wu :: forums (http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~wwu/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.cgi)
general >> truth >> Creation vs Evolution
(Message started by: hiyathere on Oct 1st, 2007, 10:54am)

Title: Creation vs Evolution
Post by hiyathere on Oct 1st, 2007, 10:54am
I have heard very convincing arguments on both sides. Science teachers stick with evolution, while theologist stick with creation. I just want to see what people here think of the two, and which one offers the more convincing argument.

Title: Re: Creation vs Evolution
Post by Sameer on Oct 1st, 2007, 10:58am
What convincing argument did you hear about creation? Do you mind writing that down? Aren't you too young for this kind of debate? :P

Title: Re: Creation vs Evolution
Post by towr on Oct 1st, 2007, 11:11am

on 10/01/07 at 10:54:41, hiyathere wrote:
I have heard very convincing arguments on both sides. Science teachers stick with evolution, while theologist stick with creation.
Not even the pope sticks with creation anymore (not beyond God setting the universe in motion, anyway). So I would say it's an unfair generalizations over theologists.

There are tons of creation myths in the world, one no more realistic than another. And beyond being interesting to read, I don't see the use of them.
Evolution on the other hand is something I can work with; I can let programs and parameters evolve, resulting in better solutions to problems that are too complex to solve 'intelligently'.

There isn't really a way to tell what process resulted in us being here; it is entirely possibly, philosophically speaking, we popped into existence last Thursday and only have earlier memories because those memories came into existence with us. There is absolutely no way to distinguish different cases that can lead to this exact same reality.
For all we know, in 'real' time, our universe might be on pause every other second; who knows what the daemons running the matrix think up as a joke.

Title: Re: Creation vs Evolution
Post by hiyathere on Oct 1st, 2007, 11:36am

on 10/01/07 at 10:58:27, Sameer wrote:
What convincing argument did you hear about creation? Do you mind writing that down? Aren't you too young for this kind of debate? :P


For example, how was DNA first formed? I mean, it is a combination of several million molecules, and even the simplest smallest bacteria has several thousand pairs of DNA. You can't just say it just simply appeared.

On the flip side of the coin, how do you explain the fossil history, or the rock record?

I'm in high school, and I've taken biology and earth sciences already. Trust me, I'm not too young for this argument.


on 10/01/07 at 11:11:03, towr wrote:
Not even the pope sticks with creation anymore (not beyond God setting the universe in motion, anyway). So I would say it's an unfair generalizations over theologists.


Look through history. How many mistakes has the Catholic church made? Countless. That is why I don't trust the Catholic church. However, I can accept arguments from eastern Orthodox or Protestant theologists.

Title: Re: Creation vs Evolution
Post by TenaliRaman on Oct 1st, 2007, 11:46am

on 10/01/07 at 11:11:03, towr wrote:
who knows what the daemons running the matrix think up as a joke.

What did one daemon say to another?
Just fork off and die!

-- AI

Title: Re: Creation vs Evolution
Post by towr on Oct 1st, 2007, 12:09pm

on 10/01/07 at 11:36:08, hiyathere wrote:
For example, how was DNA first formed? I mean, it is a combination of several million molecules, and even the simplest smallest bacteria has several thousand pairs of DNA. You can't just say it just simply appeared.
Have you ever looked at a stone arch? With any of the stones missing, it would collapse. Surely it could never have been built from the ground up, every stone would have to have been created in place.

Or perhaps, all the scaffolding that led up to it has long since disappeared into obsolescence.
And if it needs to be mentioned: the organic case could have gone analogue. We don't know the makeup of the earliest organisms. They may well have not run on DNA at the start. But once a DNA/RNA/protein system was build up beside the original 'life-engine', the latter became obsolete and was selected out. What we're left with is the 'arch', with no clue of the 'scaffolding' since that has been long cleaned up.

If it weren't for museum pieces and history books, our technological society would seem just as ludicrously irreducibly complex. All the machines that are in use are create by machines that are in use. You can't design a computer these days without using a computer; so how that could the first computer have been created? Luckily, we haven't thrown our history away, we can trace back the development to computers that didn't need to be designed by computers. Nature is nothing that conservative, if it can get away with less, it usually does; it doesn't look back.


Quote:
On the flip side of the coin, how do you explain the fossil history, or the rock record?
God likes a good joke at our expense ;)
He gives us the power of reason, and then his Church(es) tell us for centuries not to use it.


Quote:
Look through history. How many mistakes has the Catholic church made? Countless.
To err is human. Everyone makes mistakes, and lots. And inquisitive people probably more than others, it's how you learn best. (Especially in Popper's view, where a scientist learns only from his mistakes).
The point, however, is that the Roman Catholic church reconsidered their position on creation; and that is rather significant since they aren't the easiest lot to convince.


Quote:
That is why I don't trust the Catholic church. However, I can accept arguments from eastern Orthodox or Protestant theologists.
As far as protestants are concerned, I think they have less of a problem with evolution than catholics had traditionally.
I don't know much about the Orthodox Church, so I can't say much on their position.

Title: Re: Creation vs Evolution
Post by rmsgrey on Oct 1st, 2007, 12:21pm

on 10/01/07 at 11:36:08, hiyathere wrote:
For example, how was DNA first formed? I mean, it is a combination of several million molecules, and even the simplest smallest bacteria has several thousand pairs of DNA. You can't just say it just simply appeared.

But the real question isn't "can modern DNA appear spontaneously in relatively short periods of time?" but "what's the simplest form of DNA that can reproduce itself?"

Once you have a self-replicating molecule, the process of evolution can transform it into the whole range of modern DNA.

Of course, one of the fun things about science in general is that almost all of it is (probably) wrong in the details - the point is that, almost all the time, the predictions scientists make are not wrong by very much. Whether the universe was created in 4004BC, or roughly 10 billion years ago, or 28 years ago, or even a couple of seconds ago, it behaves now (or, if it were created a couple of seconds ago, the created evidence of the past suggests it behaves) in pretty much the way it would if evolution were the correct explanation for life as we know it. To convincingly replace evolution as the preferred theory, you need to find a theory that not only does at least as well at explaining the things that evolution explains, but also explains why evolution looks so good. The trouble with creation as a theory is that the versions that have survived don't offer testable predictions that differ from those of evolution - in general, creationists tend to try and explain inconvenient facts after discovering them rather than predicting them from the explanations in advance.

Title: Re: Creation vs Evolution
Post by Sameer on Oct 1st, 2007, 1:47pm
So how does creation explain the creation of new species e.g. ebola virus, etc. and extinction of existing species e.g. dodo, etc.?

Note: I really don't know so I would like to get more information.

Title: Re: Creation vs Evolution
Post by rmsgrey on Oct 2nd, 2007, 5:35am

on 10/01/07 at 13:47:00, Sameer wrote:
So how does creation explain the creation of new species e.g. ebola virus, etc. and extinction of existing species e.g. dodo, etc.?

Note: I really don't know so I would like to get more information.

Last I heard, Creation denies the creation of new species (other than by the intervention of man)

Title: Re: Creation vs Evolution
Post by Grimbal on Oct 2nd, 2007, 7:31am
Imagine what little problem flu would be without evolution.

Title: Re: Creation vs Evolution
Post by FiBsTeR on Oct 2nd, 2007, 7:06pm
I personally have no problem with evolution, although I am Roman Catholic. However, I also think that there is a limit to what we can know through science. Evolution as I know it is a process, and it does not say where it all started. Faith offers an answer to this.

</my 2 cents>

Title: Re: Creation vs Evolution
Post by Sir Col on Oct 10th, 2007, 3:05pm

on 10/02/07 at 07:31:31, Grimbal wrote:
Imagine what little problem flu would be without evolution.

This highlights a common misconception of what creationists believe; and I consider myself to be one. The point we make is that there is an important difference between Darwinian evolution, which we reject, and genetic mutation, for which there is clear scientific evidence and we fully embrace. That is, although the flu virus mutates and rearranges its genetic code this is not the same as "evolving" into an organism different to an influenza virus. Firstly, the amount of genetic information the virus can carry is restricted and evolution does not allow for mutations to cause this sequence to be extended. Secondly, there is a limited amount of mutation to its genome before it stops functioning. This is exactly what virologists do in manipulating existing viruses and are fully aware of the limits to genetic manipulation before it "dies".

Title: Re: Creation vs Evolution
Post by Sameer on Oct 10th, 2007, 3:08pm

on 10/10/07 at 15:05:05, Sir Col wrote:
This highlights a common misconception of what creationists believe; and I consider myself to be one. The point we make is that there is an important difference between Darwinian evolution, which we reject, and genetic mutation, for which there is clear scientific evidence and we fully embrace. That is, although the flu virus mutates and rearranges its genetic code this is not the same as "evolving" into an organism different to an influenza virus. Firstly, the amount of genetic information the virus can carry is restricted and evolution does not allow for mutations to cause this sequence to be extended. Secondly, there is a limited amount of mutation to its genome before it stops functioning. This is exactly what virologists do in manipulating existing viruses and are fully aware of the limits to genetic manipulation before it "dies".


So is this summary right? Creationists accept the idea of mutation but reject the idea that Humans are end product of millions of years of mutation (as suggested by Darwin)?

Title: Re: Creation vs Evolution
Post by Sir Col on Oct 10th, 2007, 3:26pm
That is certainly my understanding. We believe that, by the processes of natural genetic mutations, no amount of time would allow one species to become a different species.

I found an article that may be of interest, but it is written by a Christian creationist organisation, so you may not like its obvious "bias". However, the particular section that is most relevant is cited:


Quote:
Because of the obvious analogy with neo-Darwinian mutation and natural selection, we asked, did this show that it was plausible to go from microbes to man, given billions of years?

‘Definitely not’, he replied. ‘When my bacteria gain the ability to do something, in the process they lose something else. And the circumstances have to be very carefully controlled by human manipulation.’

Engineering genes is of course the opposite of evolution, in which things are supposed to happen by themselves; it demonstrates creativity and applied intelligence.

Dr Eirich gave us other insights from his perspective. He said, ‘We don’t yet have the ability to predict from the gene sequence what the exact function of a gene will be—a lot of it is trial and error. You can put gene “x” into organism “y”, and it may not do what it did in the original organism. Scientists doing this kind of work are finding it takes years of effort to get genes to function properly in an organism because the regulating pathways have to be made to work.’

He continued: ‘If you wanted to engineer a fly to turn it into something else, it would have to be re-engineered from the ground up. Natural selection would tend to eliminate all the adjustments along the way. Blind chance and future environments would not know that it has to keep useless bits of equipment until another enzyme evolved; you need a chain of enzymes, and you need the enzymes to be regulated.’

Dr Eirich went on: ‘Lots of genes are common to many creatures; ban­anas, for instance, share 50% of their genes with humans. But it’s how the genes are regulated that makes a bat a bat and a cat a cat. We don’t understand this very well at all in science. The so-called “junk” DNA is probably involved in that somehow. There are layers of additional complexity that we are only just discovering—codes within codes as it were.


Full article: http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v27/i1/eirich.asp

Title: Re: Creation vs Evolution
Post by JiNbOtAk on Oct 10th, 2007, 6:11pm
In other words, an apple is an apple. It could be a super sized apple, it could be a an apple that tasted like strawberries, it could be a blue apple, but it is still an apple. It could never be an banana.

Eh, Sir Col ?

<Incidentally, I'm with Sir Col on this one>

Title: Re: Creation vs Evolution
Post by ima1trkpny on Oct 10th, 2007, 6:34pm
Fair enough... but a species is defined as a group with the same attributes given the same name. If you change the taste of an apple (which is considered a rather important characteristic) and then maybe later change the color, eventually the shape, and so forth due to whatever characteristics it will need to continue to survive, you could very quickly end up with a strawberry, etc or something with an entirely different set of characteristics. I find genetics a fascinating subject, but really what it comes down to is that in your DNA you have between 20 and 40 thousand (been a bit since I checked the latest numbers) different genes, most of which are inactive. Those genes posses all the coding, that with a rearrangement of the regulatory proteins, you could assume the characteristics of any mammal.  :o In fact think about it... pretty much any land mammal (dogs, cats, elephants, etc) has the same skeletal structure merely with different proportions and developed traits designed for their specific environment.
I'm not disregarding anybody's beliefs, etc. but for me I don't think that evolution is that big of a stretch. I mean take the virus example you used earlier... one that comes to mind is Chicken Pox, one that came from Small Pox. Now entirely different viruses. Given enough time and enough mutations, would you still call the "apple" that has changed it's taste to that of strawberries, turned blue, and changed shape an apple? Even though it no longer has any of the characteristics of an apple do we still call it that? Or do we give it another name so as to be able to distinguish?

<Edit> And congratulations JiNbOtAk! You're now an uberpuzzler! ;D

Title: Re: Creation vs Evolution
Post by JiNbOtAk on Oct 10th, 2007, 8:39pm

on 10/10/07 at 18:34:15, ima1trkpny wrote:
.. but for me I don't think that evolution is that big of a stretch.


It's not, if it's part of creationism. A human is created human, through time, he evolved into a human suited for the environment that he's living in, but he is still a human. In other words, there are limitations as to what his genetic mutation could achieve, rather than unlimited mutation, evolving into a another species. ( or better yet, something out from the X-Men  )


on 10/10/07 at 18:34:15, ima1trkpny wrote:
<Edit> And congratulations JiNbOtAk! You're now and uberpuzzler! ;D


Heh, thanks !! Didn't notice it until you mentioned it. Though I could cite numerous other members who should have been uberpuzzlers before me.  :-/

Title: Re: Creation vs Evolution
Post by ima1trkpny on Oct 10th, 2007, 8:44pm

on 10/10/07 at 20:39:13, JiNbOtAk wrote:
A human is created human, through time, he evolved into a human suited for the environment that he's living in, but he is still a human.


Unless you believe the monkey idea entirely possible. I won't say for sure that is what happened as I sure wasn't there... but it is entirely plausable from my viewpoint.

Title: Re: Creation vs Evolution
Post by JiNbOtAk on Oct 10th, 2007, 8:57pm

on 10/10/07 at 20:44:44, ima1trkpny wrote:
Unless you believe the monkey idea entirely possible.


That's exactly my point, I don't. Not even one bit.

Title: Re: Creation vs Evolution
Post by ima1trkpny on Oct 10th, 2007, 9:01pm

on 10/10/07 at 20:57:41, JiNbOtAk wrote:
That's exactly my point, I don't. Not even one bit.


Fair enough, you have a right to your own opinion. I'm not sure what I believe... but in my opinion it is at least possible. I've seen far more bizarre things happen to discount something with as much solid supporting evidence as this, which is at least worth considering.

Title: Re: Creation vs Evolution
Post by Sir Col on Oct 10th, 2007, 11:49pm
I'm certainly no expert in genetics. But it is my understanding that given a particular species there is only so much engineering that can be done on the genome before it will not survive. However, we're not talking about human intervention, we are discussing the natural processes of "evolution".

For example, there are species of fox that are suited to living in extremely cold conditions and another species entirely suited to living in extremely hot conditions. If you examine the DNA of both foxes you will find a significant amount of DNA in common. However, the mutations that occur naturally over time - that is, those not instigated by human intervention - will not allow the conversion. Only a very small part of its DNA can be altered before it cannot function at all and that small part is not sufficient to change one species into the other.

As far as I know this is the current status of research in genetics. Of course if any evidence exists showing precisely how one species can naturally mutate to another - demonstrating which strands have mutated - then I would sit up and listen very carefully. To state that this species and that species have 99% DNA in common hence they must be related does seem plausible, until we look at the real science of genetics and see that so far the research has only managed to demonstrate that the strands that are different cannot mutate naturally without either species suffering massive functional failure, leading to death. Quite simply, evolution is not science, it is based on pure speculative reason and there is currently no real evidence to support the theories.

Title: Re: Creation vs Evolution
Post by towr on Oct 11th, 2007, 1:14am

on 10/10/07 at 15:05:05, Sir Col wrote:
Firstly, the amount of genetic information the virus can carry is restricted and evolution does not allow for mutations to cause this sequence to be extended.
Evolution allows for mechanisms other than point mutation as well.

Nevermind that viruses, and bacteria, have a merry old time exchanging packets of genes (and sometimes dropping them); and that's under mechanisms that Creationism allows.


Quote:
Secondly, there is a limited amount of mutation to its genome before it stops functioning.
I disagree, but obviously when you assume this, then evolution in the Darwinian sense would indeed by impossible.
The premise of Darwinism is that it can happen; and there's nothing to suggest it can't, in fact computer simulations support it (for as much as one considers that worth something), and it neatly explains a whole slew of things about species and the archaeological record.
It's very unlikely, as I see it, purely on a mathematical basis (and baring in mind the equivalence classes of DNA-triples, forced protein folding, etc), that you couldn't by some path change one genome into an other while having a viable organism all the time; the phase space of genomes is enormous.
How likely it is to go down such a path is yet another issue, and harder to address. (Inevitably Creationists would find it incredibly more unlikely than a Darwinist)

Title: Re: Creation vs Evolution
Post by towr on Oct 11th, 2007, 1:54am

on 10/10/07 at 18:34:15, ima1trkpny wrote:
but for me I don't think that evolution is that big of a stretch.
And it's really God's prerogative whether he wants to do it that way or not; certainly he could if he wanted to.


on 10/10/07 at 23:49:10, Sir Col wrote:
I'm certainly no expert in genetics. But it is my understanding that given a particular species there is only so much engineering that can be done on the genome before it will not survive.
When people try to do it, it inevitably looks that way, so far. The problem is that many genes are codependent, so they can't be changed arbitrarily and as if they are independent. If you consider genomes as a sort of 3-D landscape, than you have to follow paths of (very nearly) least resistance, rather than try to go over the mountains. Our problem is we haven't a clue really what the landscape looks like. (And of course the fitness of each genome changes with the environment)


Quote:
However, we're not talking about human intervention, we are discussing the natural processes of "evolution".
The advantages nature has in this respect, is that it can try many paths at once, and it has more time.

