Re: Evolution vs Creationism
Creationism
|
You are not logged in. Please login or register.
Creationism
Every minor step in the evolutionary chain has to impart some improved probability of survival otherwise the step won't "take" and won't be incorporated into the genetic line.
Does anyone have any idea how the flounder could have evolved to have both eyes on the same side of it's head starting from it's ancestors having both eyes on opposite sides of the head. Obviously if the step happens in 1 generation then it is easy to see the advantage, because the flounder lays on it's side on the bottom of the ocean and can use both top-side eyes to see.
But the eye moved slowly generation after generation up one side of the head around to the other side. My question is what evolutionary advantage does having an eye a few millimeters higher on 1 side give?
Thats a good question. I'm very interested in this answer as well.
*Scoots codemonkey over on the couch and takes a hand full of popcorn*
*Stares at Dr.Vu*
I think Dr. Vu might be god! Woe, what bittersweet irony!
I love Science, I love everything about it
Greatest studies ever
I dont believe in religon i dont go to church, i study books regarding the bible, but really cant read the bible itself
However a famous Physicist said this
"If you study science deep enough and long enough it will force you to believe in God" - Lord Kelvin
The universe is so mathematically correct its unbelievable, and the body itself from the smallest feature like gratification during reproduction to every single blood cell in your body to its own defense. Sells me on a creator as we know as GOD. I too was questionable at one time... It was hard to believe in all of that...and i can see why. But i didn't ask anyone, i went out and seeked for myself... and i found my answers over years of my own research...
I am far from religious, because i believe religion as a tool and started from people taking the word of God and manipulating and interpreting it to there own self gain... however... It had to have started from something...
Do i know? cant tell you thats why i stay to my own studies... Ill probably wont have the answers in my lifetime however I will when I die
-Ryan
Last edited by Ryan Riedel (2010-07-16 20:15:08)
Historically, many men who have contributed to the knowledge base of modern science have believed in a supernatural creator. Here is a list of scientists in the past who believed in "God."
Louis Agassiz (1807-1873; glacial geology)
Charles Babbage (1792-1871; computer science)
Francis Bacon (1561-1626; scientific method)
Robert Boyle (1627-1691; gas dynamics)
David Brewster (1781-1868; optical mineralogy)
Georges Cuvier (1769-1832; comparative anatomy)
Leonardo da Vinci (1452-1519; hydraulics)
Humphrey Davy (1778-1829; thermokinetics)
Henri Fabre (1823-1915; entomology of living insects)
Michael Faraday (1791-1867; electromagnetics)
John Ambrose Fleming (1849-1945; electronics)
Joseph Henry (1797-1878; inventor)
William Herschel (1738-1822; galactic astronomy)
James Joule (1818-1889; reversible thermodynamics)
Lord Kelvin (1824-1907; energetics)
Johann Kepler (1571-1630; celestial mechanics)
Carolus Linnaeus (1707-1778; systematic biology)
Joseph Lister (1827-1912; antiseptic surgery)
Matthew Maury (1806-1873; oceanography)
James Clerk Maxwell (1831-1879; electrodynamics)
Gregor Mendel (1822-1884; genetics)
Samuel F. B. Morse (1791-1872; telegraph inventor)
Isaac Newton (1642-1727; calculus)
Blaise Pascal (1623-1662; hydrostatics)
Louis Pasteur (1822-1895; bacteriology)
William Ramsay (1852-1916; isotopic chemistry)
John Ray (1627-1705; natural history)
Lord Rayleigh (1842-1919; dimensional analysis)
Bernhard Riemann (1826- 1866; non-Euclidean geometry)
James Simpson (1811-1870; gynecology)
Nicholas Steno (1631-1686; stratigraphy)
George Stokes (1819-1903; fluid mechanics)
Rudolph Virchow (1821-1902; pathology)
John Woodward (1665-1728; paleontology)
-SOURCE: Morris, Henry M. 1982. Bible-believing scientists of the past. Impact 103 (Jan.), http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=185
Often, people will invoke the name of a well respected individual and use it as an argument as to the validity of their claims. I honestly believe that this is one of the greatest persuasive errors that one can make in this sort of debate. This strategy is of course nothing more than the logical fallacy of an "Appeal to Authority."
