Evolution vs Creationism

[AngryAnt]

I wouldn't worry too much, I'm yet to see an ID or Creationist "scientific" theory that can't be shot down after a modicum of thought.

 

[KnightersRevenge]

I wouldn't worry too much, I'm yet to see an ID or Creationist "scientific" theory that can't be shot down after a modicum of thought.

No doubt. As I said on the Christianity thread I will always try to make sure that I follow any post that sells faith as reason or pseudo-science as science with a logical reasonable counter lest it sit in the ether unchallenged and be presumed either logical or reasonable.

 

[Djevv]

KR Young Earth Creation is very controversial even in Christian circles. But it does make testable claims so I thought 'it is possibly science'. I'm not so blinded or one-eyed with my philosophical leanings that I can't entertain such a thought. But looking at the faith statement and doing some calculations on some of their claims quickly disabused me of that idea. Their Young Earth model simply doesn't explain things well enough to be a viable alternative model (as history of science maybe). The science class should be purely for science and not philosophy or religion. Ultimately though, I think it is impossible to do that completely and as a teacher you've sometimes got to put things in perspective and try to separate the non-scientific philosophy from what is actually testable.

I haven't stepped back from being a creationist as in I think God is ulimately responsible for all we see in the natural world, just not of the young earth variety.

 

[Azza]

Personally I have no problem with your stance Djevv. I doubt science would ever be in a position to disprove God. The problem comes when people corrupt scientific method to prove their faith, and worse, force others to take that seriously.

 

[KnightersRevenge]

KR Young Earth Creation is very controversial even in Christian circles. But it does make testable claims so I thought 'it is possibly science'. I'm not so blinded or one-eyed with my philosophical leanings that I can't entertain such a thought. But looking at the faith statement and doing some calculations on some of their claims quickly disabused me of that idea. Their Young Earth model simply doesn't explain things well enough to be a viable alternative model (as history of science maybe). The science class should be purely for science and not philosophy or religion. Ultimately though, I think it is impossible to do that completely and as a teacher you've sometimes got to put things in perspective and try to separate the non-scientific philosophy from what is actually testable.

I haven't stepped back from being a creationist as in I think God is ulimately responsible for all we see in the natural world, just not of the young earth variety.

As is your want Djevv. As a teacher you have a responsibility to not confuse faith with reason though. It should not be impossible to explain that the scientific underpinnings of biology are the "best explanation" at the current time and have proved to be both predictive and accurate without recourse to god. As with most atheists I do not claim "there is no god" but that "there is no evidence". Without evidence there is no science so it has no place in a science classroom - Young Earth or otherwise. Creation "science" is an attempt to shoe-horn complex biology and evolution into a poorly defined and badly diguised theological framework.

The idea that it makes testable claims seems essentially philosophical not scientific. Is anyone actually "doing" creation science? It seems to me creationists simply scour biology looking for areas where they can create disinformation around complex systems. That is not science. They also consistently misunderstand or intentionally misrepresent the nature of the randomness of evolution and miscategorise natural selection as a process which refines biology ever upward with "man" at the pinnacle.

 

[Djevv]

As is your want Djevv. As a teacher you have a responsibility to not confuse faith with reason though. It should not be impossible to explain that the scientific underpinnings of biology are the "best explanation" at the current time and have proved to be both predictive and accurate without recourse to god.

The scientific method is taught as well as the theory in all the different areas of science. I'm not sure what confusing faith and reason means. God can occasionally be mentioned in the science classroom (usually by the students) depending on what subject is being taught - but only very occasionally.

As with most atheists I do not claim "there is no god" but that "there is no evidence". Without evidence there is no science so it has no place in a science classroom - Young Earth or otherwise. Creation "science" is an attempt to shoe-horn complex biology and evolution into a poorly defined and badly diguised theological framework.

Isn't atheism a religious position with no place in the science classroom? That is what I think. Are you saying it should be promoted? As for my position on YEC I've made that clear in previous posts.

The idea that it makes testable claims seems essentially philosophical not scientific. Is anyone actually "doing" creation science?

yes they make testable claims. Their claims about evidences for a young earth can be tested, I've done it myself. So have talk.origins, as well as many others. They have their own peer-reviewed publications. So yes they do do research. But with AIG they basically say they do science as a ministry, not as true research, doesn't make their science wrong, but it's hard to escape claims of bias and fudging.

