Are you unaware that the fossil record and genetic code are evidence supporting evolution or do you not find said evidence compelling?
If they say “I’m unaware,” I then explain the theory to the best of my ability and direct them to further reading. If they say anything else, I move on to the next question.
Do you believe that the evidence in support of evolution is disinformation spread by a conspiracy of academics and government officials or disinformation planted by God to test our faith?
If the theist says they don’t believe the theory because of holes in the fossil record. Tell them that is equivalent to dismissing the gospels because they don’t account for every minute of Jesus’ life.
We don’t know when Christ went to the bathroom, therefore he doesn’t exist.If the theist points to some bit of evidence contrary to evolution, you could do quick research to find a possible scientific explanation for this, or simply grant them the evidence. While their anti-evolution news item is likely wrong, it isn’t worth arguing over. No contrary evidence about a single organism can disprove evolution as a whole. Bring the conversation around to the evidence for evolution and return to the primary questions.
If they answer the evidence is part of a conspiracy, ask them what motivation could unify thousands of scientists to distribute a known lie when a dissenter with proof against evolution could earn much more notoriety by defecting? Their answer will either blow your mind and turn you theist or, more likely, expose the theist as bat-shit crazy.
If they answer the evidence was planted by God to test our faith, ask them which god they are referring to. If they answer a trickster god, such as Loki, then they win the argument. There’s nothing more you can say. If their answer is any other god, ask them how they can distinguish between times when God is sincere and times when he is testing our faith. What if certain books of the Bible are false, added to test our faith? What if their religion as a whole was put on earth to test the faith of some other religion? If God has the tendency to deliberately mislead, then is no way to tell when reality is authentic, and even if God gave you the answer through prayer, he may just be fucking with you.
Never argue with a Lokist. They always win.The goal of this line of questioning is to flip the apologist script. If we can’t have an honest conversation about evidence, lets talk about motivation. As atheists, we know why they are desperately trying to rationalize their beliefs, but why do they think we are trying to rationalize our lack thereof? Why would Darwin make this shit up? Why would anyone let him?
Excellent argument technique, I am definitely borrowing this! Well thought out and it will bring the theist to the point of realizing the holes in his own logic and reasoning. Brilliant!
ReplyDeleteI need to make my arguments into a call tree so I can hire telemarkers to debate for me.
DeleteSorry to disappoint, I am not a theist, so your mind will most likely not be blown. Great Post and good argument. When I find myself in those conversations I have always tended to stay with the evidence for evolution part of the argument. I am certainly going to try your technique in the future. Very funny bit about Loki also...
ReplyDeleteI had to throw in Loki for SEO purposes. The Avenger's movie, y'know? ;-)
DeleteIt amazes me that anti-evolution people could believe that it was all a big conspiracy. Do they realize how large-scale such a conspiract would have to be to touch so many scientific disciplines? Do they realize how much effort and organization would have to go into suppressing conflicting data? Ridiculous, but then again, anti-evolution fundies were never that rational to begin with.
ReplyDeleteI don't think they realize any of those things. I don't think they generally think about it too much. It's more like "I don't want to believe in evolution, everyone close to me says evolution is garbage but scientists say it is real, maybe there is a conspiracy." That's what it was like for me as a kid anyway.
DeleteOnce I learned how science works it is obviously insane to think there is a big conspiracy, but when it is something other people do that I don't understand, sure, why not a conspiracy?
"If they answer a trickster god, such as Loki, then they win the argument."
ReplyDeleteBwahahaha! I love it! Great article.
Thanks for the bwahahaha, that's exactly what I was going for.
DeleteInteresting perspective. I, as a theist, would have to ask what the parameters are for what you deem to be evolution. For instance, I have no problem with the concept of natural selection or speciating. My biggest issue with the theory of evolution is that I believe it to be incomplete, because it can't account for the origin of life. However, many believers in evolution say that abiogenesis is completely separate from the theory of evolution.