However, even though it's much more involved than just this; the problem is more complex still because it is not all down to genetics. One thing that has proven very important is protein folding. Even when the sequence of aminoacids is changed because of mutations in the genetic code, they may not become apparent for generations to come. We have special proteins whose job it is to force forming proteins into the right shape. And only when those controlling proteins fail (due to stresses, which distract them from their regular job), can the newly formed proteins take the shape they want.
In this way many mutations can accumulate without any ill effect until they are by some trigger all expressed at once. And, quite probably, the organism fails to be viable; but a few might.



Quote:
For example, there are species of fox that are suited to living in extremely cold conditions and another species entirely suited to living in extremely hot conditions. If you examine the DNA of both foxes you will find a significant amount of DNA in common. However, the mutations that occur naturally over time - that is, those not instigated by human intervention - will not allow the conversion. Only a very small part of its DNA can be altered before it cannot function at all and that small part is not sufficient to change one species into the other.
I'd be more inclined to think they aren't looking for the right path. To examine such a conversion, the typical pitfall is to look for a direct change; but obviously the natural change (according to evolution) would have been from a common ancestor to both, rather than from one to the other. Intermediate steps may have taken place.
Consider a fruitcake and a chocolate cake; obviously you can't change one into the other, but if you start with their common ancestor, a neutral cake batter, you can get to either. Add fruits, or chocolate. Trying to pick out the fruits afterwards and adding chocolate would lead to an utter culinary mishap.


Quote:
To state that this species and that species have 99% DNA in common hence they must be related does seem plausible, until we look at the real science of genetics and see that so far the research has only managed to demonstrate that the strands that are different cannot mutate naturally without either species suffering massive functional failure, leading to death.
But the question isn't whether they can mutate toward each other, but whether something else (but similar) could have mutated to both. Darwinism doesn't claim that monkeys are our ancestors, it says they're cousins (just as evolved, but on a different path)


Quote:
Quite simply, evolution is not science, it is based on pure speculative reason
...
...

Well, let's send all those non-scientists doing non-research on this non-scientific research program home then.

Speculative reasoning is part of science, but evolution theory is based on more than just reasoning. It fits with a lot of observations that have been made, perhaps not perfectly (but hardly any theory does, and less so in biology) and a lot of questions are left open (but that's the whole point).
Many observations have been made because evolutionary theory suggested there was something there to be looked at in the first place. Genetic research is part of the evolutionary paradigm; it's science, and it's paying off. Just because you don't like the premise doesn't make it less of a science; scientists make it a science.


Quote:
and there is currently no real evidence to support the theories.
There is a lot of evidence for many parts of many theories; just no 'real evidence' that the premise holds true. That hardly makes it unique in the scientific world though. e.g. String theory has very little going for it other than that it's pretty.

Title: Re: Creation vs Evolution
Post by towr on Oct 11th, 2007, 2:14am
http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/evo_science.html

Quote:
Is Evolution Science?

Philosophers of science such as Popper and Kitcher say that it is. Scientists such as Mayr, Dobzhansky, and Ridley agree. Many organizations have passed resolutions to this effect. However, the important question is whether these authorities can back up what they say with evidence.

The following list gives a few of the predictions that have been made from the Theory of Evolution:

   * Darwin predicted that precursors to the trilobite would be found in pre-Silurian rocks. He was correct: they were subsequently found.

   * Similarly, Darwin predicted that Precambrian fossils would be found. He wrote in 1859 that the total absence of fossils in Precambrian rock was "inexplicable" and that the lack might "be truly urged as a valid argument" against his theory. When such fossils were found, starting in 1953, it turned out that they had been abundant all along. They were just so small that it took a microscope to see them.

   * There are two kinds of whales: those with teeth, and those that strain microscopic food out of seawater with baleen. It was predicted that a transitional whale must have once existed, which had both teeth and baleen. Such a fossil has since been found.

   * Evolution predicts that we will find fossil series.

   * Evolution predicts that the fossil record will show different populations of creatures at different times. For example, it predicts we will never find fossils of trilobites with fossils of dinosaurs, since their geological time-lines don't overlap. The "Cretaceous seaway" deposits in Colorado and Wyoming contain almost 90 different kinds of ammonites, but no one has ever found two different kinds of ammonite together in the same rockbed. This lack of mixing stongly implies that the rockbeds have different ages.

   * Evolution predicts that animals on distant islands will appear closely related to animals on the closest mainland, and that the older and more distant the island, the more distant the relationship.

   * The theory of Common Descent predicts that the species alive today can be organized into one single family tree, where each species is a descendant of a parent species. (And therefore, there should be a hierarchical arrangement of relatedness.)

     For example, arthropods all have chitinous exoskeleton, hemocoel, and jointed legs. Insects have all these plus head-thorax-abdomen body plan and 6 legs. Flies have all that plus two wings and halteres. Calypterate flies have all that plus a certain style of antennae, wing veins, and sutures on the face and back. You will never find the distinguishing features of calypterate flies on a non-fly, much less on a non-insect or non-arthropod.

     Dogs are another example. There should be species we would group with dogs, and there are - such as wolves and coyotes. So we are not surprised when dogs and foxes turn out to share some peculiar features of the middle ear. This group - the Family Canidae - can be grouped with the bears, raccoons and weasels, because their ears have some similarities to those of dogs. All of these have carnassial teeth, but so do cats, civets and seals - so we group the entire lot as being Order Carnivora. Carnivores all have 3 middle ear bones, mammary glands, placental development, hair, a diaphragm, a four-chambered heart, and a larynx. But they share those features with humans, bats, elephants and whales. So we group that entire lot as being Class Mammalia. But mammals have amniote eggs, and so do birds, lizards, snakes and turtles. And amniote animals share with frogs and salamanders the property of having four legs - they're tetrapods. Tetrapods and fish both have backbones - they're vertebrates. Vertebrates and starfish are both deuterostomes because they share the way their embryos develop a mouth. Deuterostomes are left-right symmetric, so we group them and insects and snails as bilateral. The bilaterals, the jellyfish and sponges are all animals. Animals, fungi, rose bushes and amoebas all have a nucleus inside each cell - they're eukaryotes. Eukaryotes and bacteria and archaea share the DNA mechanism, lipid-based cell membranes, and hundreds of other biochemical details.

     (And that's the short version of the story! For all the fancy Latin names, see the Tree of Life.)

     Notice that the dog-to-bacteria story has some apparent irregularities. For example, I said that elephants and whales are mammals, and that mammals have hair. It is not obvious, but elephants and whales do have a small amount of hair. Also, scientists group whales and snakes as tetrapods. So where are their four legs? From the theory of Common Descent, we see that they must be descended from four-legged creatures, and that they have lost their legs. (Loss is an easy mutation - as witness hairless dogs.) So, we predict that there should be fossils of whales with legs, and snakes with legs. These fossils have been found. Similarly, starfish outwardly have radial symmetry, but we classified them as bilateral. So Common Descent predicts that their group (echinoderms) had bilateral ancestors, and such a fossil has been found.

   * Another prediction from Common Descent is that there will be species that are highly similar, so that they are fairly obviously a group. And, when we talk about groups of groups, we will see one notch less similarity. For example, we group the tree species that give oranges, mandarins, lemons, limes, tangelos, lemonades (a rounded fruit that's sweet like lemonade) and grapefruits. They're called citrus trees. We also group the stone fruit trees - those are the ones with peaches, apricots, plums, nectarines, peachcots (a cross between peaches and apricots) or peacherines. Gardeners can graft a branch from an orange tree onto a lemon tree, and get it to grow, so that they then have a tree that grows both oranges and lemons. Gardeners can mix any two citrus trees, and they can mix apple varieties, or pear varieties. But apples and peaches don't mix.

   * Evolution predicts that simple, valuable features will evolve more than once. They will evolve in several species, quite independently of each other (because there has been time for that to happen). And, independent lines of evolution will most likely have differences not relevant to function. For example, the eyes of molluscs, arthropods, and vertebrates are extremely different, and ears can appear on any of at least ten different locations on different insects.

Title: Re: Creation vs Evolution
Post by towr on Oct 11th, 2007, 2:14am
(continued)

Quote:
  * In 1837, a Creationist reported that during a pig's fetal development, part of the incipient jawbone detaches and becomes the little bones of the middle ear. After Evolution was discovered, it was predicted that there would be a transitional fossil, of a reptile with a spare jaw joint right near its ear. A whole series of such fossils has since been found - the cynodont therapsids.

   * It was predicted that humans must have an intermaxillary bone, since other mammals do. The adult human skull consists of bones that have fused together, so you can't tell one way or the other in an adult. An examination of human embryonic development showed that an intermaxillary bone is one of the things that fuses to become your upper jaw.

   * From my junk DNA example I predict that three specific DNA patterns will be found at 9 specific places in the genome of white-tailed deer, but none of the three patterns will be found anywhere in the spider monkey genome.

   * In 1861, the first Archaeopteryx fossil was found. It was clearly a primitive bird with reptilian features. But, the fossil's head was very badly preserved. In 1872 Ichthyornis and Hesperornis were found. Both were clearly seabirds, but to everyone's astonishment, both had teeth. It was predicted that if we found a better-preserved Archaeopteryx, it too would have teeth. In 1877, a second Archaeopteryx was found, and the prediction turned out to be correct.

   * Almost all animals make Vitamin C inside their bodies. It was predicted that humans are descended from creatures that could do this, and that we had lost this ability. (There was a loss-of-function mutation, which didn't matter because our high-fruit diet was rich in Vitamin C.) When human DNA was studied, scientists found a gene which is just like the Vitamin C gene in dogs and cats. However, our copy has been turned off.

   * In "The Origin Of Species" (1859), Darwin said:

         "If it could be proved that any part of the structure of any one species had been formed for the exclusive good of another species, it would annihilate my theory, for such could not have been produced through natural selection."
         Chapter VI, Difficulties Of The Theory

     This challenge has not been met. In the ensuing 140 years, no such thing has been found. Plants give away nectar and fruit, but they get something in return. Taking care of other members of one's own species (kin selection) doesn't count, so ants and bees (and mammalian milk) don't count.

   * Darwin pointed out that the Madagascar Star orchid has a spur 30 centimeters (about a foot) long, with a puddle of nectar at the bottom. Now, evolution says that nectar isn't free. Creatures that drink it pay for it, by carrying pollen away to another orchid. For that to happen, the creature must rub against the top of the spur. So, Darwin concluded that the spur had evolved its length as an arms race. Some creature had a way to reach deeply without shoving itself hard against the pollen-producing parts. Orchids with longer spurs would be more likely to spread their pollen, so Darwin's gradualistic scenario applied. The spur would evolve to be longer and longer. From the huge size, the creature must have evolved in return, reaching deeper and deeper. So, he predicted in 1862 that Madagascar has a species of hawkmoth with a tongue just slightly shorter than 30 cm.

     The creature that pollinated that orchid was not learned until 1902, forty years later. It was indeed a moth, and it had a 25 cm tongue. And in 1988 it was proven that moth-pollinated short-spurred orchids did set less seed than long ones.

   * A thousand years ago, just about every remote island on the planet had a species of flightless bird. Evolution explains this by saying that flying creatures are particularly able to establish themselves on remote islands. Some birds, living in a safe place where there is no need to make sudden escapes, will take the opportunity to give up on flying. Hence, Evolution predicts that each flightless bird species arose on the island that it was found on. So, Evolution predicts that no two islands would have the same species of flightless bird. Now that all the world's islands have been visited, we know that this was a correct prediction.

   * The "same" protein in two related species is usually slightly different. A protein is made from a sequence of amino acids, and the two species have slightly different sequences. We can measure the sequences of many species, and cladistics has a mathematical procedure which tells us if these many sequences imply one common ancestral sequence. Evolution predicts that these species are all descended from a common ancestral species, and that the ancestral species used the ancestral sequence.

     This has been done for pancreatic ribonuclease in ruminants. (Cows, sheep, goats, deer and giraffes are ruminants.) Measurements were made on various ruminants. An ancestral sequence was computed, and protein molecules with that sequence were manufactured. When sequences are chosen at random, we usually wind up with a useless goo. However, the manufactured molecules were biologically active substances. Furthermore, they did exactly what a pancreatic ribonuclease is supposed to do - namely, digest ribonucleic acids.

   * An animal's bones contain oxygen atoms from the water it drank while growing. And, fresh water and salt water can be told apart by their slightly different mixture of oxygen isotopes. (This is because fresh water comes from water that evaporated out of the ocean. Lighter atoms evaporate more easily than heavy ones do, so fresh water has fewer of the heavy atoms.)

     Therefore, it should be possible to analyze an aquatic creature's bones, and tell whether it grew up in fresh water or in the ocean. This has been done, and it worked. We can distinguish the bones of river dolphins from the bones of killer whales.

     Now for the prediction. We have fossils of various early whales. Since whales are mammals, evolution predicts that they evolved from land animals. And, the very earliest of those whales would have lived in fresh water, while they were evolving their aquatic skills. (Skills such as the ability to do without fresh water.) Therefore, the oxygen isotope ratios in their fossils should be like the isotope ratios in modern river dolphins.

     It's been measured, and the prediction was correct. The two oldest species in the fossil record - Pakicetus and Ambulocetus - lived in fresh water. Rodhocetus, Basilosaurus and the others all lived in salt water.

The point is not that these prove evolution right. The point is that these were predictions that could have turned out to be wrong predictions. So, the people who made the predictions were doing science. The Theory of Evolution was also useful, in the sense that it suggested what evidence to look for, and where.

Title: Re: Creation vs Evolution
Post by Pentium IV Processor on Oct 11th, 2007, 2:30am
I heard a quote today from a teacher, but I can't quite remember the exact wording, so my apologies. I thought it would be relevant.

"The Torah is correct in all places, except where science can find another answer." Rambam (Maimonides)

If someone could find the exact wording, I would really appreciate it. Hehe, this is also apprpriate for another forum.

Title: Re: Creation vs Evolution
Post by ecoist on Dec 11th, 2007, 9:01pm
I watched a PBS special on intelligent design.  What struck me is, that a theory, to qualify as a theory, must be testable!  The theory of evolution is testable; the theory of intelligent design is decidedly untestable!  How can one prove that a Rolex watch found on a desert island could not have evolved by natural selection?  Obviously, one cannot.  String theory in physics is sinking for the same reason; it is untestable.

Title: Re: Creation vs Evolution
Post by towr on Dec 12th, 2007, 1:19am

on 12/11/07 at 21:01:27, ecoist wrote:
How can one prove that a Rolex watch found on a desert island could not have evolved by natural selection?
It's neither alive nor dead by any sensible criterion you could apply. So reproduction, and consequently natural selection seems unlikely to occur in the case of watches.
There is no means in evolutionary theory to propose how a watch could evolve, it is not consistent with the theory.

Testable intelligent design theory would have to depend on a psychology of the designer (god). You'd have to make predictions about what features of design you'd expect to find, and that depends on the designer not being an insane chaotic lunatic that just throws things together, sprinkles fairy dust over it and sets it free in the world.
If you can't fathom the mind of the designer (to a point), you can't have testable ID, because you'd find no consistency in behaviour. So I'd say the ID project is fairly detrimental to most ID-ers conception of god.

As far as watches go, though, you can use the serial number and bother the manufacturer about it's designer. That should be sufficient proof that no alternate theory of it's inception is valid.

Title: Re: Creation vs Evolution
Post by Grimbal on Dec 12th, 2007, 2:24am
Still, the design of modern watches didn't appear overnight.  Many designs for time-keeping devices have competed, many technologies have been tried and only the overall best designs have survived.

Title: Re: Creation vs Evolution
Post by Ghost Sniper on Dec 12th, 2007, 5:46am
The problem is that both theories has holes in them. To believe in creation, you have to believe that the earth is about 6000 years old, and that is just ridiculous. But, if you believe in evolution, you have to believe that life happened by accident in a small pond in the middle of nowhere. So, unless we can patch every single hole in either theory, both are wrong on my account.

Title: Re: Creation vs Evolution
Post by towr on Dec 12th, 2007, 5:55am

on 12/12/07 at 05:46:07, Ghost Sniper wrote:
But, if you believe in evolution, you have to believe that life happened by accident in a small pond in the middle of nowhere.
No you don't. Evolution has nothing to say on the matter of how life came to be, just on how it diversified.


Quote:
So, unless we can patch every single hole in either theory, both are wrong on my account.
But are they equally wrong?
Besides, every theory known to man that is in any way meaningful has holes in it.

Title: Re: Creation vs Evolution
Post by SMQ on Dec 12th, 2007, 7:44am

on 12/12/07 at 05:46:07, Ghost Sniper wrote:
To believe in creation, you have to believe that the earth is about 6000 years old, and that is just ridiculous.

First: no, you don't; second: no, it isn't.

In the fisrt place, there are a lot of people who believe God (or a god) created the universe and everything in it, but don't hold to the "young Earth" version of Creationism.  I, myself, have no problem believing that God initially caused the big bang (or something like it) and had guided the formation of galaxies, life, and individuals ever since, perhaps by influencing some of those quantum-level uncertainties we keep hearing about.  Tunnel an electron here, polarize a photon there, and pretty soon you've created the Heavens and the Earth.

In the second place, of all of the things religious people have believed over the years, young Earth Creationism is one of the less ridiculous theories.  It would seem to me to be far, far more ridiculous to think that an all-powerful, all-knowing God -- maintainer of the entire universe -- would give a rat's ass how I live my one minuscule life.  Yet nearly every major world religion teaches exactly that: that God (or a god) cares about you and what you do.  Compared to that, believing that the Earth is only a few thousand years old is nothing.

;)

--SMQ

Title: Re: Creation vs Evolution
Post by Grimbal on Dec 12th, 2007, 10:01am
It seems to me that for creationists, there is one truth that was given at some time and you don't question it.

For evolutionists, truth is something that is constantly being refined, theories can be proposed and with time only the better ones remain.

Title: Re: Creation vs Evolution
Post by Ghost Sniper on Dec 12th, 2007, 10:07am
wow... being scolded by 3 mods...  :-[

I didn't quite mean it like that, but I couldn't think of any better examples at the time.  :P

Title: Re: Creation vs Evolution
Post by ecoist on Dec 12th, 2007, 10:24am

Quote:
The problem is that both theories has holes in them. To believe in creation, you have to believe that the earth is about 6000 years old, and that is just ridiculous. But, if you believe in evolution, you have to believe that life happened by accident in a small pond in the middle of nowhere. So, unless we can patch every single hole in either theory, both are wrong on my account.