It seems to me creationists simply scour biology looking for areas where they can create disinformation around complex systems. That is not science. They also consistently misunderstand or intentionally misrepresent the nature of the randomness of evolution and miscategorise natural selection as a process which refines biology ever upward with "man" at the pinnacle.

The complex systems have to be explained somehow. ID is a possible explanation. I don't see why it is scientifically invalid to attempt to test for that possibility? Whatever else you might say about Man scientifically he is certainly at the top of the food chain. How did he get there?

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

The complex systems have to be explained somehow. ID is a possible explanation. I don't see why it is scientifically invalid to attempt to test for that possibility? Whatever else you might say about Man scientifically he is certainly at the top of the food chain. How did he get there?

ID is not a scientific explanation as the hypothesis is not testable. If you disagree, I would be interested to hear what you would consider a scientifically valid experiment.

When you study biology one of the earliest revelations is the mundane nature of man in so many aspects. Certainly we have some interesting biological adaptations, primarily in cognition and problem solving, but looking at humans from any other perspective reveals what we are, one of the billions of current iterations that evolution has come up with. Anthropocentrism and exceptionalism in biololgy is an easy trap to fall into (especially when your ancient text describes our dominion over all other life), but it only takes a little digging to see how wrong (and actively damaging) that position is.

 

[Djevv]

ID is not a scientific explanation as the hypothesis is not testable. If you disagree, I would be interested to hear what you would consider a scientifically valid experiment.

It's the null hypothesis in my view. We already know intelligence can produce designed purposeful complexity. But no I can't think of a test that would tell for sure. I said that in a previous post.

When you study biology one of the earliest revelations is the mundane nature of man in so many aspects. Certainly we have some interesting biological adaptations, primarily in cognition and problem solving, but looking at humans from any other perspective reveals what we are, one of the billions of current iterations that evolution has come up with. Anthropocentrism and exceptionalism in biololgy is an easy trap to fall into (especially when your ancient text describes our dominion over all other life), but it only takes a little digging to see how wrong (and actively damaging) that position is.

I do think we are exceptional, not biologically, but in terms of our inner life. The evidence is in our art, complex society, abstract reasoning ability and spiritual side. Reality is we DO have dominion over the Earth. There is danger on both sides of the debate - if we are merely animals, well inalienable human rights endowed by our creator are out the window, human life has no more value than that of a dog. The history of the 20th century is testament to that fact. On the other side I guess 'dominion' becomes debased into rape and pillage of the environment that is bad too.

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

It's the null hypothesis in my view. We already know intelligence can produce designed purposeful complexity. But no I can't think of a test that would tell for sure. I said that in a previous post.

If it ain't testable, it ain't science. It isn't a matter of testing to "tell for sure". Science doesn't do that.

I do think we are exceptional, not biologically, but in terms of our inner life. The evidence is in our art, complex society, abstract reasoning ability and spiritual side. Reality is we DO have dominion over the Earth. There is danger on both sides of the debate - if we are merely animals, well inalienable human rights endowed by our creator are out the window, human life has no more value than that of a dog. The history of the 20th century is testament to that fact. On the other side I guess 'dominion' becomes debased into rape and pillage of the environment that is bad too.

This is the anthropocentric view that I was referring to. You find those things exceptional, because you can do them. They are very interesting, but there are huge amounts of exceptional adaptations in the biosphere that we become just a part (an interesting part) of the whole. That is what years of biological study will show you. I find the vast array of biochemistry amongst the microorganisms on this planet far more remarkable.

As for dominion, I find that view remarkable. We are a very young species (only 190,000 years) and we are already learning that our activity may be making the future survival of our species (and so many others) questionable. If you consider that dominion, than fair enough.

It is interesting that you bring up the 'no morality without God' canard. Can you really see no naturalistic explanation of morality without invoking a God? You are an animal (in the biological sense ), so if you need to invoke a higher power to do good in this world, so be it. I try to do the right thing because I am part of population that has evolved as a social species, wherein cooperation and altruism are both favoured. As a human I have the ability to rationalise and empathise with my fellow humans. You see no survival aspects to that in the history of our species? It is certainly not unique to humans BTW. It is a feature of many social animal populations.

 

[Djevv]

If it ain't testable, it ain't science. It isn't a matter of testing to "tell for sure". Science doesn't do that.

ID advocates would say that irreducible complexity is a possible test. But I am not sure how that would work in practice. How do you test if complex piece of coding is naturally produced when this has never been observed?