ReplyDeleteFinally, as a theist I would readily concede that evolution could possibly be true; however, if it were true that doesn't mean that God doesn't exist. I just remained unconvinced because I think that evolution is missing a piece of the puzzle that creationism contains: how life began. Additionally, there exists the possibility that creationism could include the theory of evolution (depending on how define the theory of evolution), a.k.a theistic evolution. However, the inverse is not true. This gives the creationist (or theist, depending on how you use the terminology) two possible ways for how his/her worldview could be true (with or without evolutionary theory), versus only one for the strict natural evolutionist (or atheist/agnostic, depending on the terminology).
Therefore, it is more logical to believe in creationism, but that doesn't mean necessarily that creationism is true.
Just thought I'd throw my hat in the ring here since it didn't seem like that position was proffered in your original blog. Thanks for sharing your perspective though! :-)
Thanks for the input, I always want the opposing view point.
DeleteWhat I deem as evolution is what science deems as evolution. As you mentioned, abiogenesis deals with the jump from non-life to life. I admit, abiogenesis isn't a fully hashed out theory yet. If you want to claim divine intervention for that jump, that's fine. I think it is unlikely, but I'd rather leave that debate for another time. Evolution explains the diversity and complexity of life, not the origin of it. It may be "The Origin of the Species" but not the origin of life itself.
I'm not sure what you mean by "theistic evolution." Creationism, as I know it, takes into account the literal truth of the Genesis story. Adam and Eve can not be true if evolution is true. Evolution doesn't allow for spontaneous creation of fully formed humans, or any other animal for that matter. Evolution says we share a common ancestor with chimps, whales, tape worms even. If you don't believe that, then you either haven't been exposed to the evidence or haven't accepted it. If you haven't accepted it, I go to my default question of...
Do you believe that the evidence in support of evolution is disinformation spread by a conspiracy of academics and government officials or disinformation planted by God to test our faith?
sabepashubbo:
Delete"I would readily concede that evolution could possibly be true; however, if it were true that doesn't mean that God doesn't exist."
I just wanted to say I completely agree with this. Evolution itself makes no claims that God is not involved, it just doesn't invoke God in the explanations. Many people seem to think that evolution and God are mutually exclusive but I think that is silly. If God can do all of the other incredible things that are attributed to him, why not evolution as well?
I agree too! Evolution doesn't disprove God, but it DOES disprove Adam and Eve. If you think you can believe evolution and the literal reading of Genesis, you really don't understand evolution.
DeleteI suppose that is true, although I would argue that a literal reading of Genesis doesn't need evolution to be hard to understand as it seems to contradict itself.
Deletehttp://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/accounts.html
According to the link there, the first one is the correct one, but then why is the second one there. I would argue that there are 2 conflicting stories to tell you not to take them literally.
Bible contradictions are more your specialty, but I'll probably do a post on it eventually.
DeleteI would argue that in order to belong to a religion that follows the old and/or new testament(s) (Jewish, Christian, Muslim), the you should consider the testament(s) to be either the inspired word of God, or the literal word of God. Since there are numerous passages in both the old and the new testaments that basically say that God's word is infallible, then if there is a single inconsistency, contradiction, or lie (on God's part), you should reconsider your choice of religion, or at least question it. And there are numerous contradictions in the Bible.
DeleteIf what you said about your belief in evolution is true: "Evolution doesn't allow for spontaneous creation of fully formed humans, or any other animal for that matter...", then evolution must absolutely account for the origin of life. It really depends how far you want to take your opinion of evolutionary theory. If it doesn't explain origins, then a statement like the one above can't possibly make sense. But if what you said above is even close to true, then evolution has to show us how life began. And this is where I find evolution to be lacking in terms of explanatory power.
ReplyDeleteDo I believe the evidence for evolution is a conspiracy? Not entirely, though there has clearly been evidence of misleading or falsehood in order to try to further the cause (i.e. Piltdown Man, Java Man). What we do know about evidence for evolution (i.e. natural selection theory, DNA formation) I believe actually points more to an Intelligent Designer than a lack of one. So neither do I believe the information we have to be God misleading us, but actually affirming our belief in Him.
My question for you is this: what makes you so sure that what we know to be 100% true in terms of evidence for evolution can't possibly jibe with a Creator such as the God of the Bible?
