Evolution's 'Dictatorship' -- Student Struggles to Get Opposite Viewpoint Heard

AgapePress ^ | 16 August 2004 | Ed Vitagliano

[Doctor Stochastic]

And some religions claim that you blaspheme by deifying a prophet.

[js1138]

placemarker

[mcg1969]

I'm glad someone noticed---he didn't seem to :)

[Virginia-American]

Both take a set of observations and draw conclusions. No observation conclusively prooves either, and can not. But one group admits the role of faith, while the other group screams a wild-eyed hissy whenever you note the role of faith in their system.

But only evolution makes predictions, which, if they were ever shown to be false (eg by lab work or fossil finds), would cause the theory to be *seriously* modified or abandoned altogether. For example,

Darwin himself predicted Precambrian life; no such fossils were known in his time. Today many are known

The phylogenetic tree constructed before the structure of genes was known predicts that a mutation found in people and baboons will also be found in chimps and gorillas. So far, the evidence supports this remarkable prediction.

Similarly, a mutation common to cows and whales will also be found in dolphins and hippos.

Standard biology predicts that there will never be a fossil mammal in Cambrian rocks. None has been found yet.

Until ID (or creationism) can make predictions about what will be found in fossils and genes - until there is some way to test whether ID (or creationism) fits the facts better than standard biology does - until then, ID (or C) remains mere armchair speculation - not a theory.

[Flying Circus]

(Flying Circus's wife here)

There are two uses of "evolution" that are often confused.

1. genetic change over time.
This one has been proven.

2. development of current life from primordial soup.
This one has NOT been proven and cannot be, because our long-ago origins cannot be observed. It will always be, at best, a theory.

I think evolution debaters like to use whichever definition suits what they want to say. I have heard some in favor of the theory of life's origins say "evolution has been proven" while they are really referring to the genetic change definition.

Those who want to say "evolution should not be taught as fact" are referring to the second usage, but in this statement they ignore the genetic change fact.

I don't think the presence or absence of intelligent design is a question of science, but neither do teachers have the right to insist that students accept a secular humanist view of the UNPROVEN theory (number 2), or the assumption that life came totally by chance, as fact. These are NOT established facts. I do not, however, think teachers need to interpret Genesis to their students to be fair about the Evolution debate. They just need to make it clear that the origin of life is not known, and this is an idea of how it may have come about.

Additionally, science can only tell us how things happen, not why. For instance, you cannot disprove God's influence by showing how the world came to be. If we do figure out the "how" correctly, who knows? We may get a word of praise when we meet the designer.

[bondserv]

Gen 3:17 And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed [is] the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat [of] it all the days of thy life;

Isa 51:6 ...and the earth shall wax old like a garment, and they that dwell therein shall die in like manner: but my salvation shall be for ever, and my righteousness shall not be abolished.

Rom 8:22 For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now.

Rom 8:23 And not only [they], but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, [to wit], the redemption of our body. (emphasis added)

Devolution of the creation, the earth and our bodies.

[Down South P.E.]

... I am running a fever of 102, so probably should not try to get at all technical ... .

Yeah that increased temperature will get those molecules that make up the brain cells to go chaotic...bouncing into each other and all over the place. [note: intended for humor].

[Jaguar1942]

To his wife.

#1 is proven, but that is evolution

#2 on the other hand is abiogenesis, not evolution, and no, this theory has not been proven, but there are scientists working on it and we have some really great leads.

See Ichneumons post #212, it really is a fascinating look into the abiogenesis studies going on.

Other then that, I have no disagreement with you at all.

[Jaguar1942]

Ahh, a literalist..

[Jaguar1942]

The temp has come down, but the throat has swollen up, I am afraid that it's strep, I hate that darn stuff, it takes me down for a week, if not more, even after the antibiotics.

Well, cross my fingers and hope it moves through quickly. Because those chaotic molecules, I just can't take.

And taken in the humor it was given, thank you.