Pardon me, but I think you all are missing a crucial point!  A scientific theory, by definition, is not fact; it is supposition!  So, of course, "both theories have holes in them"!  What supports evolution theory is that it is testable, and has, so far, survived all tests!  What destroys creationism theory is that none of it can be tested!  Creationism and intelligent design are inherently unscientific, and so must survive on faith alone!

Title: Re: Creation vs Evolution
Post by rmsgrey on Dec 12th, 2007, 12:38pm
A point made in The Science of Discworld III: Darwin's Watch is that people who take the Watchmaker argument seriously argue that finding a watch proves it was made, but never seem to contemplate the point that anyone other than an unworldly philosopher, upon finding a watch lying upon a heath would immediately deduce that someone owned it and had lost it, and never bother to consider its ultimate origin. If the evidence of a creator is so overwhelming, why not the evidence of an owner?

Title: Re: Creation vs Evolution
Post by ecoist on Dec 12th, 2007, 2:39pm
The modern creationists and ID'ers are more sophisticated today, rsmgrey.  Just Google Behe.  Behe argues that there are biological organisms so complex that, if any part is not present, the organism cannot function.  Hence that organism could not have "evolved"; it had to arise suddenly.  What is the anti-ID'ers response?  I love what I saw on that PBS show!  Someone removed parts of a standard mousetrap and, as Behe predicts, it could not function as a mousetrap.  However, it made a perfectly good tie clip!

Title: Re: Creation vs Evolution
Post by mikedagr8 on Dec 12th, 2007, 2:41pm
I thought this was closely related, so I will post it,

A Treatise on Modelling


A scientific model is a concrete expression of an abstraction. It is an attempt to "translate" into everyday reality that which cannot be seen. A successful model allows for a simple explanation of observed phenomena and even for prediction, but by its very nature - since it is not, connot be, the "real thing" - it is bound to have limitation and must ultimately fail (to be replaced by an improved model). Foolish is the person who believes that a model provides an exact description of reality.

Atomic theory provides an illuminating history of the role of models in the world of science. From the Daltonian/Newtonian/"Boyle-ian" view of the atom as a true atom (a structureless entity), through Thomson's elecectric plum pudding construct, Rutherford's nuclear atom, Bohr's quantised atom, te wave of mechanical idea and on to Feynman's quantum electrodynamical views, atomic modelling has undergone frequent revision. Each modeal has its success and limitations (other than the QED view?) and may be continued to be used provided it works!

Title: Re: Creation vs Evolution
Post by towr on Dec 12th, 2007, 3:07pm

on 12/12/07 at 14:39:58, ecoist wrote:
The modern creationists and ID'ers are more sophisticated today, rsmgrey.  Just Google Behe.  Behe argues that there are biological organisms so complex that, if any part is not present, the organism cannot function.  Hence that organism could not have "evolved"; it had to arise suddenly.
That is a really old argument.


Quote:
What is the anti-ID'ers response?
Consider a stone arch, if you remove any stone, it would collapse. Obviously it could only have come to be if every stone were put in place at once.

That's the kind of argument the IDers' 'irreducible complexity' argument is. I'm sure you can imagine what to argue against it. Complexity doesn't only increase, if processes, scaffolding*), becomes obsolete, it should be eliminated.


*) note that this is hindview, it is interpreted as scaffolding now because it became obsolete.

Title: Re: Creation vs Evolution
Post by ecoist on Dec 12th, 2007, 3:31pm
Sorry, towr, the stone arch is a false analogy!  ID'ers, though wrong, are not that stupid.  The stone arch can arise by accident or by planning, so is a poor example.  The ID'ers are distinguishing things that come into existence by evolution as opposed to design by an intelligent being.  I don't know Behe's full argument.  Even so, intelligent design fails as a scientific theory for the simple reason that it cannot be tested.

Title: Re: Creation vs Evolution
Post by JiNbOtAk on Dec 12th, 2007, 6:22pm
Very interesting discussion.



on 12/12/07 at 07:44:00, SMQ wrote:
First: no, you don't; second: no, it isn't.


Yes, SMQ, I agree with you.


on 12/12/07 at 07:44:00, SMQ wrote:
Tunnel an electron here, polarize a photon there, and pretty soon you've created the Heavens and the Earth.


Again, no argument here. It's just that I find it odd that you wrote 'the Heavens and the Earth. Any particular reason ?


on 12/12/07 at 10:24:25, ecoist wrote:
Pardon me, but I think you all are missing a crucial point!  A scientific theory, by definition, is not fact; it is supposition!

Creationism, when considered as part of a religious dogma, is not a scientific theory. As such, it is not a supposition. True, it is based solely on faith, but does that mean those who believed it are wrong ? I sometimes find it amusing that the so called scientific community could be so high and mighty at times, when most of the times, theories are being disapproved; i.e. what is true yesterday, may not be true tomorrow.

Of course, science does not always provide the answer, religion seldom encourage questions.

Title: Re: Creation vs Evolution
Post by SMQ on Dec 12th, 2007, 7:18pm

on 12/12/07 at 18:22:59, JiNbOtAk wrote:
Again, no argument here. It's just that I find it odd that you wrote 'the Heavens and the Earth. Any particular reason ?

"In the beginning God created the Heavens and the Earth."  At least that's how I remember it ... checks an online Bible ... yep, "heavens" plural (but not capitalized).

And for the record, I agree with the others above that creationism is not a science -- no matter what the I.D.ers would have you think -- and has no business being presented as a scientific alternative to the theory of evolution.

--SMQ

Title: Re: Creation vs Evolution
Post by ecoist on Dec 12th, 2007, 7:55pm

Quote:
I sometimes find it amusing that the so called scientific community could be so high and mighty at times, when most of the times, theories are being disapproved; i.e. what is true yesterday, may not be true tomorrow.

Theories are supposed to be examined critically!  That's why they are only theories.  Who is the real "high and mighty", JiNbOtAk?  The scientist who routinely challenges his own assumptions, or the creationist who tries to morph faith into science?  Although I am anti-religious (atheism is also faith-based), St. Thomas Aquinas said it best: faith seeks a "higher" truth!

Title: Re: Creation vs Evolution
Post by JiNbOtAk on Dec 12th, 2007, 8:06pm

on 12/12/07 at 19:18:33, SMQ wrote:
"In the beginning God created the Heavens and the Earth."  At least that's how I remember it ... checks an online Bible ... yep, "heavens" plural (but not capitalized).


Ahh yes, the verse I remembered was a singular heaven, maybe force of habit, I usually referred to the King James.  Anyone know whether the original text state a singular or a plural heaven ?



on 12/12/07 at 19:55:56, ecoist wrote:
..creationist who tries to morph faith into science?  


Really ? Who ?


on 12/12/07 at 19:55:56, ecoist wrote:
Although I am anti-religious (atheism is also faith-based), St. Thomas Aquinas said it best: faith seeks a "higher" truth

I guess I prefer the adage : "Science and religion is not incompatible, science is just too young to understand. "  ;D

Title: Re: Creation vs Evolution
Post by ecoist on Dec 12th, 2007, 8:33pm

Quote:
Really ? Who ?

Those who try to put creationism or intelligent design as theories equally valid as evolution!

Quote:
I guess I prefer the adage : "Science and religion is not incompatible, science is just too young to understand. "

Who is older, Jesus or Euclid?  Or, do you include among "religions" ancient superstitions and the many gods of greek mythology?

Title: Re: Creation vs Evolution
Post by towr on Dec 12th, 2007, 11:52pm

on 12/12/07 at 15:31:31, ecoist wrote:
Sorry, towr, the stone arch is a false analogy!
No it's not; it's an analogy, it's not a precise correspondence. It's a matter of extracting what the relevant point is. And the point is that the mechanisms that allowed an organism to arrive at a certain level of complexity may have disappeared without a trace along the way.


Quote:
ID'ers, though wrong, are not that stupid.  The stone arch can arise by accident or by planning, so is a poor example.
Well, an organism might also arise by planning, if biotechnology has anything to say about it. But that doesn't mean that it normally does happen that way.
I don't see arches happen by accident, unless by such a scaffolding mechanism though.


Title: Re: Creation vs Evolution
Post by JiNbOtAk on Dec 13th, 2007, 12:32am

on 12/12/07 at 20:33:25, ecoist wrote:
Those who try to put creationism or intelligent design as theories equally valid as evolution!

And I thought we agreed that those who have faith in creationism does not consider it as a theory, more of a fact.  ;D



on 12/12/07 at 20:33:25, ecoist wrote:
Who is older, Jesus or Euclid?  Or, do you include among "religions" ancient superstitions and the many gods of greek mythology?

Hmm..who said anything about Jesus ? Not to belittle the man ( I think he's fabulous, by the way ), but when I say religion, it wasn't Jesus who popped into mind.

Title: Re: Creation vs Evolution
Post by SMQ on Dec 13th, 2007, 5:58am

on 12/12/07 at 20:06:18, JiNbOtAk wrote:
Anyone know whether the original text state a singular or a plural heaven ?

While my knowledge of biblical Hebrew is insufficient to answer that question, modern translations seem to split about evenly, which would lead me to suspect that the Hebrew either didn't distinguish (written languages have not always distinguished singular and plural forms) or is ambiguous (perhaps due to the implied vowels).  I'll try to dig a bit deeper when I have the chance as I'm now intrigued as well.

--SMQ

Title: Re: Creation vs Evolution
Post by ecoist on Dec 13th, 2007, 9:48am
Although I still question your stone arch analogy, towr, you are right on everything else.  Indeed, how some complex organisms evolved may be lost.  And some organisms can have come into existence either by evolution or design.  But, when Behe says something could not have arisen by evolution, neither he nor anyone else can ever provide any evidence for such a claim.  Thus, design theory must ever remain a matter of faith beyond scientific inquiry.

Title: Re: Creation vs Evolution
Post by Grimbal on Dec 13th, 2007, 11:19am
An organism can well evolve to a design where every single part is vital.

An organism can evolve in a favorable environment to some redundant complexity.  Later, in order to survive in a scarce environment, it can evolve by optimizing down, loosing everything useless.  I would expect that in an extremely scarce environment, only those organism that managed to strip to the bare minimum will survive.  That is in fact a very good thing for them because it means they have no competition and no predators.

So the image of the arch is appropriate.  You build a redundant structure (i.e. the arch with scaffolding), and then you remove the redundancy.

Title: Re: Creation vs Evolution
Post by rmsgrey on Dec 13th, 2007, 11:52am

on 12/13/07 at 09:48:14, ecoist wrote:
Although I still question your stone arch analogy, towr, you are right on everything else.  Indeed, how some complex organisms evolved may be lost.  And some organisms can have come into existence either by evolution or design.  But, when Behe says something could not have arisen by evolution, neither he nor anyone else can ever provide any evidence for such a claim.  Thus, design theory must ever remain a matter of faith beyond scientific inquiry.

"Irreducible complexity" - Behe's argument is that there exist complex structures such that the removal of any part causes them to cease functioning - like a stone arch which becomes a heap of rubble when you remove any of the stones.

There are two major flaws in irreducible complexity. Firstly, as Towr said, things can evolve by losing (now) surplus parts as well as by gaining new parts - so rather than building the arch as two unstable piles of rock that fall over before you can get the keystone in place, you can build up a solid stone wall and then remove the non-load-bearing stones until what's left barely stands.

Secondly, unlike the stone arch, where the heap of rubble is pretty much useless, most (if not all) biological complex structures turn out to do something (else) useful when you take something away - for example, "half an eye" is still a useful light-sensor. A bacterial flagellum (trumpeted as an example of irreducible complexity for a time) minus some key proteins is very useful as the bacterial example of a sting.

In other words, examples of "irreducible complexity" are often found to be reducible (to other purposes) instead, and, even if a truly irreducibly complex system were found, it wouldn't be a compelling argument against natural selection - it could have arisen through reduction of a redundant system that developed by gradual accretion.

Title: Re: Creation vs Evolution
Post by JiNbOtAk on Dec 13th, 2007, 5:36pm

on 12/13/07 at 05:58:04, SMQ wrote:
I'll try to dig a bit deeper when I have the chance as I'm now intrigued as well.


Just as a side note, the Qur'anic translations always refer to heavens in the plural form, the earth in the singular form.

Title: Re: Creation vs Evolution
Post by mikedagr8 on Dec 14th, 2007, 12:36am
Just a note since it came up, Genesis (Bereish*t) 1:1 was my portion when reading from the Torah on my Bar Mitzvah. 8)

Title: Re: Creation vs Evolution
Post by skeptic1000 on Apr 24th, 2008, 1:47pm
I think it's ironic that evolutionists have to constantly defend themselves against the standard creationist arguments about DNA, missing links, irreducible complexity, etc..., because not only are there perfectly good evolutionary explanations for these things, but creationists seem to assume that if we didn't have an answer it would somehow be evidence for creation. Creationists have no evidence of their own, so instead of trying to find some, they just find "holes" in the opposing theory and claim it as evidence for their own.

Unfortunately for them, that's not how evidence works. Even if it turned out that evolution couldn't explain the supposed "irreducible complexity" argument, that STILL would not be evidence for creation, it would just be evidence that there is more work to be done on the theory of evolution. Any evidence for Creation would need to come in the form of someone making a hypothesis, such as "If Creation is true, then I would expect to observe X when I perform experiment Y". And then they test it out and publish their findings. But Creationists refuse to test out any of their beliefs.

If Evolutionists took the same approach to the debate then they could just say, "Well since you can't prove Creation, then Evolution must be right." But scientists do not resort to those school-yard tactics. Evolutionists challenge their own theories and test them out, rather than simply point out the flaws in Creation (I'm not saying they don't ever point out the flaws in Creation, just that they also find evidence for their own claims).

So far all evidence from experiments, predictions, and observations about genetics, fossils, geology, biology, etc.. all confirm the theory of evolution. So (without exaggeration) we have all evidence pointing towards evolution, no evidence against it, AND no evidence for Creation but tons of evidence against it. So why is there even a debate? The only answer I can come up with is so that people can continue to support their faith-based beliefs, but that sort of motivation has no place in a logical debate.

Another ridiculous claim that Creationists make is that, "the Theory of Evolution, is just that, a THEORY." That is such an insult to the intelligence of everyone listening. Yes, Evolution is just a THEORY in as much as gravity is just a THEORY. But both of those theories have been tested to the point where we can predict the outcome of experiments, and the results are measurable, repeatable, observable, quantifiable, and verifiable. So we accept those theories to be true. If someone is so hung-up on the term "theory", then they should not get in an airplane, because there are a lot of "theories" at work keeping them from crashing.

Title: Re: Creation vs Evolution
Post by towr on Apr 24th, 2008, 2:10pm
"New Scientist" has an evolution special as of April 16th, which might be interesting to work through:
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/life/dn13620-evolution-24-myths-and-misconceptions.html

Title: Re: Creation vs Evolution
Post by towr on Apr 24th, 2008, 2:22pm

on 04/24/08 at 13:47:55, skeptic1000 wrote:
But scientists do not resort to those school-yard tactics.
hihi.. You should read some of the tactics sociologists/anthropologists of science find scientists using, you'd be surprised. A renowned author in this field is Bruno Latour, if you're interested in finding some literature (e.g. there's his book "Science In Action"; but there's also some articles on line if I'm not mistaken).
Mind you, despite the sometimes dubious tactics and motivations, that does not at all discredit the scientific enterprise; just like our all too flawed politicians don't discredit democracy as the least worst practical mode of government. There is method to the madness, but it isn't Popper's falsificationism.

Title: Re: Creation vs Evolution
Post by rmsgrey on Apr 25th, 2008, 3:31am
I have seen it said that the main reason creationism v evolution is a live issue in the US is to do with money and power - something about the tax laws and local politics (my source - The Science of Discworld III: Darwin's Watch - only touches on the matter tangentially, so that's all I know about it)

As for why creationists focus on discrediting evolution rather than on proving creation, I can think of three reasons off the top of my head:

1) When people go looking for evidence, it has a strong tendency to come up favouring evolution, or, at best, neutral.

2) There is no even vaguely plausible third explanation being put forward, so if evolution is discredited, creationism wins by default - which reflects a general feature of real-world science - when testing a new hypothesis, there's always some sort of default explanation by which to judge which features of the new hypothesis to test as surprising-if-true, and to revert to if the new hypothesis fails to be supported.

3) Possibly the most significant reason is that the majority of, if not all, creationists don't think in scientific terms, so aren't inclined to adopt the scientific method in arguing their case (most, if not all, people who think in scientific terms about evolution/creationism are persuaded by the evidence in favour of evolution)

Title: Re: Creation vs Evolution
Post by Sir Col on Apr 27th, 2008, 6:45am

on 04/24/08 at 13:47:55, skeptic1000 wrote:
But scientists do not resort to those school-yard tactics.

As a Creationist I take exception to that. Although there are a noisy minority of Creationists that give the rest of us a bad name, there are Evolutionists that are guilty of the same thing. I consider myself to be a well educated person and I certainly do not subscribe to an inconsistent or incoherent philosophy.

Indeed we have many unanswered, and possibly unanswerable questions, but an honest and well researched Evolutionists would concede the same.

In all of these debate I think you are misunderstanding where we are coming from, so let me explain...

The fundamental difference between us is the basis of our perspective which comes from our faith. We believe that God has transformed our hearts and minds so that we see what non-believers see differently. For example, I look at the wonder of the universe and declare, "Glory to God!" Others look at the same thing and declare, "Isn't it incredible how my preconceived notions of order versus chaos allows me to extrapolate to an irrational sense of numinousness."

Please note that I am neither arrogant nor foolish enough to put this "perspective" down to anything intrinsically insightful in me or anything I've learned or done. We believe it is a gift from God, which I would never dare try to explain.

So there lies our fundamental difference. We start with the premise that God created and then aim to establish a logical and rational model to explain creation. Non-believers, on the other hand, have no way to explain origins, but attempt to make sense out of the world that surrounds them.