Thanks for your time. :-)
My statement in no way needs to account for the origin of life, it accounts for an earlier form of life. No animal spontaneously appeared, they all evolved from something else. (If you want to get specific, most scientists believe they evolved from an early form of life called a flagellated eukaryote.)
DeleteSince you know about Piltdown Man and Java Man while it doesn't seem like you know much about the theory of evolution, I recommend a fair reading of the science to go along with the creationism bits you already know. It's a shame that creationism sites often masquerade as evolution news sites, but it is telling of their tactics. Piltdown man was a hoax, but it proves the point of this post. Paleontologists disproved the hoax, as they would disprove the entire theory of evolution if they could. It's in their interest. I just looked up Java Man, since I am not familiar with it, I could be mistaken, but it looks like it is mostly an accurate fossil. The problem is that part of the fossil is newer then the rest, right? That makes it a less than ideal evidence for evolution, but hardly evidence against evolution.
Since we are talking fossils, take these: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/specimen.html These doesn't disprove a vague notion of God, but they disprove a good bit of Genesis. If you believe in Adam and Eve, why do we find this stuff? Conspiracy or trickster god?
How does natural selection point to an intelligent designer?
To answer your question. The evidence for evolution could jibe with a creator who guides his creation through evolution, but the God of the Bible can't be such a god taking into account Genesis.
The statement "No animal spontaneously appeared, they all evolved from something else..." begs the question. What is that something else? You say a flagellated eukaryote (which I had not heard of, but is apparently unconfirmed if it is a "belief"), but how did that become life, and from what did that originate? See what I mean? You're begging the question when you make statements like this.
DeleteI don't think the website you linked to is very convincing, to be quite honest. I see lots of apes and I see some humans, but I don't see any "ape-humans." I've seen sites like these before, and it just seems to me like they find something close to what they're pre-dispositionally looking for and calling it a missing link. I don't see any such link in the website you listed. So I don't think you've really "disproven" anything, as we would need a true missing link to do that.
Finally, you didn't really answer my question. I didn't ask for your opinion necessarily, I asked for what it is that gives you that assurance given what we know to be 100% true about the theory of evolution. Nothing on that website is 100% confirmed as a human ancestor, just speculated. So as far as I know, the only things we know that are true in the theory of evolution are natural selection theory and speciating. And how can you be sure that those don't jibe with the God of the Bible?
I'm not going to keep covering the same ground. Implying that the theory of evolution isn't true because it doesn't answer every biological question is like saying chemistry can't be true because we haven't found every elementary quantum particle. We don't need to find the Higgs Boson for chemistry to work and we don't need abiogenesis for evolution to work.
DeleteIf you choose not to spend the time to understand the theory, I get it. This is an entire field of study. You are right in that no one website should convince you. (Although each of the finds listed are not primates currently alive and were from time periods consistent with evolutionary theory. If you don't accept them as real, then they are either a conspiracy or from a trickster god.)
Until you make the choice to spend the time learning this, why not accept the scientific consensus? What motivation do they have to lie? If you think there is a motivation, then you are choosing the conspiracy option and I'd like to hear your thoughts.
We know all that I mentioned to be 100% true of evolution, I answered your question.
A theory based on shifts over time doesn't work unless you can determine what got it started. That's like saying when proving Newton's third law of motion that it doesn't matter what got the body at rest going, just that it's going. It's incomplete without a starting point. You don't need to know everything about evolution, but you absolutely must know this.
DeleteWhat exactly do you think I'm ignorant of when it comes to evolution? I don't accept the scientific consensus for three reasons: 1) they can't explain how it all started, which we've already touched on; 2) truth is not determined by a majority vote, and 3) science is predicated on methodological naturalism, which by definition excludes hypotheses pre-suppositionally and so can't possibly be the best method for us to draw conclusions.
So we know with 100% certainty that humans came from apes? I'd debate that piece of it. I'd also debate abiogenesis for multiple reasons. Sounds like a pretty strong claim, so I'd be careful about being so steadfast for fear that someone like me might say, "Prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt."
"What exactly do you think I'm ignorant of when it comes to evolution?" I know you're ignorant about evolution because you think abiogenesis is a necessary part of it. No need to get defensive, it's not your area of study. I'm willing to admit that I'm ignorant of some of the books of the Bible.