Source A says that p is true.
Source A is authoritative.
Therefore, p is true.
You see, the human mind has many rooms. One can be a genius and see everything with objectively wide open eyes in one arena and be absolutely blind and a slave to his emotional wants in another. It isn't that these individuals are incapable of intelligence, reason and objective thought, quite contrary to that, these individuals have proven otherwise. Yet, what can be said is that they are guilty of being inconsistent in the application of these tools in different arenas of thought and discovery (one example of such a person is Dr. Francis Collins.)
The validity of ideas rests on what the evidence says, not on what people say.
In science, we don't debate ideas, we debate the evidence that support these ideas.
Many of the scientists in the above list also believed in alchemy, curing sickness by blood letting, and in the literal creation story of Genesis, the Great Flood, the Tower of Babel, and Jonah and the Whale, etc....
Many lived before the Theory of Evolution, Cell Theory, Atomic Theory, etc...were even proposed. Others knew of these theories associated with modern science, but were not familiar with all the evidence for it ( just as many people TODAY, who are unfamiliar with modern scientific discoveries, are still unaware of the evidence, or worse, refuse to accept sound evidence as it would contradict their dogmatic religious beliefs.)
A couple of hundred years ago, before modern evidence-based science was established, virtually all scientists also believed in the supernatural, including scientists in relevant fields such as biology and geology. Today, virtually all relevant scientists accept the Theory of Evolution, Cell Theory, Atomic Theory, Tectonic Plate Theory, Gravitational Theory and other Naturalistic explanations of the universe.
Such a turnabout could only be caused by overwhelming evidence which came to light, within the past few hundred years, through natural explanations as discovered and presented by science. So what about the prevalence of religious scientists today? Great scientist who profess religion become harder and harder to find through the twentieth century.
The following data is from 1991.
Of the scientists and engineers in the United States, only about 5% are creationists who hold a belief a supernatural creator god. However, this number includes those working in fields NOT related to life origins (such as computer scientists, mechanical engineers, etc.) Taking into account only those working in the relevant fields of earth and life sciences, there are about 480,000 scientists, but only about 700 believe in "creation-science" or consider it a valid theory (Robinson 1995). This means that less than 0.15 percent (not 15% but 0.15%!) of relevant scientists believe in a supernatural creator who had a hand in the creation of the universe and life. And that is just in the United States, which has more creationists than any other industrialized country. In other countries, the number of relevant scientists who accept creationism drops to less than one tenth of 1 percent.
SOURCES:
-Witham, Larry. 1997. Many scientists see God's hand in evolution. Reports of the National Center for Science Education 17(6): 33.
-Robinson, B. A. 1995. Public beliefs about evolution and creation. http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.html
There is overwhelming evidence in support of science and naturalism and no valid arguments against it.
There is absolutely NO credible evidence to support supernaturalism.
One needs to examine not how many scientists and professors believe something, but what their conviction is based upon. Most of those who accept Supernaturalism do so because of personal religious conviction (an emotional need for a benevolent creator) not because of the evidence. The evidence supports Science and Naturalism exclusively.
And the evidence, not personal authority, is what objective conclusions should be based on.
Dr. Vu
p.s. "The argument from design" or in other words, claims that our "perfect" design is credible evidence for God, is another disjointed argument that has historically taken man down dead end roads. Yes, the human body is amazing, but do you also recognize how mechanically, physiologically, pathologically, genetically and biochemically, inefficient and flawed the human body is?
Take for example, one of the greatest scientific minds of our time, Dr. Stephen Hawking, who suffers from Amyotrophic Lateral Scelorosis. Where does God's perfection in design stand when confronted with such an obvious genetic mistake leading to a crippling and often lethal motor neuron disease that affects thousands? Of course....this must all be part of God's "perfect" plan.
-Stephen Hawking on Religion: "Science will win, because it works."