To tell a Creationist that they are welcome to discuss "creation" as long as they leave God out of it would be like telling a particle physicist to explain matter as long as they leave dark matter out of it. "But it is of fundamental importance!" they declare. "Can you see it?" "No, but we observe its effect," they retort. "That's not good enough. And you call yourself a scientist!"

Title: Re: Creation vs Evolution
Post by towr on Apr 27th, 2008, 7:34am

on 04/27/08 at 06:45:06, Sir Col wrote:
Others look at the same thing and declare, "Isn't it incredible how my preconceived notions of order versus chaos allows me to extrapolate to an irrational sense of numinousness."
Name one person that declares that ;)

And I'm not sure if I'd called mathematics a "preconceived notion of order vs chaos". On the other hand, I'm also not quite sure what you meant by that whole sentence.



Quote:
To tell a Creationist that they are welcome to discuss "creation" as long as they leave God out of it would be like telling a particle physicist to explain matter as long as they leave dark matter out of it. "But it is of fundamental importance!" they declare. "Can you see it?" "No, but we observe its effect," they retort. "That's not good enough. And you call yourself a scientist!"
It isn't good enough that they observe it; not if they want it to count as science. For that, everyone has to, in principle, be able to reproduce the method by which to observe the effects.
The only way to observe the effects God has, is to be gifted by him to see it. It's not a matter of following the right procedures and using the right equipment; like it is in the case of replicating scientific observation.
Also, particle physics makes plenty of predictions to test that don't involve observing (effects of) dark matter (actually, isn't dark matter more the territory of cosmologists?) So what can we test in creation theory where we don't need to be gifted by god to do it? That's what they're asking, or should be asking: something to test that doesn't require the belief they lack. If a theory revolving around God works better to predict and control physical phenomena, no scientist can reasonably object; the best theory should win.

Title: Re: Creation vs Evolution
Post by Sir Col on Apr 27th, 2008, 12:53pm
You're right, my analogy sucks, and I will make no attempt to salvage any part of it!

And sorry, but I was being somewhat flippant with that sentence: "Isn't it incredible how my preconceived notions of order versus chaos allows me to extrapolate to an irrational sense of numinousness."

It fits into the same category as those crass arguments that theists use to prove the existence of God, only it is based on the classic (and horribly flawed) argument that atheists use to disprove God. It usually goes something like this... By nature we are pattern spotters and so when we discern order we naturally conclude that there must be a creator God. However, our perception of order versus chaos is based on a combination of survival instincts and nurturing, and is therefore borne out of nothing more than our cultural and anthropological roots. Hence when we believe we have discovered God we have only discovered the primitive essence of our own humanity. To quote Xenophenes: "But if cows and horses and lions had hands or could draw with their hands and make the things men can make, then horses would draw the forms of gods like horses, cows like cows, and they would make their bodies similar in shape to those which each had themselves." Ergo, God does not exist.

Title: Re: Creation vs Evolution
Post by skeptic1000 on Apr 27th, 2008, 8:19pm

on 04/27/08 at 06:45:06, Sir Col wrote:
Indeed we have many unanswered, and possibly unanswerable questions, but an honest and well researched Evolutionists would concede the same.


Unanswered? Yes. Unanswerable? Absolutely not; not in the same sense that creationist claims are unanswerable. If a scientist tells you that something is unanswerable it means that it is currently unanswerable, simply because it takes time to collect all the evidence required to draw a conclusion. When creationists say their questions are unanswerable they mean there is no evidence that could ever possibly exist that would either refute or prove their claim since they are by definition not dealing with the natural world. Their claims are intentionally formulated to be untestable, which is much different than simply being unanswerable by current evidence.


on 04/27/08 at 06:45:06, Sir Col wrote:
We start with the premise that God created and then aim to establish a logical and rational model to explain creation.


...and why start with that premise? It drastically limits your ability to find a correct answer when you insist on starting with an unproven premise. That just seems plain silly, and also extremely obvious that you are not out to find the truth, but rather to somehow prove to yourself what you already believe.


on 04/27/08 at 06:45:06, Sir Col wrote:
Non-believers, on the other hand, have no way to explain origins, but attempt to make sense out of the world that surrounds them.


No way to explain origins? Just because Evolution doesn't try to explain origins doesn't mean that science in general doesn't attempt to explain it. There are tons of theories about origins out there.  The Big Bang is one that comes to mind, and even though the details are immature as far as a scientific theory goes, the evidence for it is massive when compared to the God-origin that you propose.

Creationists would do well to take their zealous critique of scientific theories and apply it to their own beliefs. If someone wants to demand more evidence from evolution before they accept it then I say more power to you, as long as you also make that same demand of the other (i.e., religious) theories that are presented to you.

Title: Re: Creation vs Evolution
Post by Sir Col on Apr 28th, 2008, 12:03am
Judging by your disrespectful manner it is clear that you did not read my post in the spirit it was intended. I would remind you that an ad hominem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem) argument is no argument at all.

If you read the posts of the other learned members on this forum, for whom I have maximum respect, you will see that they acknowledge the limits of our understanding.

However, given your faith in the current Big Bang model I would invite you to comment on the progress of "answers" to any of the three following unanswered questions:
(i) There should be an equal "quantity" of matter and anti-matter. Why can we not detect this abundance of anti-matter?
(ii) The current model for the origins of the universe demands the existence of an abundance of Population III stars. Why can we not find any?
(iii) The density of monopoles should be billions of times the critical density of our universe. Why have scientist failed to either detect or experimentally create a single one?

Title: Re: Creation vs Evolution
Post by towr on Apr 28th, 2008, 2:16am

on 04/27/08 at 20:19:54, skeptic1000 wrote:
Unanswered? Yes. Unanswerable? Absolutely not; not in the same sense that creationist claims are unanswerable. If a scientist tells you that something is unanswerable it means that it is currently unanswerable, simply because it takes time to collect all the evidence required to draw a conclusion.
There may not be evidence. Consider for example the multiple universe interpretation of quantum mechanics. It is in principle impossible to prove those other universes exist (if we could observe them, they'd be part of our universe). Or take string theory; as far as I know, they haven't thought of one single testable consequence. Or consider the geometry of the universe, is it Euclidean or not? Poincare proved it is impossible to decide (it's simply a consequence of math).
There are inevitably truly unanswerable questions to scientific theories, because we're part of the system we're trying to describe and therefore some things are inaccessible to us. Which isn't to say I don't prefer the scientific method for answering those questions that may have an answer, but it's not a foregone conclusion that looking long enough can always yield an answer.


Quote:
...and why start with that premise?
Because they know it to be true.
Or if you prefer, they think they know it to be true (who really knows anything; we may be in a large computer simulation for all we can tell).


Quote:
No way to explain origins? Just because Evolution doesn't try to explain origins doesn't mean that science in general doesn't attempt to explain it. There are tons of theories about origins out there.  The Big Bang is one that comes to mind, and even though the details are immature as far as a scientific theory goes, the evidence for it is massive when compared to the God-origin that you propose.
The big question, though, is not so much what happened but why. "In the beginning there was nothing, and then it exploded." That something 'exploded' (expanded is a better word) is something science can confidently say, but how that could happened is problematic. Possibly as problematic as explaining where God came from.


Quote:
Creationists would do well to take their zealous critique of scientific theories and apply it to their own beliefs.
Well, even without the latter; they advance (mainstream) science by asking (possibly) uncomfortable questions that adherents of evolution don't ask themselves. Of course, when those questions are answered, it'd be nice if they would seem to have more of an impact; some acknowledgment that good work was done. To some extent it should be possible to respect a theory without agreeing with it. On the other hand, as Kuhn said, adherents of different paradigms essentially live in different worlds, speaking a different language. Neither makes view sense when viewed solely from the other side.

Title: Re: Creation vs Evolution
Post by skeptic1000 on Apr 28th, 2008, 7:10am
Sir Col:
Ad hominem? Unless you are the inventor of Creationism and religion I wouldn't consider my comments a personal attack on yourself. Maybe I overused the word "you", but it was meant to be a generic "you".

Also please note I made no allegiance to the Big Bang theory, I was simply pointing out that even though Evolution makes no attempt to explain origins, other areas of science do (because you said non-believers have no explanation for origins). I don't want to contaminate a good evolution/creation debate with that topic so maybe we can start another thread with your 3 questions about the Big Bang theory. Because certainly you are not implying that the fact that you have 3 questions about the Big Bang theory is somehow proof for Creation.

towr:
Good points about quantum mechanics.string theory, but Sir Cols allegation about "unanswerable questions" was strictly addressed towards Evolution, so that's the only field I was defending.

And yes, it is great that Creationists ask the tough questions about science, because science thrives on being put to the test. That's why I said if someone wants to demand more evidence then more power to them. But then they have to be willing to accept the evidence when it is laid out before them, and then they also have to demand the same level of evidence from any other religious belief or theory.

Title: Re: Creation vs Evolution
Post by skeptic1000 on Apr 28th, 2008, 9:39am

on 04/28/08 at 02:16:56, towr wrote:
Because they know it to be true.
Or if you prefer, they think they know it to be true (who really knows anything; we may be in a large computer simulation for all we can tell).


So when scientists perform an experiment or do research they are trying to find out what is true. But when religious people do research they get to start with the premise that "what they think they already know" (a.k.a. their faith-based beliefs) are true, and then they only look for "evidence" to support what they already believe in or refute what they don't believe in. (I use "evidence" in quotes here because as I mentioned earlier they don't use real evidence since there is none, they just use questions about other theories as proof of their own theories). So since Creationists have arbitrarily decided that God created us, they get to use that as a premise for their logic? That type of logic seems dangerous to me. Many creationists (incorrectly) argue that Evolution allows people to do away with morality, but it seems to me that being able to arbitrarily decide what is true has much deeper implications on morality. You can justify anything with that logic. Granted that creationists are not directly trying to use that logic for harm, but they have to realize that that same logic is how suicide bombers are able to justify their actions also.

Creationists then demand all sorts of evidence from Evolutionists (which is usually provided), but never demand that same evidence from their own beliefs. So why is their Creationist belief not subject to the same rigors? Why do their beliefs have to babied, for fear that attacks on their beliefs will be construed into attacks on the person (as we have seen above)? You can try to attack scientific beliefs all you want but no scientist would ever take it as a personal attack. They would just take those attacks to the drawing board and figure out if they hold water.

That last quip about computer simulations is cute, but it doesn't really even the playing field of "truth" as much as The Matrix would have you believe. Because even if that were the case, there is still truth within the simulation. As long as that truth can independently be determined by experiments that are observable, measurable, predictable, verifiable, and repeatable then it doesn't matter if you want to call life a simulation. Truth is truth, and all concepts of truth: scientific, religious or otherwise should be held to the same flame of scrutiny. Imagine if we treated all beliefs the same way we treated religious beliefs; just giving everyone a carte blanche to accept truth and myth as they desire. Religion is the only place where that sort of irrationality is not only accepted, but many times even rewarded, because the more irrational you are able to be, then clearly the more must faith you must have. And in turn the more faith you have somehow makes you more Godly. So you can literally rise through the ranks by forcing yourself to believe in something that doesn't make sense. That's not a hierarchy I'd be interested in climbing, and it seriously concerns me about the people at the top.

Title: Re: Creation vs Evolution
Post by Sir Col on Apr 28th, 2008, 10:00am
skeptic1000, you seem to be intent on misquoting/misunderstanding me...

In my original post I was careful to say, "Indeed we have many unanswered, and possibly unanswerable questions, but an honest and well researched Evolutionists would concede the same."

You just said, "but Sir Cols allegation about unanswerable questions was strictly addressed towards Evolution, so that's the only field I was defending."

If that's the only thing you were trying to defend, then your efforts seem unnecessary, as I never said that.

As for it being Creationists that ask these tough questions, I think you give them too much credit. I don't ask these questions because I am a Creationist, I ask them because I consider myself to be a good scientist. And in fact, it is from the brilliant minds behind the development of ideas in string theory that most of these "unanswerable" questions have sprung. Of course they are not without their own answers too, but they flatly (for those in the know, please excuse the pun) undermine the popular model for the Big Bang. Their solution, which goes some of the way to address the questions relating to horizon size and the inexplicably small deviations from flatness in spatial geometry just after the Big Bang, is an inflationary universe. However, this Big Bang model does not address the important question about monopoles, anti-matter, and population III stars. A fact that they firmly admit.


[edit]

It looks like you made another post as I was replying and I find some of your comments deeply offensive. For example, to suggest that people possessing faith have the same mindset as suicide bombers is outrageous.

So far I have seen little evidence of any scientific pedigree in the realm of creation/evolution from you. All you seem to do is constantly spout the same stereotypical dogma about religion being a substitute for intelligence, and quite frankly it is tedious. I have tried to make the distinction between the noisy minority from all quarters that give each other a bad name. I have tried to explain that most Creationists subject themselves to the rigorous protocols of empirically verifiable evidence in matters of science. But like all good scientists they are honest and humble enough to know the limitations of their knowledge. It seems that you are either missing these points or refuse to accept them.

If you have any pertinent points to make relating to Evolution or Creationism then I am quite happy to hear them, but I refuse to be involved in a puerile discussion that is based on bigoted and misplaced views.

[/edit]

Title: Re: Creation vs Evolution
Post by skeptic1000 on Apr 28th, 2008, 12:12pm

on 04/28/08 at 10:00:42, Sir Col wrote:
skeptic1000, you seem to be intent on misquoting/misunderstanding me...

In my original post I was careful to say, "Indeed we have many unanswered, and possibly unanswerable questions, but an honest and well researched Evolutionists would concede the same."

You just said, "but Sir Cols allegation about unanswerable questions was strictly addressed towards Evolution, so that's the only field I was defending."

If that's the only thing you were trying to defend, then your efforts seem unnecessary, as I never said that.


It appears I may have misinterpreted your statement. I read it as "Indeed we [creationists] have many unanswered, and possibly unanswerable questions [about our theory of creation], but an honest and well researched Evolutionist would concede the same [about their theory of evolution]."

I think you are saying that what you meant was "Indeed we [humans in general] have many unanswered, and possibly unanswerable questions [about the universe], but an honest and well researched Evolutionist would concede the same [about those same questions]."

If that is the case, then yes, I did misinterpret your statement, but I hope you can see how and that it was not my intent to twist what I thought you were trying to say.

[/quote]


on 04/28/08 at 10:00:42, Sir Col wrote:
It looks like you made another post as I was replying and I find some of your comments deeply offensive. For example, to suggest that people possessing faith have the same mindset as suicide bombers is outrageous.


Speaking of misquoting...I never said they have the same mindset, I said they come to their conclusions using the same form of logic. The conclusions are vastly different, but the shared logic is that it is ok to start with the premise that what you believe is true, and then continue down that path only looking for evidence that supports your existing beliefs. And I even made it extra clear that I was not implying that creationists were the same as suicide bombers by adding that creationists are clearly not trying to harm anyone, just that they were using the same type of logic. I put that disclaimer in there so that you wouldn't misquote me, but you still managed to. And now that I think about it, creationists (maybe not you, but some) do cause some direct harm when they try to deprive our children of a proper education and try to halt the progress of scientific research, for the sole purpose of defending their religion.



on 04/28/08 at 10:00:42, Sir Col wrote:
So far I have seen little evidence of any scientific pedigree in the realm of creation/evolution from you. All you seem to do is constantly spout the same stereotypical dogma about religion being a substitute for intelligence, and quite frankly it is tedious. I have tried to make the distinction between the noisy minority from all quarters that give each other a bad name. I have tried to explain that most Creationists subject themselves to the rigorous protocols of empirically verifiable evidence in matters of science. But like all good scientists they are honest and humble enough to know the limitations of their knowledge. It seems that you are either missing these points or refuse to accept them.

If you have any pertinent points to make relating to Evolution or Creationism then I am quite happy to hear them, but I refuse to be involved in a puerile discussion that is based on bigoted and misplaced views.


All the evidence is out there for you. It's up to you to decide if you will evaluate it without first assuming the premise that God created us. None of the evidence will mean anything coming from me if you insist on first making that huge leap of faith.

As for creationists subjecting themselves to the rigorous protocols of science, but simply being humble enough to stop when they've hit the limits of their knowledge: That does sound quite noble at first, but in reality it's more of a scientific cop-out. Scientist can't throw in the towel every time we hit a wall, and then decide to assign everything past that wall to God. If we did that we would never get anywhere and we'd still be worshiping Sun Gods instead of knowing that the Sun is a star that we are orbiting.

We shouldn't stop at things we don't know. Rather that is exactly where we should start working even harder to understand them. Like your questions about the Big Bang theory; just because you have questions doesn't mean the whole concept is wrong, it just means we need to do some more research on those details. Which is exactly what I plan on doing and I hope to see you in that thread also.

Title: Re: Creation vs Evolution
Post by towr on Apr 28th, 2008, 12:45pm

on 04/28/08 at 09:39:24, skeptic1000 wrote:
So when scientists perform an experiment or do research they are trying to find out what is true. But when religious people do research they get to start with the premise that "what they think they already know" (a.k.a. their faith-based beliefs) are true
Scientists also start with things they take as true. Typically they work within a scientific paradigm, taking the core of that paradigm as true without question (things like "light speed is the upper speed limit"). The things that are open to question are the details and auxiliary hypothesis fleshing out the paradigm (like various possible interpretations of the core theory), but not the things they think have sufficient evidence for them.
The same may be said for creationists.


Quote:
and then they only look for "evidence" to support what they already believe in or refute what they don't believe in. (I use "evidence" in quotes here because as I mentioned earlier they don't use real evidence since there is none, they just use questions about other theories as proof of their own theories).
That's not really different from what scientist, in practice, do. While in theory -- well, according to falsificationism -- they should go out and shoot their own theory to bits if they can, they don't. They look to confirm their theory, and discredit other people's theories, just like any normal human. And when their theory is discredited, they don't throw out the core principles as long as they can tweak the auxiliary hypotheses to save it.
Most paradigms die out, not because it's adherents stop believing in it, but because they die of old age and the new generation is raised in the more successful ones at school/university. In case of religion, though, a new generation is born into the 'paradigm'; so it is unlikely to die out in the same way (hence the huge number of religions, of which at most one might be right).