Delete"truth is not determined by a majority vote" Yes, but if you studied evolution you would find the truth empirically. I only offer the consensus as a pointer to the truth. It is better to take the word of the people who devote their lives to understanding the topic rather than the people who have an obvious motive to circumvent it. If you are skeptical of the consensus, but all means, get a biology or an anthropology degree.
It is better to take the word of the people who devote their lives to understanding the topic rather than the people who have an obvious motive to circumvent it.
DeleteThen perhaps you should believe the consensus of those who study the Bible and believe it to be truth, thereby renouncing your atheism. Just sayin' you gotta call it both ways, friend.
Hope your quest for truth is fruitful! Take care.
The Bible is a collection of stories written over a thousand years ago. I accept the consensus of New Testament Scholars as to how the work came to be. I even accept that Jesus was a historical person. The only consensus of literal New Testament truth, miracles included, is among Christians...who are a self selecting group of those that take the New Testament as literal truth.
DeleteBesides, even if the two consensuses were equivalent, it is impossible to call it both ways seeing how they contradict each other. So I'm left with hard evidence over a collection of old documents.
You chose to believe the collection of documents over the fossil record, but it doesn't change the fact that THERE IS a fossil record. If the Bible is true, making the fossil record false, where did the fossils come from?
I'll put you down for the answer of "conspiracy." Thanks for the input.
Please don't mis-represent my position. Put me down for answer of "incomplete theory," because that's what it is. Thanks.
DeleteThe conspiracy or the trickster god options are the only two possible explanations that I can think of for the physical evidence of evolution without accepting that humans and apes share a common ancestor. "Incomplete theory" does nothing to explain away the evidence.
DeleteYou said that you don't "entirely" believe the evidence to be a conspiracy, so it is safe for me to assume that you think at least part of it is.
Ah, so we're getting closer to the heart of the issue. We're going by your perspective alone. So I'm only allowed to believe what you can possibly expect to be true? That seems like both mis-representation and infringement, or imposing your beliefs onto me. Surely that's not what you're doing here, is it?
Delete"Incomplete theory" calls evolution what it is: lacking in a specific area. As I said below to Hausdorff, if the theory of evolution is to explain everything about why we are the way we are, then it needs to answer every question. The biggest question of all is this: how did it get started? If evolution can't answer that, then it can't explain everything. And if it can't explain everything, it's an incomplete theory.
So you're really only left with two options if evolution can't answer every question: 1) call it an incomplete theory and hope one day for completion, or 2) specify that what evolution claims to answer is not everything but some very specific pieces of a puzzle that is potentially unsolvable.
I think I've made my position and the supporting reasons for it very clear, so which approach to evolution would you like to submit to?
"if the theory of evolution is to explain everything about why we are the way we are" For the last time, it isn't supposed to explain everything. Let's say, for the sake of argument, God is responsible for abiogenesis. God made the first replicating DNA. Evolution can be true in it's entirety even with this God hypothesis. Is this what you believe? If so, I have no argument with you in regards to evolution. However, if you believe in Adam and Eve, you need to either commit to the explanation that God planted false evidence, there is a giant conspiracy, or some third option you might be able to provide that accounts the evidence that man and apes share a common ancestor.
DeleteAnd what is the evidence that man and apes share a common ancestor, and what is this ancestor? Surely evolution must have proven who this ancestor was, right? Otherwise, it's still speculative.
DeleteStrong genetic similarities show just that: similarity. It doesn't show linkage. The website you sent me to earlier showed both apes and humans, but not any ape-men, which would provide fossil record of such linkage. I still have yet to see any convincing evidence that this descent of man is anything more than mis-interpretation by the scientific community. It's not a conspiracy, and it's not false evidence. It's a poor reading of what's actually there.
Finally, if evolution isn't supposed to explain everything, then why is it touted as a better theory than creationism, which does explain everything? It explains how both man and ape came to be, where we came from and why we are the way we are. Why is this such a big stretch?
Evolution is a better theory than creationism because there is zero evidence for creationism and tons of evidence for evolution. The Biblical origin story was a guess that has since been proven wrong. Your personal incredulity in regards to evolution is not a debunking of the evidence.