Last edited by Dr Vu (2010-07-18 17:48:22)
p.s. "The argument from design" or in other words, claims that our "perfect" design is credible evidence for God, is another flawed argument that has historically taken man down dead end roads ("Why should we fix the XYZ defect, God must have made it that way for a purpose!") Yes, the human body is amazing, but do you also understand how mechanically, physiologically, pathologically, genetically and biochemically, inefficient and flawed our bodies actually are?
Case in point, one of the greatest scientific minds of our time, Dr. Stephen Hawking, who suffers from Amyotrophic Lateral Scelorosis. Where does God's perfection in design stand when confronted with such an obvious genetic mistake leading to a crippling and often lethal motor neuron disease? Then of course....this must all be part of "God's plan."
-Stephen Hawking on Religion: "Science will win, because it works."
I am curious as i would guess you are a doctor, how you come to believe our bodies are flawed?
You see the argument is yes some people come out with defects. But it makes me think of a car.
Now if you think about it, a vehicle is very complex and is created by design, usually if one part of the engine fails, its only a matter of time before it blows. And If a minor part fails it usually can make it fronm a to b but wont be the same as when you BOUGHT it...Regardless a car can leave the factory and make it all the way to 300k before retiring because of old age and wear on the parts. And some can make it to 20k miles and has to be recalled or it can simply blow its engine and make it to a junkyard in no matter of time at all...
Doesn't that reflect a human body on a smaller scale?
I mean if you think about the smallest things how exactly did it come to that?
I mean why do humans walk upright? If we all in fact started as single cell organisms, why is the grass green and just sits there when it started as a single cell organism itself? Why are we almost the most complex beings on the earth? Why do animals only live with instinct, but humans are given the gift to think? I mean bears and lions, and dogs have brains, why can they not think and make decisions? Why were they given legs and the ability to eat? Why weren't they able to walk upright?
Of course no human is going to come out perfect, but dang they get pretty darn close. At least to the knowledge we have today.
My biggest mind candy, is that through our years, humans have created almost everything you see around us. We have constructed with our own sweat blood and hands... We put together a beautiful habitat, to live our lives easier and better...a working economy in one word.
So if humans can build all of this...( a vehicle, a computer, a weapon, to everything we see around us) why is it easy to say we just happened?
Another wards... Everything around us we know was built by us, however humans themselves which are more complex than anything we have around us today just came to be...
Also science has really yet to be 100% correct. It seems science IMO has its limitations , in fact strongly pointed to other explanations than natural ones to certain questions
For instance whats the process was by which the original life, the original living cells upon the earth, came into existence? And Which of the particular theories was the one that is most acceptable and that explains the creation of matter from nothing?
Its questions like these i can never get an answer on. matter of fact ive been told its beyond the realm of science...well if its beyond the realm of science, who can explain it?
I mean why do humans walk upright?
Because when early humans moved from swinging in the trees out onto the plains, it was an advantage to be able to see further and see possible predators / food sources at distance.
If we all in fact started as single cell organisms, why is the grass green and just sits there when it started as a single cell organism itself?
Because it went along a separate evolutionary path.
Why are we almost the most complex beings on the earth?
We have to be, to ask that question, if we wern't, then some other creature would be asking that question, see the anthropic principle
Why do animals only live with instinct, but humans are given the gift to think? I mean bears and lions, and dogs have brains, why can they not think and make decisions? Why were they given legs and the ability to eat? Why weren't they able to walk upright?
What makes you think that animals don't think and make decisions? Go and watch this 3-part series on what makes us human, and you will find that there is not much that differs us from animals:
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/humanspark/
Of course no human is going to come out perfect, but dang they get pretty darn close. At least to the knowledge we have today.
How long have we been making and improving cars for? 150 years? that's not very long to get the design right, every car is normally an improvement over the previous model getting better and better, more features, more safe, more comfortable etc.
Modern humans have been around for 200,000 years, in pretty much their present form, Homo Erectus (Upright Man) was living up to 1.8 million years ago. That's a long time to perfect the design.
My biggest mind candy, is that through our years, humans have created almost everything you see around us. We have constructed with our own sweat blood and hands... We put together a beautiful habitat, to live our lives easier and better...a working economy in one word.