This is the anthropocentric view that I was referring to. You find those things exceptional, because you can do them. They are very interesting, but there are huge amounts of exceptional adaptations in the biosphere that we become just a part (an interesting part) of the whole. That is what years of biological study will show you. I find the vast array of biochemistry amongst the microorganisms on this planet far more remarkable.

I think biochemistry is an amazing area of science. When I read anything at all on it I do find it hard to believe there is no intelligent agent behind it all. But I don't understand how this relates to human execeptionalism. In terms of biology we are not exceptional.

As for dominion, I find that view remarkable. We are a very young species (only 190,000 years) and we are already learning that our activity may be making the future survival of our species (and so many others) questionable. If you consider that dominion, than fair enough.

Didn't say we always do the right thing, but right for now we are the dominant species on the planet.

It is interesting that you bring up the 'no morality without God' canard. Can you really see no naturalistic explanation of morality without invoking a God? You are an animal (in the biological sense ), so if you need to invoke a higher power to do good in this world, so be it. I try to do the right thing because I am part of population that has evolved as a social species, wherein cooperation and altruism are both favoured. As a human I have the ability to rationalise and empathise with my fellow humans. You see no survival aspects to that in the history of our species? It is certainly not unique to humans BTW. It is a feature of many social animal populations.

The point I made was only that no one would like to be treated the way we treat animals, but without a special place for humanity, anything is possible.Here is a case in point. In my view being created beings does give us a lot more in terms of dignity and value than being simply biomass. Yes I do think morality is transcendent and true morality is self evident to all people. Evolutionary ideas on morality always devolve to selfishness and survivalism which to me cheapens moral excellence. I cannot honestly see what telling evolutionary stories adds to our conception of morality.

 

[evo]

ID is not a scientific explanation as the hypothesis is not testable. If you disagree, I would be interested to hear what you would consider a scientifically valid experiment.

When you study biology one of the earliest revelations is the mundane nature of man in so many aspects. Certainly we have some interesting biological adaptations, primarily in cognition and problem solving, but looking at humans from any other perspective reveals what we are, one of the billions of current iterations that evolution has come up with. Anthropocentrism and exceptionalism in biololgy is an easy trap to fall into (especially when your ancient text describes our dominion over all other life), but it only takes a little digging to see how wrong (and actively damaging) that position is.

Yep. Man is nothing special. I was watching a documentary last night on SBS about two opposing tribes of monkeys who live around an INdian temple. THey were so human-like in so many aspects of their social life it was amazing. They had a healthier diet than most humans as well.

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

ID advocates would say that irreducible complexity is a possible test. But I am not sure how that would work in practice. How do you test if complex piece of coding is naturally produced when this has never been observed?

Indeed they do and have always come up wanting. This is the problem with trying to devise hypotheses to conform to a preconceived conclusion.

As for never observing the evolution of 'complex' coding. We do, all the time. Mutation and novel evolutionary strategies can be observed at the molecular level, especially in the relatively rapid terms of microbial evolution. Why do you introduce the idea of a creator to explain it in multicellular organisms, with their longer generation times? It is a classic 'god of the gaps' argument.

I think biochemistry is an amazing area of science. When I read anything at all on it I do find it hard to believe there is no intelligent agent behind it all. But I don't understand how this relates to human execeptionalism. In terms of biology we are not exceptional.

I understand the sentiment, when you start to look at the beautiful complexity of metabolic pathways. It is when you start to look at comparative biochemistry and the comparative genomics that underpins it that you start to see a clearer picture of how such amazing systems evolved. My point about exceptionalism was in reference to your statement that we are somehow different. Our cognitive abilities are no more spectacular (IMO) than the ability of many species of microorganism that live without the requirement of sunlight, directly or indirectly. Each has evolved its own way of harvesting energy from this planet in fascinating ways. From a biochemistry perspective that is remarkable and in no way requires divine intervention.

Didn't say we always do the right thing, but right for now we are the dominant species on the planet.

The anthropocentric view again. Dominant how? Remove some key species that fix nitrogen, or fix carbon and you will quickly see how unremarkable we are. We are a small part of the biosphere. You are more bacteria than human (by an order of magnitude at the cellular level). Look into it and experience humility .