DeleteI ask again, given that practically every expert in the field supports evolution even when a single piece of contrary evidence would make a scientist's career, and the vast majority of schools teach it when they have a vested interest to not teach anything truly controversial, do you think it is all a conspiracy? If not, explain all this.
I think my position of "incomplete theory" continues to speak for itself. I don't think you're really understanding what I'm saying, so let's just leave it at that, and you can write it off or do whatever you want with it.
DeleteThanks for your time.
I won't right you off, but I will say that you have no answer for the question I'm posing.
DeleteThanks for commenting.
I'm going back to school in the fall to study evolutionary biology and it really bums me out when I see these kinds of posts or comments with such high levels of ignorance on the subject. Sometimes, people are just so brainwashed that they ignore evidence that contradicts what they believe. There is much more evidence for evolution than there is for the theory of gravity. As you point out Grundy, evolution isn't about the origins of life, but how it developed into what it is today. You are also right to point out that the major difference between creationism and evolution is evidence. The Bible is not really evidence. There are plenty of different "scriptures" or holy books with completely different creation myths. A Christian, for example, would probably tell me that my particular holy book is not evidence for my creation myth and would rightfully so laugh at me.
DeleteIf someone can come and provide any good evidence against evolution, it would not only make a career but change science all together. I'm pretty sure that person would take home an armful of nobel prizes.
"There is much more evidence for evolution than there is for the theory of gravity"
DeleteI can jump and fall down, gravity proven. One Species evolving into a New/Different Species has never been observed.
"You are also right to point out that the major difference between creationism and evolution is evidence. The Bible is not really evidence."
Yes it is, something that is composed of about 66 writings with 40 different authors telling the same thing years apart, with minor interpolation and written in Historical form(no one takes it as a mythical writing, read a 1st or 2nd century myth like the Fake Gospels, and you'll see it was impossible to make this up), is valid in Court where only about 2-3 witnesses are needed to put a guy in prison for life.
"If someone can come and provide any good evidence against evolution, it would not only make a career but change science all together. I'm pretty sure that person would take home an armful of nobel prizes."
This is false, even if evolution is disproven, Why does this have to be mainstream or win nobel prize? this is a fallacy of popularity, lots of truth isn't popular, alots of truth is, only proof determines, sadly some never accept the proof.
"That's like saying when proving Newton's third law of motion that it doesn't matter what got the body at rest going, just that it's going."
ReplyDeleteIsn't this true? If a body is moving and you want to find out how it will interact with other bodies why does it matter what got it moving? If we want to see what will happen to a cannonball does it matter whether it was thrown by a cannon or superman? As long as the conditions are identical at some arbitrary point in the process it doesn't matter what came before it.
Only if you believe science should explain the "how" and not the "why." If you want the "why," then you need the starting point. Just like if you want to answer the question "why (or how do we know) evolution is true," you need the starting point.
DeleteThat is an interesting point. My initial thought was something along the lines of "sure, science answers how questions and doesn't bother with why questions", but the more I think about it the less I am sure of that. The more I think about it, the more I am not sure if you can untangle how and why so easily. I think I might just be having some language issues but let me try to explain with some examples and see if I am making any kind of sense.
DeleteConsider the example of an asteroid flying by a planet, getting caught in it's gravitational field, and becoming a satellite of that planet. Now, suppose we are discussing what happened in this situation and I say that the two bodies are attracted to each other by some formula, the asteroid came at just the right angle and everything worked out just right. Have I just answered how it happened or why it happened? It feels like a how to me.
Now, suppose you ask me why they are attracted to each other in the first place, and I can talk about the fact that the 2 bodies are attracted to each other because each body bends space-time like a bowling ball on a bed sheet. This feels like a why to me. This is an explanation as to why 2 masses are attracted to each other.
So it seems to me that science can answer how and why questions.
Now, I'm guessing that isn't quite what you mean, I'm guessing you are looking for some kind of deeper meaning, a deeper "why" question. I guess that I would respond I'm not completely sure what it means.
Is there any chance you can understand my ramblings and clarify?