Quote:
So since Creationists have arbitrarily decided that God created us, they get to use that as a premise for their logic?
I don't think it's fair to describe it as arbitrary; they didn't just flip a coin and based on that decided to believe in God. I'm sure they think they have very good reasons to believe God created the universe; personal revelation even, perhaps.
Besides, Copernicus 'arbitrarily' decided the sun was the center of our solar system (well, actual, universe according to him); even when the Ptolemaic model worked better and had all evidence of that time in its favour. And I'm not sure how much evidence Einstein had when he 'arbitrarily' decided on the speed of light as the speed limit of the cosmos.


Quote:
That type of logic seems dangerous to me.
Well, perhaps if the paradigm isn't subject to the normal selective pressure. (Of course it's the pinnacle of memetic evolution; the idea that just won't die.) But it makes sense that people build their conception of the world around them foremost on the 'facts' they are most sure of. If I regularly saw objects defy gravity (like books and pens falling to the ceiling), then I wouldn't subscribe to the theory of gravity, even if I was the only one that experienced it. (Although there's the possibility I'd question my sanity, if there really wasn't anyone else.)


Quote:
Why do their beliefs have to babied, for fear that attacks on their beliefs will be construed into attacks on the person (as we have seen above)?
Well, I agree that their theories shouldn't be babied, at least not if they have scientific pretenses. But I'd try to keep in mind that they probably think they have good reasons for believing what they do; even if I don't agree with then and may not understand their reasons.
Not, mind you, that I'm always successful in my attempts.


Quote:
You can try to attack scientific beliefs all you want but no scientist would ever take it as a personal attack. They would just take those attacks to the drawing board and figure out if they hold water.
I'm not quite sure about that; scientists are still human. When you attack someone's theory you attack their pride and prestige, and that's personal. However I haven't got an example handy (maybe when my new book by Latour arrives).

Title: Re: Creation vs Evolution
Post by towr on Apr 28th, 2008, 12:46pm

Quote:
That last quip about computer simulations is cute, but it doesn't really even the playing field of "truth" as much as The Matrix would have you believe. Because even if that were the case, there is still truth within the simulation.
Well, only up to the point 'someone' doesn't continually change the rules or gives each person a qualitatively different view of the universe, etc.


Quote:
As long as that truth can independently be determined by experiments that are observable, measurable, predictable, verifiable, and repeatable then it doesn't matter if you want to call life a simulation. Truth is truth, and all concepts of truth: scientific, religious or otherwise should be held to the same flame of scrutiny.
Nah, a lot of truths don't matter in day-to-day life. That's why we humans get away with having such an incredibly, stupendously, unreliable memory. Getting the gist of things typically suffices. Now for Universal Truths, those, I'd agree, should typically hold up to scrutiny; but even there there's the question to what extend they matter (to other people).
As long as we can agree on how the world behaves, it doesn't really matter what else people believe around it; and there lies the problem. Frankly, I don't really care if someone believes the earth is 6000 years old, as long as they can concede that despite that fact it behaves as if it's 4.5 billion years old. Maybe I'm overly behaviouristic in this approach, but I don't much care about metaphysics. If the simulation was started (our) yesterday, all our memories in place at the start, what does it matter, right?


Quote:
Imagine if we treated all beliefs the same way we treated religious beliefs; just giving everyone a carte blanche to accept truth and myth as they desire.
Well, just like any freedom, up to the point where it interferes with other's.


Quote:
Religion is the only place where that sort of irrationality is not only accepted, but many times even rewarded, because the more irrational you are able to be, then clearly the more must faith you must have. And in turn the more faith you have somehow makes you more Godly. So you can literally rise through the ranks by forcing yourself to believe in something that doesn't make sense.
Now, see, this is a clear example for which I can see why Sir Col might be upset about it.
Why presuppose they're irrational? People can end up with vastly different world views by similar rational means if they start from different positions. They're not forcing themselves to believe things that don't make sense to them; it does make sense to them, it just doesn't make sense to you.
A lot of scientific theories from the past don't make any sense in today's context, like phlogiston; but they made sense in the context of their day. They weren't thought up by irrational people, just people that worked from different principles.

Title: Re: Creation vs Evolution
Post by skeptic1000 on Apr 28th, 2008, 1:21pm
towr & Sir Col, thanks for taking the time to respond so comprehensively. towr, you seem to prefer sticking to the neutral philosophical side, you are a very diplomatic moderator :) Complete this joke: A Creationist, an evolutionist, and a philosopher walk into a bar..."

One thing I hear a lot is that "It takes more faith to believe in evolution than it does to believe in creation." I don't know if creationists really believe that, or if they just know how to push a scientist's button by accusing their theories of being faith-based. But even if it is just a tongue-in-cheek remark I figured it is worth evaluating.

First we have to assign a value to the amount of faith required for each theory. Let's say that evolution takes X amount of faith, and creation takes Y amount of faith.

Creationists must then consider that Creation assumes that the creator came from nothing, and since by definition the creator must be more complex than the beings it created, the theory of the creator coming from nothing must require more faith than the theory of humans evolving from nothing, so we can call that amount of faith X+1.


So,

X  = the amount of faith required to believe that the complex life on earth could arise where there was none before.

Y = the amount of faith required to believe that God created all life on earth.

X+1 = The amount of faith required to believe that God exists.

So Creation requires Y+X+1 amount faith, but Evolution only requires X amount of faith. So no matter what initial values you decide that X and Y should take on, Creation always requires more faith than evolution.

The key factor here being that it takes more faith to believe in the mere existence of God than it does to believe in the evolution of humans, as I proved above. This might surprise a lot of people because religion tells you that Creation is the simplest answer and that evolution is insurmountably improbable.

But what they aren't telling you is that with Creation you also have to account for the creation of the creator. Evolution and Natural Selection remove that entire level of complexity and explain how life could arise without getting into the paradoxical infinite loop that creation causes (what created the creator, what created that creator, etc...). Evolution is so much simpler. Creationists try to make it sound improbable, but fail to mention that creation still has to overcome that same improbability in order to explain the creator.

So now that we have one theory clearly requiring more faith than the other, you simply invoke Occam's Razor to come up with an answer.

Title: Re: Creation vs Evolution
Post by skeptic1000 on Apr 28th, 2008, 2:23pm
I think I figured out the punchline:

A creationist, an evolutionist, and a philosopher walk into a bar. The barman asks then what they'd like to drink. The creationist says he has church in the morning so he orders a coke. The evolutionist wants to unwind from his full day of debating with creationists so he orders a rum. Upon hearing this the philosopher says "Those both sound good, I think I'll have a rum and coke". Then the creationist and the evolutionist both offer to pay for it.

Title: Re: Creation vs Evolution
Post by rmsgrey on Apr 28th, 2008, 2:37pm

on 04/28/08 at 13:21:44, skeptic1000 wrote:
So now that we have one theory clearly requiring more faith than the other

Except that the "clearly the creator must be more complex than his creation" argument is only true when you define complexity in a way that makes it effectively impossible to assess. For example, which is more complex? The Mandelbrot Set, or a chessboard (without pieces)

For that matter, which is more complex? An acorn or an oak tree?

Or consider the effect of unleashing Langton's Ant on a featureless infinite plane.

For that matter, today's universe is a lot more complex than the standard model's picture of a split-instant after t=0

To say that any God capable of creating the observed universe must have been more complex than it, and then use that as an argument that something very simple (the Big Bang) must have created the universe instead is a little inconsistent.


This is without raising the point that the presence of a creator then affects the probability of intelligent life arising - so it requires a lot less faith to believe that a generally rectangular array of corn growing in regular rows was deliberately planted by some "farmer" than that the plants just happened to spontaneously arrange themselves in that way, even if you've no other evidence of the farmer's existence.

Title: Re: Creation vs Evolution
Post by skeptic1000 on Apr 28th, 2008, 3:57pm

on 04/28/08 at 14:37:44, rmsgrey wrote:
For that matter, which is more complex? An acorn or an oak tree?


Thanks for playing devil's advocate, but I don't see the correlation. Acorns become oak trees, so it's hard to assess that relationship, but it's not like humans grow up to be Gods.  I think it's safe to say that any religious person thinks of God as a higher-being than a human, and thus more complex. Anything else I'm pretty sure would be sac-relig. I'm comfortable with the assumption that the God of religious creationism must be more complex than humans, in the same way that humans are more complex than computers (so far).



on 04/28/08 at 14:37:44, rmsgrey wrote:
To say that any God capable of creating the observed universe must have been more complex than it, and then use that as an argument that something very simple (the Big Bang) must have created the universe instead is a little inconsistent.


I didn't try to justify the Big Bang with this proof. I only tried to show that the creation of life requires more faith the evolution of life. I opened up another thread for the Big Bang for just that purpose though.


on 04/28/08 at 14:37:44, rmsgrey wrote:
This is without raising the point that the presence of a creator then affects the probability of intelligent life arising - so it requires a lot less faith to believe that a generally rectangular array of corn growing in regular rows was deliberately planted by some "farmer" than that the plants just happened to spontaneously arrange themselves in that way, even if you've no other evidence of the farmer's existence.


Really? I was pretty certain my proof accounted for that, that's why I said it doesn't matter what initial values you choose for X and Y. But I'm glad you brought it up so that we can explicitly evaluate it. Let's consider the extreme case where you say that initially X and Y both equal 10. But when you consider that God exists, Y drops all the way down to 1 (because certainly any life-form with the ability to create life should do it, right?) So you now have that evolution requires 10 units of faith, but creation requires 12 units of faith.

The key to this relationship is that it has much less to do with how likely it is that God would have created life, and much more to do with the mere existence of the creator.  When you realize that, it's easy to see that it doesn't matter how much the presence of a creator affects the probability of intelligent life arising in order for this proof to hold true.


Title: Re: Creation vs Evolution
Post by towr on Apr 29th, 2008, 12:51am
If you have faith in God, then that already includes the belief he created life on earth; you don't need additional faith for that.
If I believe in chocolate chip cookies, I don't need to separately believe in chocolate chips; they're part of it, and delicious.

So we have
 X the belief in god and that he created the universe and life
and
 Y the belief that life arose on it's own in a universe that appeared on its own.
and no way to rank them.

I'm skeptical about whether an a priori reasoning like this can really ever determine which of the two requires more faith.
But how about an empirical test, look at the portion of evolutionists that turn creationist and vice versa. Of course, there is the problem of keeping the conditions fair. So perhaps select a number of each kind, and put them in the environment of the other, then check back in a few years.
There is anecdotal evidence for both types of "conversions".

Title: Re: Creation vs Evolution
Post by skeptic1000 on Apr 29th, 2008, 5:49am

on 04/29/08 at 00:51:27, towr wrote:
So we have
 X the belief in god and that he created the universe and life
and
 Y the belief that life arose on it's own in a universe that appeared on its own.
and no way to rank them.


That's fine because the complexity argument still shows that X=Y+1. (i.e., God arising from nowhere requires more faith than humans arising from nowhere). Or, just going back to my original proof, you simply use 0 for Y. Like I said, it doesn't matter what initial values you use for X and Y.

(Note: our X's and Y's are swapped)

Title: Re: Creation vs Evolution
Post by rmsgrey on Apr 29th, 2008, 6:31am

on 04/29/08 at 05:49:31, skeptic1000 wrote:
That's fine because the complexity argument still shows that X=Y+1. (i.e., God arising from nowhere requires more faith than humans arising from nowhere).

Yes, God is generally accepted as being more complex than an individual human being, but that's largely irrelevant to the amount of faith required to believe in various purported origins.

Which is simpler? A universe with a 30 light-year radius that appeared on its own 28 years, 1 month and 3 days ago, or a universe with a history of 10-15 gigayears that includes as part of it the 30 light-year radius and 30 years duration of the first universe? Obviously, the larger universe contains all the present complexity of the smaller and vastly more besides, and there is no conceivable evidence that could distinguish the two from our position at the centre of the bubble, so, since, by your assumption, it takes less faith to believe in a less complex object appearing from nowhere, we should believe in the 30 light-year radius universe that appeared from nowhere rather than the 10 giga-light-year radius universe that appeared from nowhere?

Title: Re: Creation vs Evolution
Post by skeptic1000 on Apr 29th, 2008, 6:54am

on 04/29/08 at 06:31:27, rmsgrey wrote:
Yes, God is generally accepted as being more complex than an individual human being, but that's largely irrelevant to the amount of faith required to believe in various purported origins.

Which is simpler? A universe with a 30 light-year radius that appeared on its own 28 years, 1 month and 3 days ago, or a universe with a history of 10-15 gigayears that includes as part of it the 30 light-year radius and 30 years duration of the first universe? Obviously, the larger universe contains all the present complexity of the smaller and vastly more besides, and there is no conceivable evidence that could distinguish the two from our position at the centre of the bubble, so, since, by your assumption, it takes less faith to believe in a less complex object appearing from nowhere, we should believe in the 30 light-year radius universe that appeared from nowhere rather than the 10 giga-light-year radius universe that appeared from nowhere?


Apples and oranges again...

The problem with your analogy is that faith is the belief in the unknown. You are comparing things that we can observe so there is no faith required to pick which one to believe. I am comparing the faith required to believe in the unknown portions of two theories: 1) the belief that god exists and created life (of which pretty much all information is still unknown), and 2) the belief that life evolved on its own (of which there is still some debatable amount of unknown information).

So if you want to continue to try pick two things to make an opposing analogy (which I encourage you to do), you need to stick the guidelines. I've picked two things that I feel have complexities that can be compared (at least relatively), and two things that could* be said to require some amount of faith to wholly believe in.

*I say "could" because some would argue that evolution requires no faith at all, but that point is trivial to my proof of which one requires more faith. Again, the reason being that whatever value you pick for the faith required for evolution of humans, creationism must require some arbitrary more amount of faith to first account for the existence of a more complex creator.

Title: Re: Creation vs Evolution
Post by towr on Apr 29th, 2008, 7:03am

on 04/29/08 at 05:49:31, skeptic1000 wrote:
That's fine because the complexity argument still shows that X=Y+1. (i.e., God arising from nowhere requires more faith than humans arising from nowhere).
I don't think it does. If only because very few religious people (afaik) believe God ever came into existence; he simply always was.


Quote:
Or, just going back to my original proof, you simply use 0 for Y. Like I said, it doesn't matter what initial values you use for X and Y.
But it does matter whether one set of beliefs subsumes the other or not; and I don't think they do. But feel free to try and convince me (of the argument; personally I have no qualms with the conclusion.)

Title: Re: Creation vs Evolution
Post by skeptic1000 on Apr 29th, 2008, 7:49am

on 04/29/08 at 07:03:43, towr wrote:
I don't think it does. If only because very few religious people (afaik) believe God ever came into existence; he simply always was.


Now there's a good point. I'm not sure how one would incorporate that into the proof since the idea of timelessness is aBStract. I wouldn't say that being timeless requires less faith though, it is just a completely impossible concept to put into a scientific model. Which brings us back to idea of "intentional untestablility" that religion is so good at putting into their claims.



on 04/29/08 at 07:03:43, towr wrote:
But it does matter whether one set of beliefs subsumes the other or not; and I don't think they do. But feel free to try and convince me (of the argument; personally I have no qualms with the conclusion.)


My claim is essentially that creation subsumes evolution (and then even adds an extra unit of faith equal to the delta of complexity between the creator and its creation).  Which is pretty much the same argument as the "Ultimate 747" which went something like this:

Someone (I think Hoyle) made the bold statement that believing in evolution is the equivalent of believing that a hurricane could sweep through a junkyard and randomly assemble a 747. And it became known as the "Ultimate 747" analogy. (The obvious fallacy here is that evolution does not work on randomness alone. Yes, the mutations are random, but natural selection is also at work making sure that positive traits are rewarded and then passed on...etc) So then intentionally following the same flawed logic, I think Dawkins retorted something like "Well, his God must be the Ultimate 747 then".

A similar question that was posed to me is "Isn't believing evolution the same as saying that you truly believe a monkey would write War & Peace given enough time to hammer away at a keyboard"? Again, the fallacy here being that even though the mutations of evolution are random,  the process that preserves positive traits (natural selection), is absolutely not random.

So then I figured there must be a way to incorporate all the forces and mechanisms involved in evolution into the typing-monkey story so that it does make sense. This is what I came up with:

If you add to that analogy that letters in the correct sequence receive some form of positive feedback (which would be analogous to our "survival of the fittest"), and that once a correct letter is in the right place it stays there (which would be analogous to our genetic replication and reproduction), then you'd be getting closer to making an analogy that accurately captures all the mechanisms and forces involved in Evolution AND Natural Selection. No one would say that evolutionary mutations alone would lead to complexity, because there has to be a need, or a driving force behind the evolution that somehow favors progress. That is exactly what natural selection does, it exploits our method of reproduction in order make sure positive traits are rewarded and passed on.

Title: Re: Creation vs Evolution
Post by SMQ on Apr 29th, 2008, 8:39am

on 04/29/08 at 07:49:28, skeptic1000 wrote:
A similar question that was posed to me is "Isn't believing evolution the same as saying that you truly believe a monkey would write War & Peace given enough time to hammer away at a keyboard"? Again, the fallacy here being that even though the mutations of evolution are random,  the process that preserves positive traits (natural selection), is absolutely not random.

Even without the fallacy, that one's easily refutable, as any statistician worth his or her beans assuredly believes exactly that!

Taking a modern English translation, Project Gutenberg puts Tolstoy's War and Peace (http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/2600) at ~3.25 million characters.  Let's call it an even 100 typographical characters used, so, assuming all character values are equally likely, the chances of any random three-and-a-quarter-million typed characters being War and Peace are about 1 in 106,500,000.  And since by that point sacle is pretty well irrelevant, the expected time for a monkey at a keyboard to produce War and Peace is about 106,500,000 seconds/days/years/whatever.  In a hundred times as long -- a mere 106,500,002 years -- it's all but certain that War and Peace is in there somewhere.