[Flying Circus]

(the wife again)
Thank you for the correction. I should say perhaps,

2. The development of current life from one or a few original cells.

[microgood]

What if it already has, and you're not aware of it?

Well read all the links you sent me yesterday(#212). Is there more?

"Gut instinct" being what you'd prefer to be true, or a guess about what might be.

Actually by that I meant my accumulated knowledge in my life, my reasoning, and just my problem solving abilities. Certainly is not what I want to believe. My 4 years of school in Philosophy and 4 years of Electrical Engineering took that away from me. I cannot believe what I want to believe any more.

Why do you consider that a more reliable indicator than what an examination of the real world best indicates right now?

Just because it is the best we have now does not mean it rises to the level of believability. And I do not think that is evolutionary science's fault. I can say F = ma because I can do tons of empirical testing and employ deductive reasoning on that empirical data. But what happened a billion years ago (did life occur all at once, or did it happen as abiogenesis says) is much harder to say with any sort of certainty. All we have are fossil records and a constantly improving and very impressive developing science in genetics and biology. Basically abiogenesis is in the same category as the Big Bang theory, a theory based on current knowledge of how the universe is but little empirical data about how we got here.

Science is all about doing "reality checks" against the evidence, as a guard against getting stuck in the rut of what we'd *like* to believe.

Problem with abiogenesis is there isn't a lot of evidence out there. Its like trying to solve a murder with out any physical evidence.

HOWEVER, since established theories are built upon large foundations of evidence and verification (yes, including evolutionary theory and abiogenesis theory), it's ludicrous for someone to try to overthrow or tear down an existing theory without being armed with a great deal of knowledge about how and why the current theory has taken the form that it has, and what evidence and testing it rests upon.

Maybe one can think the entire method of analysis is flawed, that it relies to much on the current state of the world with out much evidence of when it occurred. It almost sounds like you are saying here that if you want to tear down my theory, you have to do it by my rules and get my approval to do it.

This is why so many "amateur creationists" (and a lot of the allegedly professional ones) are so freaking annoying. They attack with little more than a firm feeling that the theory must be wrong somewhere, a small amount of knowledge about it.

Possibly true, but when you claim to have with absolute certainty the question that everyone in the entire planet want to know that will affect their view of the whole world and their existence and significance their entire life, which many on this forum do, maybe you can see why the other side gets annoyed. I would not categorize the theory of abiogenesis as absolute certainly but I hear that in the language and argument methods by some of those whose believe evolutionary theory to be true.

The question of the origin of life is so huge that you cannot as scientists even argue that how it happened can only be determined by scientific methods. In fact the science method as we currently define it may be wholly inadequate to answer this question. Science requires proof, and it is hard to get a whole lot from a billion years ago.

[pollwatcher]

To summarily dismiss a school of proposed scientific ideas, (or even indulge in character assassination) should be below anyone whose occupation is striving for truth and objectivity. It smacks of pulling up the ladders to defend one's own High Wall of Church Dogma.

ID is not a "crackpot" theory, it is pointing out the gaps of understanding, (or, at the very least, public conceivablity) in evolutionary theory. Some of Behe's examples, (and other general ID ideas), are certainly not bullet proof, but they should be judged on the facts and statistical merits alone.

Behe is provocative, and has gotten more 'laymen' to think about these deeper questions than anyone else I can recall. It would be a great opportunity for all those Darwinist out there to show their own mettle. If they are too arrogantly dogmatic, or dismissively elitist, to even bother trying to make their side understandable and reasonable to others - then maybe we should just burn all the ISPs and printing presses and go back to making manuscripts in monasteries  .

I'd say let the better representatives come and have a lively debate over the details. That way, everyone can learn something and make up their own mind.

PW - a "bipartisan" origins guy...

[Ichneumon]

i have not received a response to my post 241, and the reason may be related to PatrickHenry's tag line,

Nah... It's just that posts have been flying so fast and furious on this thread that it's hard enough to just keep up reading them all, much less responding to every one that could use a response.