I can understand what you're getting at. I'm taking a tangential approach to what you're talking about though. I also agree that science can answer both "how" and "why." Take the melting of an ice cube. The "how" would be an explanation of heat and how it reacts in relation to water. The "why" would be, "because it was out in the sunlight for an hour." So it is possible, certainly. But that's not where it ends, either.
DeleteIn order to take your example and make it analogous to the evolution discussion, consider it this way. You've answered the "how," but the "why" question would be more like, "Why did the asteroid get so close to the earth?" or "Where did it come from?" You see, a scientific conclusion about how an event happens doesn't necessarily jibe with why the event happens.
And that's what I think is missing from evolutionary theory. Evolution gets the "how," but misses the "why." According to evolution, it looks like this:
Q: How did we get here?
A: We descended from apes.
Q: Where did the apes come from? Or why are we even here?
A: ???
See now the importance of the "why?" Without it, the "how" can't possibly make sense, nor should it. Evolution must have some answer to the question of origins, and it doesn't. Creationism has an answer for both the "how" and the "why," which is why I believe it to be the more complete theory.
Does how I explained it make any sense at all? I fear I posted my own ramblings. :-)
I think you guys have a good point. The definitions have to be clear. I think the "How" and "Why" can be used interchangeably in the ice cube example. You could say that the sun bearing down on the ice cube was how the ice cube got enough kinetic energy to change physical states.
DeleteIt's like the question of "what is our purpose?" or "why do we exist?" It really depends on what you mean by the question. The first one assumes that we have a purpose to begin with. The later, can be asked in terms of previous frames of reference and physical laws that resulted in the current frames of reference.
The other definition of "why" can also be related to the previous question. It again assumes that we have a "purpose." I am thinking out loud now, but it feels like circular logic. (What is our purpose? -> Even if we don't know what it is, that must mean we are created special -> If we are created special, we must have a purpose -> If we have a purpose, we need to find out what it is) Even if you disagree with me, I hope you can at least see where I am coming from :)
It really comes down to what you mean.
sabepashubbo, you seem very focused on the idea that evolution needs to have a starting point. I really don't want to overstate what you have said, but it seems to me that you are essentially saying that without knowing how things got started it isn't worth much. I want to challenge this idea with a hypothetical.
ReplyDeleteLet's suppose that there was an alien race watching earth for it's entire history. Further, suppose that they have been keeping very good records on any organism of at least a certain size, let's say at least 1000 cells. For any such organism, they have kept track of progeny perfectly. Now suppose we are suddenly given access to this database. The result is you could take any organism living today, and trace it's history all the way back through the generations to the point of its first ancestor which had at least 1000 cells.
Suppose you did this and you discovered that evolution happened pretty much like we think it did. The idea of common descent is correct and every living organism can be traced back to something of size around 1000 cells.
In this (admittedly ridiculous) situation, what are your thoughts on evolution? Would you say it is a correct theory? Would you say it is a good way for us to understand the diversity of life on earth?
Does the fact that we can't go all the way back to the first organism invalidate the theory?
That is really the question I want to explore here, because it seems to me that you are very focused on that detail, and I don't think it matters. (Well, it's not exactly that it doesn't matter, it is very interesting, but I see it as a separate question.)
Hausdorff,
DeleteAs I mentioned before, it depends on how you define the theory. Is evolution supposed to explain everything about how we got to be the way we are now? If so, then even going back to an organism with 1,000 cells doesn't do the trick, because there is still no explanation for how that organism came into being.
If the theory of evolution is supposed to merely discuss mutations, natural selection and/or speciating, then perhaps the burden is far lower. But as I've said before, there's nothing in the latter definition that doesn't possibly jibe with a personal God who created the universe.
So I guess you really have to ask yourself is this: what is the theory of evolution supposed to explain? If it tells us everything, then it needs to answer every question. If it doesn't tell us everything, then 1) why not?; 2) what makes it a better theory than creationism?; and 3) what about it doesn't jibe with a Creator?
Perhaps the next tack would be to define your parameters for the theory of evolution. Not all people ascribe to the same burden, I suspect.