The point I made was only that no one would like to be treated the way we treat animals, but without a special place for humanity, anything is possible.Here is a case in point. In my view being created beings does give us a lot more in terms of dignity and value than being simply biomass. Yes I do think morality is transcendent and true morality is self evident to all people. Evolutionary ideas on morality always devolve to selfishness and survivalism which to me cheapens moral excellence. I cannot honestly see what telling evolutionary stories adds to our conception of morality.

Just because you would like it be so, does not make it thus. I wouldn't want to be treated the way we treat many animals either. However, the reality is that the majority of human life in the history of this planet has been characterised by struggle and misery, like it or not, and despite your ideas of a benevolent creator. It isn't all that different in the present. We are just lucky to live in the prosperous, relatively egalitarian society that we were lucky enough to be born into.

I find dignity and fulfillment through family, sacrifice and the common experience of my fellow travellers. There is no spiritual aspect to this in the sense that you describe it.

I didn't say that the hypotheses regarding the evolution of social behaviour have been confirmed, just that they are plausible and easily observed in other social 'animals' that we apparently have dominion over. Was that created for them too?

 

[Azza]

Whatever else you might say about Man scientifically he is certainly at the top of the food chain. How did he get there?

All living beings are products of adaptation to environment through natural selection. DNA is the mechanism for expressing, storing, and passing-on physical changes that are environmentally beneficial.

But physical change through the DNA process is relatively slow - what happens when environmental change is repeatedly dramatic and rapid? An organism that develops a quicker means of adapting and passing those adaptations on to complement its DNA will out-compete those plodding along relying purely on DNA.

That's what humans did.

Humans evolved through the Quaternary period, a time when over about a million years, every 125,000 or so the climate swung between glacials and interglacials. Climates fluctuated dramatically between cold and hot and wet and dry, ice sheets advanced and retreated, and sea levels fluctuated up to 100 metres.

Under those conditions it can be seen as almost inevitable that an organism would evolve that, rather than finding suitable mutations, moving, or dying, could both manipulate it's environment through tools AND pass those methods on to others of the same species through non-genetic communication and memory - ie develop culture.

This ability to change the environment rather be changed by it developed exponentially as tools, language, and memory devices (eg writing) became more and more sophisticated.

Bang, top of the food chain.

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

All living beings are products of adaptation to environment through natural selection. DNA is the mechanism for expressing, storing, and passing-on physical changes that are environmentally beneficial.

But physical change through the DNA process is relatively slow - what happens when environmental change is repeatedly dramatic and rapid? An organism that develops a quicker means of adapting to the environment and passing those adaptations on to complement its DNA will out- compete those plodding along relying purely on DNA.

That's what humans did.

Humans evolved through the Quaternary period, a time when over about a million years, every 125,000 or so the climate swung between glacials and interglacials. Climates fluctuated dramatically between cold and hot and wet and dry, ice sheets advanced and retreated, and sea levels fluctuated up to 100 metres.

Under those conditions it can be seen as almost inevitable that an organism would evolve that could both manipulate it's environment through tools rather than waiting for evolution to fix things AND pass those methods on to others of the same species through better and better communication ability and memory - ie develop culture.

This ability to change the environment rather be changed by it developed exponentially as tools, language, and memory devices (eg writing) became more and more sophisticated.

Bang, top of the food chain.

Indeed. But, it was the cognitive tools supplied through evolution that permitted such environmental manipulation (and we aren't alone in this ability).

A small thing, but it is important to recognise that one can't opt out of the evolutionary mechanism. It is why I often balk at the accepted biological term of 'artificial selection' involving the domestication and breeding of plants and animals (although I do recognise its utility).

 

[Azza]

Indeed. But, it was the cognitive tools supplied through evolution that permitted such environmental manipulation (and we aren't alone in this ability).

Agree on both counts. Birds are a classic example - but hands are a fair more flexible tool wielding device than beaks!

A small thing, but it is important to recognise that one can't opt out of the evolutionary mechanism. It is why I often balk at the accepted biological term of 'artificial selection' involving the domestication and breeding of plants and animals (although I do recognise its utility).

Interesting point on domestication. I hadn't thought about it, but you're right of course.

 

[Djevv]

Obviously a clash of world views here. To the materialist of course we ARE our biology, to me we are more than that. I'll reiterate that 'human execeptionalism ' far from being 'dangerous' is instrumental in giving us our human rights, which don't come from the will of the state but of our creator. Get rid of that and Dr Pianka will use the kind of ideas espoused above to justify wiping out 9/10ths of us in an Ebola plague! After all we are just a biological menace, parching the earth. I mean, Panther, we are no better than nitrogen fixing bacteria? This is where science becomes simply bad philosophy.