Sure, that's a heck of a long time -- well beyond the heat death of the universe -- but we're talking about infinity here, and compared to infinity that's just peanuts. ;)

--SMQ

Title: Re: Creation vs Evolution
Post by skeptic1000 on Apr 29th, 2008, 9:10am

on 04/29/08 at 08:39:10, SMQ wrote:
Even without the fallacy, that one's easily refutable, as any statistician worth his or her beans assuredly believes exactly that!


Hopefully no one would say it couldn't eventually be done even with the fallacy, but certainly some would  try to label the the two concepts (typing-monkey and evolution) as having the same probability. So to finish off your argument we need to show that life evolving is more probable than 1 in 106,500,000. I think the Drake Equation would tell us that the chance of life forming is MUCH better than that.

But even if you don't accept that life evolving is inevitable, and think that it is completely improbable, I once heard it explained this way:
The "the needle in a haystack" principle is not all that hard to overcome when you consider that the only reason we even know the needle exists is because we are standing on it.

Title: Re: Creation vs Evolution
Post by towr on Apr 29th, 2008, 10:23am

on 04/29/08 at 09:10:31, skeptic1000 wrote:
I think the Drake Equation would tell us that the chance of life forming is MUCH better than that.
Only because the factor accounting for the emergence of life in the Drake equation is much larger; so that's really tautological. Drake's equation doesn't have anything of itself to say about the probability of life, or even intelligent civilizations; those are all factors it uses, and the values are estimates. (Ignoring the way they interact, the orders of magnitude they may be off, the number of different types of life that might exist etc)

To illustrate the problem ( http://www.xkcd.com/ ):
http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/the_drake_equation.png

Title: Re: Creation vs Evolution
Post by rmsgrey on Apr 30th, 2008, 4:51am

on 04/29/08 at 06:54:22, skeptic1000 wrote:
The problem with your analogy is that faith is the belief in the unknown. You are comparing things that we can observe so there is no faith required to pick which one to believe.


What possible observation can we make now to distinguish between the 10-15 gigayear-old Big Bang universe beloved of cosmologists, and the 30-year-old bubble universe that started out in exactly the same state as the equivalent chunk of the Big Bang universe? Sure, if we wait a few years, the two universes' divergence becomes observable, but, then there's still the 50-LY radius universe... Or the single galaxy universe, or...

The point I was aiming my analogy at is that, in deciding what to believe, we don't just look at the raw complexity of the objects involved, but also their probability of coming about. Barring outside intervention, it seems far more likely that a universe that appears to have developed from a Big Bang did than that a much smaller, younger, simpler universe happened to start out looking just like part of a Big Bang universe.

In the case of life-as-we-know-it, the probability of it developing if God exists and intends it to develop is 1; the probability of it developing if God does not exist is x<1; the probability of God existing and intending life as we know it is y<1. Both figures are wildly unknown and can be heavily influenced by choices of assumptions and definitions, and lack any obvious relationship (unless God is an example of life-as-we-know-it, there's no reason to suppose the likelihood of his existence is linked in any way to the likelihood of life-as-we-know-it in the absence of God)

Title: Re: Creation vs Evolution
Post by skeptic1000 on May 1st, 2008, 12:44pm

on 04/30/08 at 04:51:18, rmsgrey wrote:
What possible observation can we make now to distinguish between the 10-15 gigayear-old Big Bang universe beloved of cosmologists, and the 30-year-old bubble universe that started out in exactly the same state as the equivalent chunk of the Big Bang universe? Sure, if we wait a few years, the two universes' divergence becomes observable, but, then there's still the 50-LY radius universe... Or the single galaxy universe, or...


When you can't directly observe, you make predictions about how the things you would have hoped to observed should have effected the things that you can observe.  I'm not a cosmologist, but as far as I know most (if not all) of the predictions that we make about the universe based on a Big Bang style birth have turned out to be true. Potentially with the exception of the few that I started The Big Bang thread about, but even those seem to not be that compelling.

Now I'm guessing you're saying that your fictional 30-year universe would fool us by producing all the same observations and predictions as the 15-gigayear universe. That is an interesting theory but it seems more philosophical than scientific. At some point you have decide if you are going to believe the evidence around you or not. If you decide not to, then your world falls apart way before you start contemplating these huge questions.

Either way, I don't think it's important because I don't think you actually believe in the 30-year universe, I think you were just criticizing my claim about not being able to observe it.


on 04/30/08 at 04:51:18, rmsgrey wrote:
The point I was aiming my analogy at is that, in deciding what to believe, we don't just look at the raw complexity of the objects involved, but also their probability of coming about. Barring outside intervention, it seems far more likely that a universe that appears to have developed from a Big Bang did than that a much smaller, younger, simpler universe happened to start out looking just like part of a Big Bang universe.


Let me just make sure I am understanding you first. I think you are saying that a 30 year universe would be less complex than the 15 gigayear universe. But we know that the 15 gigayear universe (even though a more complex theory) is actually much more likely. So therefore, my argument about  something more complex being less likely is not fair to presuppose. Correct?

If so, there is a huge distinction we need to make between something "being less likely" (as you said) and something "requiring more faith" (which is the original phrase I was using in my proof). Something can be not likely at all, but still require no faith to believe in if all the evidence is laid out before us. And on the flip-side, something can be extremely likely but require lots of faith if we don't have any of the evidence. Because faith is the belief in the unseen, not necessarily (but often) the belief in the unlikely.

So again I'm seeing apples and oranges here. You are using examples of things that are more/less likely, but I am talking about things that require more/less faith. So I still think my proof holds true.



Title: Re: Creation vs Evolution
Post by towr on May 1st, 2008, 2:21pm

on 05/01/08 at 12:44:48, skeptic1000 wrote:
Now I'm guessing you're saying that your fictional 30-year universe would fool us by producing all the same observations and predictions as the 15-gigayear universe. That is an interesting theory but it seems more philosophical than scientific.
Science needs a philosophical basis if it's going to make claims of truth. Why should observation be any basis for figuring out the cosmos? The greeks didn't do it that way.
If you want to prove all swans are white, is it valid to go out and find as many white swans as possible? You'll probably say "no, you should look everywhere for different coloured swans instead." But why is the second approach better than the first? That's a philosophical problem, and not one you can solve with empirical science; it's a problem that revolves around induction.
It doesn't suffice to say "well, this is the scientific method, and that defines what science is." Why is that a good method? Why should it define science? Is it the best? Will it get us at the truth? Will it get us there the fastest?
How would you convince the person looking for white swans that he's wasting his time? That requires a sound argument. Science needs a solid philosophical foundation.


Quote:
Either way, I don't think it's important because I don't think you actually believe in the 30-year universe, I think you were just criticizing my claim about not being able to observe it.
He doesn't need to believe in a 30-year old universe to make a good argument about/with it.


Quote:
If so, there is a huge distinction we need to make between something "being less likely" (as you said) and something "requiring more faith" (which is the original phrase I was using in my proof). Something can be not likely at all, but still require no faith to believe in if all the evidence is laid out before us. And on the flip-side, something can be extremely likely but require lots of faith if we don't have any of the evidence. Because faith is the belief in the unseen, not necessarily (but often) the belief in the unlikely.
And yet you use exactly the same reasoning in your argument: universe + god is more complex than just universe, so it requires more faith. But adding god might simplify the whole, even though it's a 'bigger' whole.


Quote:
So again I'm seeing apples and oranges here. You are using examples of things that are more/less likely, but I am talking about things that require more/less faith. So I still think my proof holds true.
I'm seeing pet-theory syndrome here, to be honest.
You haven't made a convincing argument, and instead of improving it you just call objections to it irrelevant.

Title: Re: Creation vs Evolution
Post by skeptic1000 on May 2nd, 2008, 8:29am

on 05/01/08 at 14:21:16, towr wrote:
Why should observation be any basis for figuring out the cosmos? The Greeks didn't do it that way.


And does anyone still give any credibility whatsoever to any of the Greek Gods? Look, if you don't want to believe that scientific evidence makes for a compelling argument, then that is fine, but realize that that argument can be used in any debate against either side equally, so it doesn't really add anything to the conversation. It's kind of like whoever pulls it out first gets to use it. But in my opinion, whoever pulls it out first has just ran out of real arguments.


on 05/01/08 at 14:21:16, towr wrote:
And yet you use exactly the same reasoning in your argument: universe + god is more complex than just universe, so it requires more faith. But adding god might simplify the whole, even though it's a 'bigger' whole.

How is that the same? My whole point was that saying that something is more/less likely IS NOT the same as saying that something requires less/more faith. rmsgrey was talking in terms of something being more/less likely. Whereas, I was talking in terms of something requiring more or less faith. Since those two concept are not the same, then I wasn't using the same logic. Is that not how you read my first attempt at explaining this?


on 05/01/08 at 14:21:16, towr wrote:
I'm seeing pet-theory syndrome here, to be honest.
You haven't made a convincing argument, and instead of improving it you just call objections to it irrelevant.


Certainly I am defending my theory, but I think you can see I've done a lot more than simply "call" the objections irrelevant. I've tried to explain (albeit, in vain) where they seem to fall apart logically, which I thought was the whole point of a debate.

Title: Re: Creation vs Evolution
Post by skeptic1000 on May 2nd, 2008, 9:35am

on 05/01/08 at 14:21:16, towr wrote:
I'm seeing pet-theory syndrome here, to be honest.
You haven't made a convincing argument, and instead of improving it you just call objections to it irrelevant.


One more thing, I will have no problem either retracting my argument or attempting to improve it as soon as a convincing argument is made against it. So far all the arguments against my proof have been of the form "I will use the same logic to try to prove something that is false, therefore your logic must be false". And that's exactly the method I would try to use, but so far the supposedly analogous claims that I have heard have not truly been analogous, so of course I would first reject those claims rather than try to improve my own argument.

Trust me, I would much rather have to spend time improving my own argument than continually explaining the false claims made in the arguments against it. So please, give me a reason to improve it...or maybe I should help you by coming up with one myself?

Title: Re: Creation vs Evolution
Post by rmsgrey on May 3rd, 2008, 7:02am
Let's see if I'm understanding your argument correctly.

It seems to me that it rests upon two principles:

1) A creator must be more complex than the creation.
2) It requires more faith to believe in the existence of something more complex than of something less complex.


For point 1, there are examples of less complex entities giving rise to more complex entities (with a potential quibble over the definition of complexity) so God being more complex than the entire universe (or multiverse) can't be established by invoking creation as a general principle.

For point 2, I offered an example universe, much less complex than that believed in by cosmologists, but impossible to distinguish from the standard model by observation alone, and pointed out that the simpler version requires rather more effort to believe in. So, again, relative complexity isn't sufficient to establish comparative levels of faith required.

Title: Re: Creation vs Evolution
Post by towr on May 3rd, 2008, 11:14am

on 05/02/08 at 08:29:52, skeptic1000 wrote:
And does anyone still give any credibility whatsoever to any of the Greek Gods?
Neither did most Greek philosophers. Yet they still came up with physics that depended neither on gods nor on empirical research.
The point is there is a reason for the scientific method, it's not just, "Oh well, gods didn't work out, let's try whatever else; hey what about empirical evidence?"
What the best approach to understanding the universe is doesn't depend on how many people happen to support it. If every scientifically minded person where to inexplicably drop dead, the scientific method would still be as good as it is now, even though no one gives it any credence.


Quote:
Look, if you don't want to believe that scientific evidence makes for a compelling argument, then that is fine, but realize that that argument can be used in any debate against either side equally, so it doesn't really add anything to the conversation. It's kind of like whoever pulls it out first gets to use it. But in my opinion, whoever pulls it out first has just ran out of real arguments.
No, whoever "pulls it out" wants an actual argument, rather than mere opinion, as to what is better. If you don't have an argument why scientific evidence matters, why do you believe it does?
Or is it really something you just take on faith? Is it really arbitrary?
Surely not.


Quote:
How is that the same? My whole point was that saying that something is more/less likely IS NOT the same as saying that something requires less/more faith. rmsgrey was talking in terms of something being more/less likely. Whereas, I was talking in terms of something requiring more or less faith. Since those two concept are not the same, then I wasn't using the same logic. Is that not how you read my first attempt at explaining this?
As I said, I read your argument as "universe + god is more complex than just universe, so it requires more faith." I read rmsgrey's argument as "a 30-lightyear bubble of universe is less complex than 15-billion lightyear universe". I haven't mentioned, nor used, any argument regarding to likelihood, nor its relation to faith.


on 05/02/08 at 09:35:27, skeptic1000 wrote:
So please, give me a reason to improve it...or maybe I should help you by coming up with one myself?
It is unconvincing. If that isn't enough to try to improve on it, or at least clarify it -- since apparantly we greatly misunderstand what you're saying -- then what's the point?

Title: Re: Creation vs Evolution
Post by skeptic1000 on May 5th, 2008, 2:39pm

on 05/03/08 at 07:02:47, rmsgrey wrote:
Let's see if I'm understanding your argument correctly.

It seems to me that it rests upon two principles:

1) A creator must be more complex than the creation.
2) It requires more faith to believe in the existence of something more complex than of something less complex.

For point 1, there are examples of less complex entities giving rise to more complex entities (with a potential quibble over the definition of complexity) so God being more complex than the entire universe (or multiverse) can't be established by invoking creation as a general principle.

For point 2, I offered an example universe, much less complex than that believed in by cosmologists, but impossible to distinguish from the standard model by observation alone, and pointed out that the simpler version requires rather more effort to believe in. So, again, relative complexity isn't sufficient to establish comparative levels of faith required.


Correct on point 1. And I do think there are hypothetical (but convincing) examples of things that might be more complex than their creator. I just wasn't happy with the examples you used, like acorn and oak trree, because there exists a very specific relationship between those two objects (one grows into the other), which does not exist between man and God. I tried to allude to the obvious example I was thinking of but you never used it, so I'll use it myself   later in this post.

Incorrect on point 2, it should be re-worded as "It requires more faith to believe in something more complex evolving into existence from nothing, than to believe in something less complex evolving into existence from nothing." (Clearly we are not debating the the mere existence of man vs. the existence of God). Even so, I wasn't -- and am still not -- buying into the blurring between likelihood and faith. Your example did clearly show how a simpler universe is not necessarily more likely, but to me that's not the same as showing that it requires more or less faith. To back up why I don't see the correlation, I said that things can be likely but require lots of faith if the evidence is not present, and likewise, things can be unlikely but require no faith if the evidence is overwhelming.


on 05/03/08 at 11:14:45, towr wrote:
If you don't have an argument why scientific evidence matters, why do you believe it does?
Or is it really something you just take on faith? Is it really arbitrary?
Surely not.

My answer to that has been stated at least twice here. The answer is because the results are measurable, predictable, verifiable, repeatable, observable, quantifiable etc... But I guess your question then becomes "Why do any of those traits make scientific evidence matter"? My answer to that is that if you don't think those traits matter then you should not be using a computer, you should not get on an airplane, and you should not have surgery, because all of the reliability that we assign to those activities are gleaned from science. And anyone that  subscribes to those metrics of reliability is also saying that those traits matter very, very much. They matter so much that you put your life in their hands everyday when you decide to walk down the stairs from the 10th floor of a building rather than just jump out of the window. Maybe you have a better answer to than that though, so let's hear it.


on 05/03/08 at 11:14:45, towr wrote:
I haven't mentioned, nor used, any argument regarding to likelihood, nor its relation to faith.

Sure you you did. You did it when you used rmsgrey's analogy of the two universes. His claim required that one of the universes be more likely than the other, and it also required that you then accept an inverse relationship between "likelihood" and "amount of faith required to believe". I don't see that relationship.

So here is the counter-argument to my proof that I was waiting to hear. I mentioned that humans are more complex than their computer creations (so far). But Moore's Law can probably provide us with an approximate date of when computers will surpass our own complexity. In that case we would have a concrete example of something being more complex that it's creator, and then my whole proof falls apart. So then the question is how were humans able to do it (assuming that we do, maybe it will turn out that Moore's Law has an asymptotic effect as we approach human complexity)? I think the answer is that we relied upon the technologies afforded to us by our existing environment. Clearly if we had nothing around us, and we were just floating around in empty space, we would never be able to create this potential future-computer.

So I think that in order for something to create something more complex than itself, it has to be able to exploit its surroundings in such a way that the creator and it's resources become more than the sum of their parts. So can we then apply this same logic to God creating humans? I don't think you can because to say that God exploited his surroundings in order to create something more complex than himself is to assume that those surroundings already existed outside of God's own creation, which then brings you back to the existence of something existing without God.

And I can guess that the Creationist argument would be that this God, that is less complex than humans, could have created things starting with the least complex and then used those as building blocks to create more complex things. But the funny thing about that is that now you have Creationists arguing that God is not more complex than humans. In which case that seems to be really silly and probably insulting to the God that you claim to believe in and worship.