"Is evolution supposed to explain everything about how we got to be the way we are now?"
ReplyDeleteNo. Evolution is NOT supposed to explain EVERYTHING. It is supposed to explain what it explains.
In my example, we would have perfect genealogy from all organisms of size at least 1000 cells to present time. We could then look at genetic code information (provided the aliens kept that data as well) and see how mutations and stuff happened. We could use that information to try to figure out which gene's caused which traits to be expressed. We could use this information to see which genes lead to which phenotypes that cause things to go extinct and see how this meshes with our ideas of natural selection. In short, we could take all of our ideas on how evolution works, compare it to the real data, and see which ones seem to hold water and which ones need revision.
The point is, we take the data we have, and conclude whatever we can. There will probably always be some uncertainties, but the goal is to understand as much as we can.
"But as I've said before, there's nothing in the latter definition that doesn't possibly jibe with a personal God who created the universe."
I agree, I don't understand why you can't believe in evolution and God. Personally, I do believe in evolution and I don't believe in God but the 2 things don't have anything to do with one another. (well, actually there is a bit of an indirect link. The church being so against evolution led me to investigate things)
"what makes it a better theory than creationism?"
It is better than creationism because it actually answers questions. How does creationism say the world got here? God did it. Ok, how did he do it? Back to square one.
I honestly don't understand why we can't have it where I think things just happen and you think God did it, but we are investigating the same thing and working together.
Hausdorff,
DeleteThen I think we're a bit closer than we might expect. I think what we KNOW about evolution is consistent with a God who created everything (natural selection, etc.). If that's what evolution is limited to, then I believe in that piece.
I have a tough time copping to evolution because of what it implies. As the OP states, his definition of evolution is that man descended from apes. I can't agree with that because the evidence just isn't there for that. It doesn't mean natural selection isn't true, but if the connotation of evolution by many is that both of these pieces are true, then I can't say I believe in evolution. That's why I avoid using such terminology to define my beliefs.
I don't think the issue of "how did God do it?" is a hard one to answer. The Bible makes it clear that God has supernatural properties like omnipotence, omniscience, omnisapience. So it's a logical step that if God has the power to create a universe, He would just use said power to create a universe that is in line with both His omniscience and omnisapience.
I think the question you're asking instead is, "how can we KNOW God did it?" It is admittedly a tougher question to answer, but through discoveries in cosmology, astronomy, physics and philosophy, we have excellent reasons to believe that such a God exists, and necessarily created the universe we live in. I'd be happy to share those pieces of evidence with you, or you can simply visit my blog and peruse them at your leisure. Thanks!
Sorry about jumping in the middle of a conversation here..
Delete"I have a tough time copping to evolution because of what it implies." As someone else once said, the universe is the way it is, whether we like it or not.
" I can't agree with that because the evidence just isn't there for that."
I think you are ignoring the observable evidence, the genetic evidence, fossil and geological record etc etc etc. If you don't see the evidence, I think its because you are ignoring it.
"Then I think we're a bit closer than we might expect"
ReplyDeleteGood :)
"I think what we KNOW about evolution is consistent with a God who created everything"
The thing is, I think anything could be consistent with a God who created everything. This is because I don't think saying God did it answers anything, it adds no meaningful information.
Let's return to my example of the aliens who had been monitoring our planet's life since the beginning and keeping amazing records. Let's extend it and say they observed all life including abiogenesis. Suppose we can actually see how life started, and with the help of those aliens we can really understand how life started from non-life. Would this disprove God? I say absolutely not.
I might look at that data and say "wow, this is beautiful, we can see how life got started and how the complexity of life evolved over time. We don't even need God, we can understand how this all happened with purely natural processes."
You might look at the exact same data and say something like "wow, this is beautiful, now we can see how life got started and how the complexity of life evolved on this planet. Isn't it amazing to see how god did everything?"
In that scenario, we are both looking at the same data and agreeing about what we are seeing, we are just interpreting it a bit differently. I don't really understand why the conversation can't go this way more often. If evolution was true it doesn't prove God wrong or something, but some people seem to think it does.
" As the OP states, his definition of evolution is that man descended from apes."