Beautiful for who? you? I am certain that the millions of species that are going extinct around us don't think it's so beautiful.
For instance whats the process was by which the original life, the original living cells upon the earth, came into existence? And Which of the particular theories was the one that is most acceptable and that explains the creation of matter from nothing?
Its questions like these i can never get an answer on. matter of fact ive been told its beyond the realm of science...well if its beyond the realm of science, who can explain it?
Science will always have unanswered questions as we delve deeper and deeper. There are theories that predict ways in which life can evolve from non-life, of which I am no expert on. But having plausible methods of how life could come into being from non-life will not tell us how it did occur. Scientists have recently created the first artificial life in the lab. And I am sure within the coming years there is going to be more exciting and more complex artificial life created in the lab for specific purposes.
Ryan, Thanks for the questions. They are all valid and important points to address and I think Codemonkey76 has provided excellent answers.
But to add to this discussion, IMHO, Science has done a far greater job of finding legitimate answers than religion/supernaturalism. I honestly do not think that one can reasonably advocate both and be consistent and here's why:
The track record of Religion's claims as to the veracity of the truths of the universe speak poorly for religion's basis in supernaturalism. So much so that whenever science has confronted religion in this arena, science has decidedly won, and the track record will show that it has been a complete and total shut out.
The number of times a scientific explanation has replaced a supernatural one? Too many to count.
The number of times a supernatural explanation has replaced a scientific one? ZERO!
The historical battles between supernaturalism and science, such as those in physics, astronomy, biology, geology, etc... demonstrate that there is something wrong with the supernatural approach to the study of reality. The underlying problem extends to religion's default answer to everything that it does not understand:
When a question arises about the nature of the universe, the religious default answer is inevitably..."God"
And with this default answer comes no credible evidence, the logic of these supernatural claims are never spelled out, and the superstitous explanations lack any sort of mechanism (save for magic.)
Ancient Egyptian Vu: What is the sun?
Ancient Egyptian Ryan: Aman-Ra'!
Ancient Greek Vu: Ryan, why is there lightening?
Ancient Greek Ryan: Zeus!
Ancient Nordic Vu: Ryan, Why is there Thunder?
Ancient Nordic Ryan: Thor!
Modern Vu: "Ryan, what is the origin of man?"
Modern Ryan: God!
(and of course, all these religions presented holy scripture from sacred traditions that they used as evidence.)
ex: Martin Luther, the founder of Protestant Christianity, commented on Copernicus' theory that the Earth orbits the sun: “'This fool wishes to reverse the entire science of astronomy; but sacred Scripture tells us that Joshua commanded the sun to stand still, and not the earth' (Psa xciii. I), and exclaimed: 'Who will venture to place the authority of Copernicus above that of the Holy Spirit?'”
SOURCE: Russell, Bertrand, "History of Western Philosophy" by Bertrand Russell (1935)8
Scientists had to suffer torture, silencing, imprisonment and death at the hands of religious leaders who didn't agree with newly discovered facts about the world (most certainly because these new discoveries were so corrosive to their supernatural beliefs.) Religion lost the first battle with astronomers who realized that, contrary to what the Church asserted, the Sun did not orbit the Earth, and that the Universe doesn't seem to be designed specifically for humankind.
Copernicus (1473-1543), Kepler (1571-1630), Galileo (1564-1642), Newton (1643-1727) and Laplace (1749-1827) all fought battles against the Church when they published scientific papers challenging religious orthodoxy. Bible verses were all the "theories" that the religious needed; Joshua 10:12-13, Kings 20:11, Isaiah 38:8, Isaiah 30:26 all contradicted astronomers. But through intelligence, truth gradually won out over superstition and supernatural dogma, and the Church retreated... only to go on to fight similar ignorant battles, and adamantly impose dogmatic errors in the arenas of physics (origins of the universe,) biology (Evolution/ the origins of man) and philosophy.
Without such interference from supernaturalism, science would be more than a thousand years more advanced.
