — 3/11/2008 @ 4:07 pm
Is it strange that most Christians don’t agree entirely on what the Bible means? I mean, with more that 2000 denominations in the US alone, there’s pretty strong evidence that “God’s Book” hardly lives up to the hype. I mean, verse after verse of contradictions (there are entire websites dedicated to exposing them), ridiculous stories that could never have happened, God’s really sadistic character … How can you trust it?
But on to the (painfully clear) evidence: a fossil record showing less complex species at the lower levels, and the most complex at the top. I mean, I’ve heard some arguments to explain this (a worldwide flood, which left no geological evidence whatsoever), but they all lack something… what was that word? EVIDENCE!!! You cling so mindlessly to your beliefs that you can’t see the solution even with mountains of evidence ranging from the strata to reliable dating methods to increasing complexity of species to observable micro-evolution. It’s a kind of zombiism, I think. “Must believe, must believe”.
There are many Christians, to be fair, who are on board with reality at least in this respect. They have seen the evidence (yes, there are Christians who are scientists), and know it as the fact that it is. They’ve tried to develop explanations to support God’s role in this whole evolution thing, but at least they are seeing evolution for what it is: truth.
For those still clinging to the literal 6 days dealio, and that laughable tally of ages in Judges to provide us with a less-than-10,000-year-old earth, your God must be a deceiver. He went and laid all the fossil evidence, made the earth appear to be billions of years old, made a universe that mathematically appears to be nearly 14 billion years old and that is, for all practical purposes empty, and put our tiny little planet in an unremarkable place in it. The reason so many scientist reject your theories is that they align with observable facts about our universe. Genesis is a fraud.
@Lee: Dude, what the hell? @Nick: Dude, what the hell? You are so smug about your fairly tale world. Oh, and while you are busy laughing at the painfully obvious fact of evolution, you are quite rudely NOT providing any useful evidence whatsoever to back up your (silly) claims. Do you know why you offer no proof? BECAUSE THERE IS NONE! There are hacks who tell half truths, who focus on the growing pains that the fact of evolution has gone through, but they don’t actually weigh the legitimate evidence in any scientific way. They just smugly dismiss compelling evidence by saying, “it’s not true”. They are like you.
Others, like Carl Baugh, offer wild theories based on nothing more than the Bible and imagination: “There was a pink crystalline structure surrounding Earth’s biosphere, and that’s where all the water from the flood came from. This protective shell allowed humans to live much longer lives, and when it fell, so did the age of man.” Come on! This are wildly speculative claims put out with ABSOLUTELY NO PROOF! Your claims that, for example, Moses did what he did, are equally wild and unsubstantiated in every possible way.
@All Believers You can keep your religion (to yourself). But keep your nose out of scientific discussions until you can bring at least 1/10th the body of evidence that evolution has brought to the table. This includes predictions that, when tested, are confirmed. Hell, just find a single set of fossils that is inexplicably out of place in the strata. That should get those crazy evolutionists scurrying to your church doors in an act of mass repentance. But until then, remember: it’s called “faith” because you don’t need evidence. You just have to “feel” like it’s right.
Comment by B-Dog — 6/15/2008 @ 11:39 am
tack for horses…
How do you come up with so much material to blog with?…
Trackback by tack for horses — 7/5/2008 @ 9:11 am
Well, I have not read ALL of these comments because that would waste my time. But for all you evolutionists arguing about Christianity, I have one simple question, If the whole world started out as little eloctrons and neutrons, that eventually turned into molecules, that turned into cells, that tuurned into somthing else, then somthing else, and eventually humans, how do you explain where the first substances came from?
Comment by Ali — 10/22/2008 @ 2:23 pm
Ali, I can tell you how NOT to explain it, and that’s with something even more complex that in turn requires another explanation.
Comment by Daniel Miessler — 10/22/2008 @ 2:33 pm