Title: Re: Creation vs Evolution
Post by puzzlecracker on May 5th, 2008, 5:01pm
1. Four grades of scientific speculation
a. description of repeatable, observable phenomena - science has maximum credibility, though fallible
b. interpolation - assumes simplicity (without accepted definition or justification) - agreed upon in application and relatively safe
c. extrapolation - beyond tested boundaries - relatively daring - e.g. “cosmological hypothesis,” constancy of physical “constants”
d. deep theory - postulating unobservable entities on the sole ground that they would explain observations - e.g. molecules, particles, etc., the Big Bang, the id
Moving from a tod increases distance from the evidence and thus lowers credibility - we must become critical consumers of science
2. Scientists accept theories as true on the basis of inadequate evidence: Michaelson said in 1903 that physics is finished; Born said the same in 1928; Gamov said there is nothing smaller than particles (last ed. 1967!); paleontologists at La Brea; dumb, cold-blooded dinosaurs; oxygen/carbon-dioxide balance without quantitative analysis.
3. Although religion deals with many issues not directly relevant to science (the spiritual, the metaphysical, values, worship, etc.), it also makes assertions concerning matters of physical fact. In those assertions there can be conflict between science and religion. For Judaism this includes the age of the universe and the theory of evolution.
4. Solution to the problem of the age of the universe - the Jewish date 5756 is the age of the universe; the scientific date is the result of analyzing misleading data created by G-d
(1) “Why would G-d do that?” (a) the question is not relevant; (b) we can answer: to hide His presence; He told us the truth so He is not deceiving us
(2) “Would that not undercut all investigation?” Only if unconstrained - compare investigating claim of frame-up in law

5. The theory of evolution and its relation to Judaism
a. assume a certain order of appearance of life forms on earth - these are the facts which the theory of evolution is supposed to explain
b. the theory says: (1) there was a first nearly perfect self-replicator; (2) some of its mistakes in self-copying improved the copy’s ability to copy itself; (3) scarcity of resources with which to make copies creates competition between the self-replicators; (4) eventually only the better self-replicators will remain...until (2) repeats the process.
The central claim: (1)-(4) suffice to explain the existence and history of life.
c. G-d could have created the same sequence of life-forms, so there is no contradiction between that sequence and Judaism, but if the central claim is true then the existence of life is not evidence for G-d.
6. Problems with the theory of evolution
a. originally adopted against both the best current age of the earth and the conception of inheritance as blending, and missing its own crucial fossil evidence - this shows the bias of the scientific community in favor of the theory [better any naturalistic explanation than scientific bankruptcy!]
b. the theory asserts that life is the result of unguided, accidental, “random,” processes without providing an estimate of the probability of success - the theory is not precise enough to be evaluated for credibility
c. misuse of data - black/white moths - no new forms implies no support for evolution; persistence of white form implies (extremely weak) evidence against evolution
d. misuse of data - “evolution” of bacteria resistant to antibiotics, insects resistant to insecticides- can be explained without evolution if a su****pulation were already resistant
e. misuse of data - the gap between micro-evolution and macro-evolution
f. homology [def. limbs or organs with similar structure serving different purposes]
- the claim: evolution (common descent) and nothing else can explain homology - both parts of the claim are false: (1) evolution cannot explain homology since homologous structures have dissimilar genetic coding (due to pleiotropy) and embryological development; (2) usefulness and “parallel evolution” are alternative explanations
g. fossil record lacks intermediary forms - theory of “punctuated equilibria” explains why we will not find evidence of its truth [!] - does nothing for big gaps
(fox-like mammal to whale; insects; flowering plants; etc.)
h. most extinctions due to catastrophes - no evidence of any extinctions due to competition
i. no credible (even hypothetical) account of the origin of the first self-replicator,
DNA/proteins, the cell, human intelligence
j. the best available theory should be accepted only if it has enough evidence to be credible
k. CONCLUSION: The theory of evolution is too poorly defined and supported at present to be accepted as true. [It is NOT claimed that the theory is disproved, and NO SUPPORT IS CLAIMED FOR “SCIENTIFIC” CREATIONISM]

Title: Re: Creation vs Evolution
Post by tohuvabohu on May 5th, 2008, 5:41pm
What's your definition of complexity? God has no moving parts. God does not change. God's motivations and purposes are simple, pure love and justice; much less complex than man's constant interplay of mixed emotions and cross-purposes.

One scientific theory that attempts to explain why this universe exists might be the brane theory (which I don't really understand, but I take it that some higher dimension membranes/universes collide every once in a while causing a big bang).
That brane is invisible, untestable, unverifiable. In short, the only difference between putting scientific confidence in that theory of origins and God, is that the brane is dead and God (The Brain)is alive.  
Is a multiverse with an infinite number of universes in who knows how many dimensions less complex than a single universe and a single God?
They say that our universe is incredibly fine tuned. If any of the universal constants varied from observed values by even a tiny bit, stars, planets and life would almost certainly be impossible. The universe would not even exist without the incredible fine tuning of the Big Bang, in terms of the density of particles, the proportion of matter to antimatter, the perfect timing of inflation starting and then turning off--how easy it would be for this universe to be so dense you'd just have black holes everywhere, or so sparse you'd have one atom every few lightyears.
You can speculate that the fine-tuning is because there's an infinite number of universes, and therefore one with the right balance is inevitable (although who is to say the distribution curve of likely constants would result in our universe even then?) But given a choice between a lifeless, purposeless, intelligenceless brane and a purposeful omniscient, omnipotent Brain coming up with the right balance, I think it's very rational to go with the Brain.

The problem with the scientific method is that it starts with a philosophical assumption; that all things can be explained by the laws of nature. No miracles allowed. I agree it makes the science easier and more objective, but it's just an assumption, with no rationale behind except that it makes things easier for the scientist. But it's scientific, so it must be true. Ergo, God either doesn't exist or he's never done a single thing. And if God exists, and if he has ever done anything other than just sit around watching, then science is guaranteed to get it wrong. And they would rather be eternally wrong, but scientific, than actually find the truth, if the truth doesn't match their scientific philosophical assumption of naturalism.
I have no problem with science saying that evolution is scientific and creation isn't, or that all the evidence, when interpreted purely naturalistically, points to evolution. But there is no grounds for assuming naturalism is the only game in town. Or that science=truth.

Title: Re: Creation vs Evolution
Post by towr on May 6th, 2008, 1:39am

on 05/05/08 at 17:41:42, tohuvabohu wrote:
They say that our universe is incredibly fine tuned. If any of the universal constants varied from observed values by even a tiny bit, stars, planets and life would almost certainly be impossible.
If you vary the constants while keeping the others the same then yes; however if you vary them together there's a multitude of combinations that seem to work.
Compare it to a point on a circle; if you change just the x coordinate you leave the circle, if you change just the y coordinate you leave the circle, but if you change them together in the right way, you can stay on.

Title: Re: Creation vs Evolution
Post by towr on May 6th, 2008, 1:41am

on 05/05/08 at 17:01:18, puzzlecracker wrote:
<snip>
If you copy a website wholesale, it's nice if you provide a link http://www.dovidgottlieb.com/lectures/religion_in_the_adolescence_of_s.htm

Title: Re: Creation vs Evolution
Post by towr on May 6th, 2008, 3:20am

on 05/05/08 at 14:39:00, skeptic1000 wrote:
The answer is because the results are measurable, predictable, verifiable, repeatable, observable, quantifiable etc... But I guess your question then becomes "Why do any of those traits make scientific evidence matter"?
Indeed, and I'd expect an answer that shows how (or at least argues plausibly that) these factors work together to converge on the Truth more readily than alternative methods.


Quote:
My answer to that is that if you don't think those traits matter then you should not be using a computer, you should not get on an airplane, and you should not have surgery, because all of the reliability that we assign to those activities are gleaned from science.
I wonder what kind of answers you give on math tests.
"Prove the graphs y=x^2 and y = 3x + 2 have two intersections"
"If you don't believe this is the case you should not be using calculators, drive cars or use anything that in any way relies on mathematics."
All you give is an argument to believe in it regardless of its truth: believe in anything as long as it works for you. Fair enough a rule to live by, true. As long as placebos help to cure your ailments, what does it matter that they don't have an active compound? You don't have to practically worry about why science work, as long as it does. And there is no reason to think it'll stop working. True, Newtonian physics seemed to be the say all and end all, yet ended up having to be replaced; but that was still the scientific method at work. Science works over and above what happens to be the theory at the time.
But then you can't argue against whatever else works for other people. Religious communities haven't lasted as long as they did because it shortened the lifespan of its members and reduced their ability to reproduce. Religion to some extent works. You can explain it as divine providence or in sociological terms; regardless, it work. If all the advantages of modern life count to the value of science, then all the advantages of religious life count toward the value of religion. But it doesn't say anything about their truth.


Quote:
And anyone that subscribes to those metrics of reliability is also saying that those traits matter very, very much. They matter so much that you put your life in their hands everyday when you decide to walk down the stairs from the 10th floor of a building rather than just jump out of the window.
Quite a few religious people rely on God in the same way; to the extent of refusing vaccinations and such (whereas in their shoes one might think that God put doctors on earth for a reason.) People rely on the darnedest things; it doesn't necessarily speak in favour of what they rely on.


Quote:
Maybe you have a better answer to than that though, so let's hear it.
I'd have to think about it more first. For the moment it's enough work to explain that it's an important question and not easily answered.
"Cogito ergo sum" (and even that's disputable); beyond that you can't get anywhere without assumptions. And some are more easily justified than others; that's what a large part of the answer consists of.


Quote:
Sure you you did. You did it when you used rmsgrey's analogy of the two universes.
No, I didn't. The two universe argument doesn't rely an likelihood; it relies solely on complexity. I explained that; twice.


Quote:
So here is the counter-argument to my proof that I was waiting to hear. I mentioned that humans are more complex than their computer creations (so far). But Moore's Law can probably provide us with an approximate date of when computers will surpass our own complexity.
Moore's law only says something about the number of transistors on a chip; and I don't really see a reason to view X transistors as less complex than 2X transistors. There should be an interesting configuration difference at least.

Why don't you take evolution as a counter-example? It may not be willful creation, but each ancestor 'creates' its offspring. And the archaeological record shows a definite increase of complexity.
Or take the universe as an example; from a fairly (but not completely) uniform plasma, we got all sorts of galaxies, solar systems, planets, life. The whole seems to have made itself more complex.


Quote:
So can we then apply this same logic to God creating humans? I don't think you can because to say that God exploited his surroundings in order to create something more complex than himself is to assume that those surroundings already existed outside of God's own creation, which then brings you back to the existence of something existing without God.
Wasn't there chaos in the beginning? Out of which God created order. Seems to fit with what you're hypothesizing.

Title: Re: Creation vs Evolution
Post by rmsgrey on May 6th, 2008, 7:52am
Any creation out of nothing will result in something more complex than what was there before - the combined creator-creation system - unless the creation also makes the creator less complex.


I strongly believe that estimated likelihood (given known facts) is a major determining factor involved in how much faith it requires to believe something. Yes, providing relevant evidence changes the amount of faith required, but it does it by changing the likelihood. It's more likely that my numbers won the lottery on Saturday if the papers reported those numbers as the winning numbers than if the papers reported some other combination. Not having seen the paper, my estimate of the likelihood my numbers came up is 1 in 14 million, and it's pretty hard for me to believe they did. Were I to see them reported as winning by some credible source, my estimated likelihood would be very close to 1, and it would be easy to believe; were I to see some other numbers reported, my likelihood estimate would (probably) drop significantly (if a near-miss set of numbers gets reported, it depends how likely I consider it for an error to generate that report from my numbers actually winning) with a corresponding shift in the amount of faith required to believe it to be the case.

Title: Re: Creation vs Evolution
Post by skeptic1000 on May 6th, 2008, 8:00am

on 05/06/08 at 03:20:14, towr wrote:
No, I didn't. The two universe argument doesn't rely an likelihood; it relies solely on complexity. I explained that; twice.

Maybe that is your version of the analogy. But rmsgrey specifcally said:

on 04/30/08 at 04:51:18, rmsgrey wrote:
Barring outside intervention, it seems far more likely that a universe that appears to have developed from a Big Bang did than that a much smaller, younger, simpler universe happened to start out looking just like part of a Big Bang universe.

...and that is what I am talking about when I say I don't see the correlation between the likelihood of something and the faith required to believe it. If the two types of universes are indistinguishable from each other then maybe it could be argued that they have the same complexity?


on 05/06/08 at 03:20:14, towr wrote:
Moore's law only says something about the number of transistors on a chip; and I don't really see a reason to view X transistors as less complex than 2X transistors. There should be an interesting configuration difference at least.


Maybe Moore's Law doesn't directly answer the question of complexity, but certainly a direct relationship can be drawn between the number of transistors on a chip and the potential to handle complex data operations more efficiently. A supercomputer would be considered more complex than a calculator for this very reason (with many other factors included also)


on 05/06/08 at 03:20:14, towr wrote:
Why don't you take evolution as a counter-example? It may not be willful creation, but each ancestor 'creates' its offspring. And the archaeological record shows a definite increase of complexity.
Or take the universe as an example; from a fairly (but not completely) uniform plasma, we got all sorts of galaxies, solar systems, planets, life. The whole seems to have made itself more complex.


Both are very good counter examples. We'd have to start defining what it means to "create" though. Does a creator have to be aware that they are trying to create something more complex, or is it enough that the laws of nature are coaxing them into it? If so, is God really still the same God if you say he is just the laws of nature at work? That certainly isn't the God that is under debate here.



Title: Re: Creation vs Evolution
Post by skeptic1000 on May 6th, 2008, 9:08pm

on 05/05/08 at 17:41:42, tohuvabohu wrote:
What's your definition of complexity?

It doesn't matter how you define complexity since Creation subsumes Evolution.

Title: Re: Creation vs Evolution
Post by skeptic1000 on May 6th, 2008, 9:12pm

on 05/06/08 at 03:20:14, towr wrote:
I wonder what kind of answers you give on math tests.
"Prove the graphs y=x^2 and y = 3x + 2 have two intersections"
"If you don't believe this is the case you should not be using calculators, drive cars or use anything that in any way relies on mathematics."


That's cute (at best). But the true analogy would be to ask me the question, then let me prove it mathematically, and then you ask me why I think my mathematical operations are true. At which point I would respond in the way you suggest.

Title: Re: Creation vs Evolution
Post by skeptic1000 on May 7th, 2008, 5:40pm
towr, I think I've come up with a better "proof" of why scientific evidence is true. Although I still stand by the other things I've said about all those traits that make scientific evidence important (predictable, measurable, repeatable, etc...), I forget that sometimes I have to start at the very beginning: That science is universal.

That means anyone can use it to try to prove or disprove anything, and the results matter. Science welcomes all other beliefs to use the same method to prove their own theories. Faith, however, does not do that. If one persons' faith is true, then why isn't the next persons'? If it uses the same faith and requires the same level of evidence (zero), then why can't it be true too?

So my claim is that if one thing founded on science is true, then another thing founded on science must also be true. And that is true. But is not true that if one thing founded on faith is true, then all things founded on faith are true. Because surely there is a whole ridiculous spectrum of contradictory things that one can believe purely on faith alone. If Creation is true because of faith, then Christianity must also be true on faith, and Judaism, and Islam, and Hare Krishna, and every other religion...and even more ridiculous faith-based claims like the cosmic teapot and the spaghetti monster must also be true...but we know they can't all be true.

To put it another way, if all faith based things are true then you should be able to switch between them without any logical conflict. Obviously this is not true. This is because most people's faith earns its loyalty from one factor: that they were brought up that way. That should not be a significant factor in determining truth given the sheer arbitrariness of it.

I don't think you can continue down your recursive path of questions and ask me "...and why does it matter that science is universally true?", because to say that something is universally true is the exact definition of truth.

There is a Dawkin's essay called "What is True?" that I know I read at some point but I can't find anymore than just a summary online. If you can find it, it does a much better job of explaining this.

Title: Re: Creation vs Evolution
Post by ThudnBlunder on Dec 13th, 2010, 8:51pm
How do atheists celebrate Christmas?
I guess they do nothing.

Title: Re: Creation vs Evolution
Post by towr on Dec 13th, 2010, 10:48pm
Most probably participate in the same consumerist rat-race as other people.

Title: Re: Creation vs Evolution
Post by rmsgrey on Dec 14th, 2010, 3:38am
How do Hindus, Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, Sikhs, etc, etc celebrate Christmas?

Title: Re: Creation vs Evolution
Post by ThudnBlunder on Dec 14th, 2010, 5:18am
By thanking their God they are not Christians?

Title: Re: Creation vs Evolution
Post by BenVitale on Dec 15th, 2010, 1:34am

on 12/13/10 at 20:51:58, ThudnBlunder wrote:
How do atheists celebrate Christmas?
I guess they do nothing.


Does this surprise you: Richard Dawkins, the world's most famous atheist, does celebrate Christmas (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1100842/Why-I-celebrate-Christmas-worlds-famous-atheist.html)

Title: Re: Creation vs Evolution
Post by ThudnBlunder on Dec 15th, 2010, 4:35am
Anyway... (http://xkcd.com/679/)

Title: Re: Creation vs Evolution
Post by towr on Dec 15th, 2010, 8:52am

on 12/15/10 at 01:34:50, BenVitale wrote:
Does this surprise you: Richard Dawkins, the world's most famous atheist, does celebrate Christmas (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1100842/Why-I-celebrate-Christmas-worlds-famous-atheist.html)
Why should it surprise someone? Christmas is hardly a Christian holiday these days. When was the last time Christmas was more about Christ than Santa Claus and presents and eating?
And most of the symbolism is pagan anyway.

Title: Re: Creation vs Evolution
Post by BenVitale on Dec 16th, 2010, 2:38pm

on 12/15/10 at 08:52:28, towr wrote:
Why should it surprise someone? Christmas is hardly a Christian holiday these days. When was the last time Christmas was more about Christ than Santa Claus and presents and eating?
And most of the symbolism is pagan anyway.


Actually, I've been thinking about this topic for a long time.
I asked myself, Is it rational for an atheist or an agnostic to celebrate Christmas?
I checked to see whether the different models of Rational Choice theory can provide some clues to address this question.

I haven't found anything yet.

But Richard Dawkins provide some clues:

He does celebrate Christmas - and enjoys singing traditional Christmas carols each festive season. He used to have a tree when his daughter was younger.

He continues: 'I really like the kind of peripheral things about Christmas. I like the smell of tangerines and the smell of the tree and to pull crackers.'

Certain traditions, rituals do matter not only because we can learn from the past, but also “because the present and the future are connected to the past by the continuity of a society’s institutions.” It is the glue between past, present and future.

Many Christians don't want to hear about the pagan origins of Christmas.

They offer naive answers to the question, "why is Christmas celebrated on Dec. 25th?

I am an agnostic, I only have one friend who is atheist. I will celebrate with him a rational holiday with him, but haven't decided which day it would be?

And, since I have a girlfriend who is Catholic, I will also celebrate Christmas, and go to church with my girlfriend and her family. That will please them a lot.

Family unity and relationships with Christians weigh more heavily on you than does the principle of avoiding religion.


Title: Re: Creation vs Evolution
Post by rmsgrey on Dec 17th, 2010, 6:04am
Off the top of my head, it seems like the better question to ask in our current "Western" society is not "why celebrate Christmas?" but "why not celebrate Christmas?"

Questioning social convention can be a worthwhile endeavour, but, in the absence of solid reasons for change, "because that's the way things are done" should carry the day...