Those who put faith in the supernatural have historically taken every opportunity to sacrifice the truth, as discovered by science, to protect their unfounded supernatural beliefs. (If you don't believe this is still happening, just google Kent Hovind, Ken Ham, Michael Behe, The Discovery Institute, Texas Board of Education, Kansas Board of Education/ Kansas Evolution Hearings, etc....)
This is why Science and Religion are incompatible.
Last edited by Dr Vu (2010-07-19 07:38:19)
"I am curious as i would guess you are a doctor, how you come to believe our bodies are flawed?" -Ryan
- Poor bipedal mechanics and weak supporting ligaments in our lower extremities: We've transitioned from an arboreal existence in the trees to one walking upright on two legs so we aren't designed to walk or run very well. Have you noticed how slow we are relative to the rest of terrestrial mammals our size? or how often we injure structures in our lower extremities and our backs?
- More teeth than a modern upright skull (mandible and maxilla) can hold. When our ancestors had a more cephalad skull to body orientation (think dogs,) your wisdom teeth would have fit all fine.
- Vestigial structures which had a purpose in our ancestors but serve absolutely no purpose now (appendix, wisdom teeth, coccyx, ear muscles, etc...) How about nipples on males? Thats always an interesting one!
Besides just basic anatomy, I could go on for days with respect to
- physiology - the blood flow through your lungs and the air you breath into them are not matched (in fact, our design is pathetic compared to a simple sparrow's lungs), genetics (prevalence of certain cancer genes, Ex: for men, there is almost a 100% chance you will get prostate cancer in old age.), metabolism/endocrinology (we have a tough time dealing with sugar,) etc.....I could go on but this would go beyond most people's scope of understanding on this forum.
Needless to say, the human body has many many small mistakes (we're playing evolutionary catch up of course on many of these fronts) and a few really blatant and critical mistakes. 
"So if humans can build all of this...( a vehicle, a computer, a weapon, to everything we see around us) why is it easy to say we just happened? Another wards... Everything around us we know was built by us, however humans themselves which are more complex than anything we have around us today just came to be..." - Ryan
So can I assume that by your same logic, that you would conclude that something had created "God" as well? 
Last edited by Dr Vu (2010-07-19 07:46:58)
I have been eagerly awaiting a book that I ordered off Amazon:
From Eternity To Here: The quest for the ultimate theory of time
I get a call from my wife today to say that my parcel has arrived, i get home and excitedly open the parcel to find:
From Eternity To Here: Rediscovering the ageless purpose of God
URRGGGH!!!! the Irony!!!!
Anyone wanna buy this book off me before I burn it, Poppa? Ryan?
DR VU: Id like to add acouple to your list
Francis Collins- geneticist (present)
noted for his landmark discoveries of disease genes and his leadership of the Human Genome Project (HGP) and described by the Endocrine Society as "one of the most accomplished scientists of our time"
-wiki
and
Alister Edgar McGrath who uses both science and religion...
all this talk works better with beers...haha...anyway i apologize for questioning other ones beliefs, i try not to do that. I am still in the process for finding my on answer myself, people will never be able to answer these questions, so i seek else where.
I do not carry religious thoughts, however i have beliefs BASED off religion, but am not a follower...
I hope you all find the answers your looking for as we all will one day.
whats wierd
In a non sickening way, i guess this is what fascinates me with death... biggest mystery, biggest answer.
Dr Vu, what are your beliefs in death? As a doctor im sure you deal with it alot
I some time say to myself, if this is "IT" take me now, cause i do not want to build up my life just to watch it all go to waste...
But i take other beliefs on my own, and im sticking with em
We will all find peace one day... believers and no believers alike
-Ryan
PS: Thanks codemonkey for the book offer but i still gotta read this bible... and then another book that explains the bible by Kenneth C DAVIS
author of the "Dont know much about" series...
I loved his space book
However i recommend selling it to a book donation spot so someone else may read .... its always a good deed
Last edited by Ryan Riedel (2010-07-20 19:48:54)
|
CONTACT US | ABOUT US | TERMS OF USE | PRIVACY | LINKS
|
    
|