This is probably just the mathematician in me being a stickler for terminology, but he doesn't say that evolution is "man descended from apes". Evolution is change over time. Our theory of evolution includes the claim that man and apes have common ancestry because the evidence has led to that conclusion.
I would be interested in following your blog. I saw an email subscription thing but didn't see an RSS feed, is there a button somewhere I didn't notice?
Our theory of evolution includes the claim that man and apes have common ancestry because the evidence has led to that conclusion.
DeleteAnd on this point I disagree. Genetics only shows similarities, not descension. If we're talking about changes in environment over time, I can go with that. If we're talking about changes in species without intervention, I can't go with that, because the evidence doesn't point to that conclusion. For that reason, I can't accept evolution.
As I've said before, I also steer clear of it because its counterpart, creationism, not only takes into account changes in environment over time, but the genetic similarities AND genetic differences. It also provides a record of origins, so it gives us a more robust framework with which to follow the evidence. The current theory of evolution just can't keep up. So I see no good reason to abandon creationism based on what evidence is actually available. Perhaps we'll just have to amicably agree to disagree.
I would be interested in following your blog. I saw an email subscription thing but didn't see an RSS feed, is there a button somewhere I didn't notice?
I looked into it, and apparently the theme I have selected for my blog doesn't allow for an RSS feed. Sorry. You're welcome to subscribe via E-mail. I've never actually seen the list of who has subscribed to my blog, so rest assured that you will be subscribed in relative anonymity. :-) Thanks!
"And on this point I disagree. Genetics only shows similarities, not descension. If we're talking about changes in environment over time, I can go with that. If we're talking about changes in species without intervention, I can't go with that, because the evidence doesn't point to that conclusion. For that reason, I can't accept evolution."
DeleteThe Molecular clock is a good place to start. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molecular_clock We've also seen new species arise in labs, just look at flies. Within just a few generations apart, they are no longer able to breed with each other, ergo different species.
I think believing in micro evolution and not in macro evolution is like saying that you believe that wind erodes rock, but can not erode mountains. It's the same process, but just on different time scales.
Micro-Evolution, One Species adapting/evolving into the same species is Observed, one species evolving into a new/different species, has never been observed.
Delete"Are you unaware that the fossil record and genetic code are evidence supporting evolution or do you not find said evidence compelling?"
ReplyDeleteNo they are not evidence, in order to be evidence it must support evolution only, this is not the case, as we can theorize that a Designer(YHWH) created species very similar and at different levels, and thus it appears as if they evolved or transitioned.
Genetic code? what do you mean by this? if you mean Random Mutation, it's still not evidence as death exists and can be the cause of this. death is Bible-comptible.
"Do you believe that the evidence in support of evolution is disinformation spread by a conspiracy of academics and government officials or disinformation planted by God to test our faith?
None, I don't believe it's a conspiracy or disinformation, as YHWH(The Father and The Son and The Holy Spirit) does not tempt us(James 1:13-14)
I believe it is based on a naturalistic assumption, that since species look similar and that YHWH made different levels of species, some which look similar to us, that it is assumed that we must have some relation to them, thus evolution idea was born.
The reason I don't believe in evolution is because it's simple to refute, however this still doesn't help? Why? because when I refute someone says "why don't all scientist agree" or "where's your nobel prize", which doesn't refute anything, it's a Fallacious argument of Popularity, just because most don't accept evolution as refuted, doesn't mean it's not refuted, alot of scientific myths still roam because people do not like change or popularity.
The main reason though is this, One Species has never been observed to evolve into a New/Different Species, while we can observe Intelligence in DNA, I have no reason to believe in evolution until I can observe it with my own eyes, like I can with Substance Dualism(Things Unseen as Bible says), Quantum Mechanics, and Intelligent Design.
The Shroud has more evidence than does evolution, usually people call it a medevil creation, however this has been refuted long ago by evidence on Shroud contradicting the date, faulty carbon dating in 1988, and recent scientific evidence proving it's not from midevil times but WAY before(1st Century),
http://jamestabor.com/2013/04/02/an-authentic-first-century-burial-shroud-from-jerusalem/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/28/shroud-of-turin-real-jesus_n_2971850.html