With ID I don't see why it is a 'preconceived idea' but natural processes coding isn't? ID is just an explanatory hypothesis based on how we know codes come into being. It is not 'God of the Gaps' at all. How DNA works is very, very complex and Hoyle, his Junkyard and the 747 spring immediately to mind.

 

[Azza]

I don't mind the philosophy that a God set in motion the processes that caused human evolution, although I don't think it's healthy when different sects believe their particular God was the one involved and no other. It seems an encouragement for bigotry. Nor do I think it should be considered scientific.

But the idea still begs the question as to what point hominids got a soul. A female didn't just suddenly give birth to the first homo sapiens sapiens that had a soul, distinct from all previous hominids that weren't humans and so didn't. The evolution of humans was a gradual process. When did the soul suddenly get involved?

 

[Coburgtiger]

This is where science becomes simply bad philosophy.

Philosophy is Greek for the love of knowledge. Science is latin for knowledge. Philosophy is the love of science. QED.

In addition, if we need a higher power to be good to other people that, to me shows a pretty severe failing. Be good to other people because it sucks if you don't.

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

Obviously a clash of world views here. To the materialist of course we ARE our biology, to me we are more than that. I'll reiterate that 'human execeptionalism ' far from being 'dangerous' is instrumental in giving us our human rights, which don't come from the will of the state but of our creator. Get rid of that and Dr Pianka will use the kind of ideas espoused above to justify wiping out 9/10ths of us in an Ebola plague! After all we are just a biological menace, parching the earth. I mean, Panther, we are no better than nitrogen fixing bacteria? This is where science becomes simply bad philosophy.

I don't believe in a creator, because there is no evidence for one. Your evidence is based on subjective feelings, which is all well and good, but given the frailties of human perception, I would be skeptical. I loathe the premise that we are good and moral for some greater reward in the afterlife. It cheapens the whole concept of altruism and the fact that you are doing good for good's sake. So your belief and assertion that humans are exceptional has no basis in anything outside of your subjective experience.

There will always be Dr Pianka's, regardless of one's faith or lack thereof. We could have a slanging match pointing out the evils of the righteous and the atheists. It won't achieve anything though, except to demonstrate that humans are capable of inflicting great pain and suffering on other humans, regardless of beliefs. I am not sure how this supports your argument.

Where did I say that we are no better than nitrogen-fixing bacteria? I said that biochemically we are mundane in comparison. I also said that humans have interesting adaptations in the area of cognition. My point being, that there isn't anything more exceptional about humans, than there is for any species that you wish to look at in detail. The fact that we are human often skews that view.

With ID I don't see why it is a 'preconceived idea' but natural processes coding isn't? ID is just an explanatory hypothesis based on how we know codes come into being. It is not 'God of the Gaps' at all. How DNA works is very, very complex and Hoyle, his Junkyard and the 747 spring immediately to mind.

Of course it is a preconceived idea! ID was developed to shoehorn creationism back into the science classroom. It was not the product of an appraisal of the evidence and the development of the most likely hypothesis. Natural processes? Like evolution and its mechanisms? Those are theories that were developed based on numerous lines of evidence. They have remarkable explanatory and predictive power, the sign of a good scientific theory. ID has neither of these.

Ah, the 'complex' argument. It is SO complex, so Goddunnit? DNA is actually not as complex as you might think. I have spent the past 15 years studying it. We are constantly learning more about how it evolves and functions, but the fundamentals aren't that hard to grasp. We know how DNA mutates, we know how information can increase within genomes and we know how natural selection and genetic drift act upon this variation within the population. It isn't a real mystery.

I was surprised to see you use the Hoyle argument, considering the history of our discussions on these boards. A basic understanding of natural selection reveals the flaw in that argument. There is NOTHING random about natural selection. It acts upon the random variation within populations, but natural selection is the opposite of random. It selects what works and improves upon it over geological timescales. The 747 argument is a tired, lazy argument that reveals the ignorance of Hoyle onthe basics of evolutionary theory. A theory so elegant and simple that my 6 year old understands it and can see the problem with such an inane argument.

 

[AngryAnt]

I'm reminded also of fractal theory which shows that simple algorithms applied in natural settings lead to patterns of great complexity and beauty simply through iteration and repetition.