Title: Re: Creation vs Evolution
Post by towr on Dec 17th, 2010, 8:40am

on 12/16/10 at 14:38:40, BenVitale wrote:
I am an agnostic, I only have one friend who is atheist. I will celebrate with him a rational holiday with him, but haven't decided which day it would be?
You should celebrate Agnostica, it started December 14 and has a half-life of a week, I think.
The gift-exchange part of the Agnostica season traditional consists of the Random Bag of Fun; which contains all manner of small gifts and every eligible celebrant gets to pick one at random.

Title: Re: Creation vs Evolution
Post by ThudnBlunder on Dec 17th, 2010, 9:34am

on 12/16/10 at 14:38:40, BenVitale wrote:
I am an agnostic, I only have one friend who is atheist. I will celebrate with him a rational holiday with him, but haven't decided which day it would be?

As there will be nothing to celebrate except your scarcity of atheist friends, Feb 29th is a rational choice.  :P

Title: Re: Creation vs Evolution
Post by Grimbal on Dec 17th, 2010, 10:06am
Whatever we celebrate is just a pretext.

Just have fun, invite friends, eat, drink, sing, exchange presents.  It helps to fight the depression that comes easily in winter when days are short and the weather is cold and wet.

If I celebrate anything on Christmas, it is the family ties.

Title: Re: Creation vs Evolution
Post by towr on Dec 17th, 2010, 12:06pm
http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/tree.png


Title: Re: Creation vs Evolution
Post by BenVitale on Dec 18th, 2010, 1:20pm
Towr,
I like Agnostica (http://www.agnostica.com/) and convenient for me, since my birthday is on Dec. 13th.

ThudnBlunder,
I see your point. Scarcity translates into celebrating once every 4 years.

Grimbal,
It makes sense to me to celebrate during winter.

rmsgrey,
I believe I have addressed partially to your question in the second part of my post.

I'd like to add the following:

Celebrations such Christmas + Santa, Thanksgiving, Halloween, etc. are rituals that bring people together. People enjoy them.

It's quite common and curious that some people will complain about having to come to family reunions and celebrations.
But if you tell them that, "Oh, sorry, you were not invited or it was cancelled this year!"
Guess what? They wouldn't be happy either.

This reminds me of a type of behavior (madness of crowds) with investors.

Investors are driven by 2 motivators:
- the fear of being left out or failing
- the tendency to look for leadership

Investors are overwhelmed by such emotion when it appears their peers are behaving in a certain universal manner. The fear of missing an opportunity for profits is a much bigger motivator than the fear of losing their life savings.
It is fear of being left out or failing when all the people around you are making big $$$.
The other motivator is tendency to look for leadership.
Leadership comes in 2 forms:
- A balance of the crowd's opinion (as we think that the majority must be right)
- Few key players in the market who seem to be driving the crowd's behavior.



Families build up their own rituals and traditions that help define them and set them apart.

Australian psychologist Andrew Fuller describes family rituals as the “coat hooks upon which we hang our family memories.” (http://www.articlub.com/parenting/Why-Mothers-Day-is-Important-For-Children_30552/print/
)

Rituals are highly protective. The best rituals often cost nothing. These are the activities you hope that later on your children will reminisce and say “ Mum always made sure we did.” or Dad always made sure we did.”

Source (http://www.andrewfuller.com.au/free/AndrewsTenResilienceHints.pdf)





Title: Re: Creation vs Evolution
Post by Mickey1 on Dec 19th, 2010, 12:39pm
How about a socialist buying goods on a capitalist market vs. an atheist celebrating Christmas.


Title: Re: Creation vs Evolution
Post by BenVitale on Dec 20th, 2010, 11:36am

on 12/19/10 at 12:39:57, Mickey1 wrote:
How about a socialist buying goods on a capitalist market vs. an atheist celebrating Christmas.


Could you please clarify this? I mean, could you explain where you are going with this?

We can show that an atheist or agnostic celebrating Christmas is rational as I discussed it earlier or at least I offered my rationalization for celebrating Christmas.

Title: Re: Creation vs Evolution
Post by towr on Dec 20th, 2010, 12:17pm
If celebrating Christmas needs rationalization, you're doing it wrong.

It's similar to why the question of "why did you visit your friend in the hospital" should not be answered with some lengthy explanation of how you benefit as a rational utility maximizer, but with "because he's my friend, duh!".
Unless perhaps you're autistic, in which case you may not have a better way to cope with social life than to overthink it. (But even then, rote memorization of social convention probably works better.)

Title: Re: Creation vs Evolution
Post by BenVitale on Dec 21st, 2010, 11:27am
Autistic, me? No.

The 2 situations are different.
Situation #1: celebrating Christmas with my Catholic girlfriend and her family.

Situation #2: visiting a sick friend in a hospital.

In #2, surely, I'll go visit my friend. My action will not be based on considerations of teleological efficiency or calculation. I'll go visit him, because he's my friend, so my action is based on motivations derived from emotion.

In situation #1: I celebrate Christmas because it will make my girlfriend, and especially her family happy. So, there's a bit of calculation and emotion involved, here.

I'm, currently, writing a blog (in Wordpress) on Classical utilitarianism. In this blog, I'm looking at the ethics of lying through the lenses of Classical utilitarianism.

When I'm done writing it, could I post a link to it in this forum?


The Principle of Utility stated by John Stuart Mill :

"Actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness."


What is happiness?


John Stuart Mill answers:

"By happiness is intended pleasure, and the absence of pain."

Title: Re: Creation vs Evolution
Post by JiNbOtAk on Dec 22nd, 2010, 10:38pm

on 12/14/10 at 03:38:24, rmsgrey wrote:
How do Hindus, Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, Sikhs, etc, etc celebrate Christmas?


I don't celebrate Xmas, at least not the way Christians do (the tree, carols, mistletoe..) I guess for me it's just another holiday, most probably I'll catch up on watching HP7 Part 1..  :P

Title: Re: Creation vs Evolution
Post by ThudnBlunder on Feb 11th, 2011, 7:14am
Below seems like a sensible way to start off any religious discussion:   ;)


Title: Re: Creation vs Evolution
Post by Grimbal on Feb 14th, 2011, 4:39am
Looks more like a way to shut down any religious discussion.

I stopped discussing religion with religion people.  The flowchart provides a good explanation why.

Title: Re: Creation vs Evolution
Post by towr on Feb 14th, 2011, 11:23am
It's not just religion, but also things like homeopathy, anti-vaccination sentiments, alien visitation/abduction, climate-change denial etc.
People believe (and deny) all sorts of things on spurious grounds. And a lot of people lack the imagination to view the world from a different perspective and suspend entrenched (dis)beliefs long enough to have a discussion. Not all though.

Title: Re: Creation vs Evolution
Post by ThudnBlunder on Feb 14th, 2011, 2:35pm

on 02/14/11 at 04:39:32, Grimbal wrote:
Looks more like a way to shut down any religious discussion.

Thanks, I hadn't realized it was that useful.  ;)

Title: Re: Creation vs Evolution
Post by ThudnBlunder on Feb 14th, 2011, 2:40pm

on 02/14/11 at 11:23:00, towr wrote:
It's not just religion, but also things like homeopathy, anti-vaccination sentiments, alien visitation/abduction, climate-change denial etc.
People believe (and deny) all sorts of things on spurious grounds. And a lot of people lack the imagination to view the world from a different perspective and suspend entrenched (dis)beliefs long enough to have a discussion. Not all though.

I wonder how do such 'obviously' false ideas arise in said unfortunate people.
Misinformation, perhaps. A little knowledge can be misused for ignoble purposes.

Title: Re: Creation vs Evolution
Post by towr on Feb 14th, 2011, 10:09pm
The following links go a long way to explaining the problem:
http://www.skeptically.org/logicalthreads/id15.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases

Title: Re: Creation vs Evolution
Post by JiNbOtAk on Feb 16th, 2011, 6:52am
Reading back on the previous posts, something strike me as a bit weird. Do you have to be Christian to celebrate Christmas ? Does that mean you also have to be Christian to celebrate New Year ? (The Christian's New Year, which falls on Jan 1st.)

We (Malaysians) celebrate at least 3 New Years, the Muslim's (1st of Muharram), the Chinese (the latest was on the 3rd of Feb), and of course, the Christian one, 1st Jan.

Is it ok for Buddhist to celebrate Diwali ? Does a Christian considered "fallen" if he celebrates Eidul Fitr ? Is it sinful for Muslims to celebrate Valentine's ?

Do Americans who's not in America celebrate 4th of July ?

::)

Title: Re: Creation vs Evolution
Post by towr on Feb 16th, 2011, 9:05am
It depends on your viewpoint. You can't really celebrate the birth of Christ if you don't believe it happened or consider it rather insignificant in the grand scheme of things. You can of course celebrate crass consumerism on the very same day, but that wouldn't be what a Christian considered celebrating Christmas.
So it's very much a question of what exactly you are celebrating. I think most of us can get behind the "good will towards men" sentiment of Christmas; so that is something everyone could celebrate together in Christmas, but other aspects won't appeal to everyone.
If it's an official holiday and day off, we can probably agree on celebrating a free day. ;)

Title: Re: Creation vs Evolution
Post by ThudnBlunder on Feb 17th, 2011, 2:58am

on 02/16/11 at 06:52:50, JiNbOtAk wrote:
Do Americans who's not in America celebrate 4th of July ?

Americans who are not in America don't need an excuse to celebrate. :P

(Well, Canadians might.)  


Title: Re: Creation vs Evolution
Post by Mickey1 on Feb 17th, 2011, 5:12am
You have come a long way from Creation vs Evolution.

Is that due evolution or creation?

Title: Re: Creation vs Evolution
Post by ThudnBlunder on Feb 17th, 2011, 5:57am

on 02/17/11 at 05:12:05, Mickey1 wrote:
You have come a long way from Creation vs Evolution.
       
:-* ? (http://www.hark.com/clips/hddpwjpwdf-taxi-driver-you-talking-to-me) :-*

         


Title: Re: Creation vs Evolution
Post by ThudnBlunder on Mar 13th, 2011, 5:48pm

on 02/14/11 at 22:09:30, towr wrote:
The following links go a long way to explaining the problem:
http://www.skeptically.org/logicalthreads/id15.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases

http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/447/does-reading-about-cognitive-biases-improve-reasoning

Title: Re: Creation vs Evolution
Post by ThudnBlunder on Mar 23rd, 2011, 5:01pm

on 02/16/11 at 09:05:09, towr wrote:
I think most of us can get behind the "good will towards men" sentiment of Christmas;  ;)

If that sentiment implies '...and screw the ladies' then I think I can get behind it, too.
After all, one in the bush is worth two in the hand.  ;D

Title: Re: Creation vs Evolution
Post by towr on Mar 24th, 2011, 9:35am
It wasn't all that funny the first time you posted it to be honest, so why repost it today?


Quote:
man1 [man] noun, plural men
2. a member of the species Homo sapiens or all the members of this species collectively, without regard to sex: prehistoric man.
3. the human individual as representing the species, without reference to sex; the human race; humankind: Man hopes for peace, but prepares for war.
4. a human being; person: to give a man a chance; When the audience smelled the smoke, it was every man for himself.

Title: Re: Creation vs Evolution
Post by ThudnBlunder on Mar 24th, 2011, 12:29pm

on 03/24/11 at 09:35:42, towr wrote:
It wasn't all that funny the first time you posted it to be honest, so why repost it today?

I didn't repeat it. I added to it. And reposted it so that it wouldn't be buried. Why do I need to explain my actions to you?
I happen to think it funny. I daresay ladies would also find it funny. Can't speak for men like yourself, of course.
Anyway, I don't expect somebody whose posts are as relentlessly mirthless as yours to be a good judge of what is funny.






Title: Re: Creation vs Evolution
Post by towr on Mar 24th, 2011, 12:45pm

on 03/24/11 at 12:29:34, ThudnBlunder wrote:
I didn't repeat it.
I didn't say you did. But it is not now posted where it was before.


Quote:
Why do I need to explain my actions to you?
I never asked for an explanation, nor do I expect one. Do you really think that I think you need to explain your action?


Quote:
Anyway, I don't expect somebody whose posts are as relentlessly mirthless as yours to be a good judge of what is funny.
Haha. Guess I hit a sore spot.
I daresay others would disagree with you.

Title: Re: Creation vs Evolution
Post by ThudnBlunder on Mar 24th, 2011, 2:25pm

on 03/24/11 at 12:45:10, towr wrote:
Haha. Guess I hit a sore spot.

Laddish humour also has that effect on some of us.  :P    

Title: Re: Creation vs Evolution
Post by sahibagupta on Aug 1st, 2011, 2:20am
Hi

Americans do not believe humans evolved, and the vast majority says that even if its evolution, God guided the process. Only 13 percent say that God was not involved. But most could not replace the teaching of creationism for the teaching of evolution in public schools.Support of evolution is more heavily concentrated among those with more education and those who never attend religious services or almost nothing.
Thanks
spam link removed (poker site)

Title: Re: Creation vs Evolution
Post by fizyka on Dec 6th, 2011, 4:21pm
I think christmass now isnt only about christianity and religion. Nowadays it's more like happy, warm day for family staying together :D
I am an atheist, but I couldnt have winter without x-mass:)

Title: Re: Creation vs Evolution
Post by Mickey1 on Jan 6th, 2012, 12:29pm
The initial question is quite open. Let us also examine a more precisely worded issue: how did life develop on Earth the last few billion years.
The first choice is to define our tools: should we use i) science or, should we use ii) religious input?

If we choose i) we must take another step  

We need a method of scenario development, i.e. we must examine possible scenarios or hypothesis about what happened.

In this process we meet the exact same choice; should we use i) science or ii) religious input.  
Logic suggest we should be consistent and use the same tool, that is use the combination i) + i) or ii) + ii).

If we start to combine we get strange alternatives, for instance assume we might examine the alternative that had a genetic evolution for everything except for mosquitoes. They were created 4 years and 3 months ago.

The AAAS has an interesting post about this on their website, to which I am not allowed to link, being a newbie.

Title: Re: Creation vs Evolution
Post by SMQ on Jan 6th, 2012, 12:40pm

on 01/06/12 at 12:29:39, Mickey1 wrote:
The AAAS has an interesting post about this on their website, to which I am not allowed to link, being a newbie.

First, you're welcome to include relevant links in posts at any level, just not in your forum signature; second, you just completed 50 posts, so with your very next post you'll be a Newbie no more!

--SMQ

Title: Re: Creation vs Evolution
Post by Mickey1 on Jan 10th, 2012, 1:40pm
I am now trying out my new Junior identity for the first time.

I am not sure I understood all the rules about links I read earlier, posted by yourself. However, not to understand everything goes well with me in the spirit of medieval orders, of which I believe this is the logical and appropriate continuation.
 

Title: Re: Creation vs Evolution
Post by StubbyNubbs on Feb 17th, 2012, 1:56pm

on 02/16/11 at 06:52:50, JiNbOtAk wrote:
... Is it sinful for Muslims to celebrate Valentine's ? ...
::)


apparently http://www.panorama.am/en/society/2012/02/15/arabia-valentine/ (http://www.panorama.am/en/society/2012/02/15/arabia-valentine/)

Title: Re: Creation vs Evolution
Post by towr on Feb 17th, 2012, 2:21pm
You gotta love a name like "The Organisation for Promoting Virtue and Discouraging Evil".


Quote:
The religious authorities say Muslims who take part in Valentine's Day are in fact weak, lacking imagination, and far removed from the "sublime and virtuous" objectives of their religion.
Their wives must be really lucky.


Quote:
The organisation has also confiscated all red roses from shops
I wonder if they gave them to their wives. Though I suppose that wouldn't require a lot of imagination.

Title: Re: Creation vs Evolution
Post by frankrizal on Feb 19th, 2012, 4:42pm
Well for me one thing is sure. That life existed because God did it.  I don't believe that life just existed somewhere..  ;D ;D

Title: Re: Creation vs Evolution
Post by Grimbal on Feb 20th, 2012, 5:34am
Well for me one thing is sure. That God exists because man made It.  I don't believe that God just existed somewhere..  ;D ;D

Title: Re: Creation vs Evolution
Post by sandradiaz770 on May 25th, 2012, 4:38am
I know extremely convincing arguments on both edges. Science teachers stick with development, when theologist stick with creation. I just like to see precisely what individuals here think of the couple, and what kind of one provides the more persuading argument.


Title: Re: Creation vs Evolution
Post by SMQ on May 25th, 2012, 4:54am
As a religious person myself (Christian of the US Mainline Protestant variety as I've mentioned before), I find the scientific arguments more compelling, mainly because they are backed by examinable evidence and repeatable experiment. The religious arguments, on the other hand, are based more on tradition (and often very recent tradition at that--Young Earth Creationism, for instance, is a framework less than 100 years old) and rigid authoritarianism than on even an honest attempt to understand holy scripture, let alone the observable natural phenomena.

For myself, if I find my religion running contrary to observable fact (and by this point I think evolution belongs in that category), I have some rethinking to do. :)

--SMQ

Title: Re: Creation vs Evolution
Post by Grimbal on May 25th, 2012, 5:17pm
Frankly, I don't know of any convincing argument in favor of creationism.
The arguments boil down to "The Bible says so".  And to me, that has not much weight.

There are some valid arguments against evolution.  But even if the theory of evolution were to be proven completely wrong, that wouldn't mean creation is correct.  Creation would remain an extraordinary explanation for our origins for which there is no evidence.  Well, in my opinion.

In case it matters, I was raised as an agnostic, son of a physicist.

Title: Re: Creation vs Evolution
Post by towr on May 27th, 2012, 11:39am
I've always liked this quote from St. Augustine:

Quote:
It not infrequently happens that something about the earth, [... etc etc ...], may be known with the greatest certainty by reasoning or by experience, even by one who is not a Christian. It is too disgraceful and ruinous, though, and greatly to be avoided, that he [the non-Christian] should hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on these matters, and as if in accord with Christian writings, that he might say that he could scarcely keep from laughing when he saw how totally in error they are.

On the other hand he did assert the earth was no more than 6000 years old, so ha ha, in your face St. Augustine.



Powered by YaBB 1 Gold - SP 1.4!
Forum software copyright © 2000-2004 Yet another Bulletin Board