When I read your that post, I was a bit short on time, and thought, "I'll get back to that one when I can", but by the time I returned there were another 200+ new posts to catch up on. The same thing happened to at least another dozen I wish I had time to address, and I'm sure I'm not the only one that happens to.

Plus, when performing triage on the posts we'd like to respond to versus the number we have time for, posts which could spread a fallacy or false accusation seem a bit higher priority to jump on and correct than do posts that are more along the lines of, "I was wondering..."

So, sorry about that.

but in any case i did ask in sincerity of searching for information. being noncommittal myself (open) i wish a civil discussion could be had,

It certainly can, but try to remember that these threads/debates tend to be pretty heated (this one's actually pretty mild, overall, compared to the average), and most people on them have already "chosen up sides". It's surprisingly rare to have someone pass through who's truly "neutral" and just interested in learning something. So it's not surprising that a lot of folks might take questions as challenges, or read more into a statement than you might have meant, or engage in "defensive posting" (in the manner of "defensive driving").

instead, to some other posts, i get bashed for making a statement or raising a question--

Now wait a minute -- I just reread all your posts to this thread, and all the replies to your posts, and I really don't see any that would in any way be considered "bashing". Or did you mean on some other thread? The worst you got was responses along the lines of, "oh? Well what about..." Those really aren't bashing, they're conversation.

and that leads me to agree with creationists in one area: evolution, et al. is not allowed to be questioned.

Please point out where you feel that anyone did "not allow" you to question evolution. I don't see it, and I don't think I missed any.

Your accusation seems an unfair one.

[microgood]

Perhaps you could show the barrier that prevents an accumulation of what you term micro-evolution?

Empirical Evidence.

First though, what is your definition of a species?

I studied that stuff thirty years ago but lately the buzz seems to be different species or variations within a species. I am on the variation side(I think).

[microgood]

I'll call that Thunderous applause, and raise you an encore.

So what is the score now?

[Jaguar1942]

Well, the concept is easily... conceptualized, maybe that's a good word, but I study the human evolutionary tree mostly, because that is where my interest lies, the way back tree is a little harder to fathom, although through laboratory experimentation, and fossil remains, we can postulate pretty well, what probably occured with a fair degree of accuracy.

But in all honesty, someone with a lot more knowledge in that area will have to answer that question for you, because that is getting a bit out of my depth.

[Jaguar1942]

The applause meter for Ichneumons post and posts is still redlining, so if it makes it and survives the DB's another 20 hours or so, I'll give you an average.

[microgood]

Thanks. Ichneumons is in fine form.

[Ichneumon]

maybe someone here can help me refute some creationistic information that i am having trouble with (i'm looking for logic as much as science but any information will do):

I'll try to help.

a) is a sequence of genomes considered coded information? if not, why not?

Yes it is. Although "a sequence of genomes" isn't exactly the right way to phrase it. "A genome's sequence" might be better. A genome is the entirety of an individual's DNA, so a "sequence of genomes" would imply something like placing multiple DNA sets in certain orders, which I'm sure isn't what you meant.

DNA is encoded in several ways, the most basic being "the genetic code", which maps triplets of basepairs onto specific amino acids.

b) if so (you can guess where this is going), does mutation/selection ever add to that information? if that is an irrelevant question please explain why.

Mutation can indeed add to that information. They can also remove information, or alter information without increasing/decreasing it. It depends upon what kind of mutation has taken place, there are several varieties.

Selection is a bit trickier to give a direct answer for, because it affects information distributions within the population, and thus in order to give an answer you'd have to specify which information measure you're asking about at the moment (e.g. total information size, information diversity, etc.). But selection can also increase, decrease, or change information depending upon circumstances.

c) if genetic sequences are information, and mutation/selection does not add to it (i'm not assuming it does, answer (b) first), does that go against abiogenesis which has to starts out at the absolute simplest level (non-life)? (i know, evolution and origin-of-life are two different things, that is not what i'm asking)

Not a problem, since mutation/selection can indeed increase information, and fine-tune what information is present.