A Question for Evolutionists

February 3rd, 2002 | Sabertooth

[Sabertooth]

A Question for Evolutionists

Here's where I see the crux of the Creation vs. Evolution debate, and most appear to miss it:

Forget possible transitional forms, stratigraphy, and radiological clocks... at some level, both Creationists and Evolutionists wander back to singularities and have to cope with the issue of spontaneous cause.

Creationists say "God."

• Since God has chosen not to be heavy-handed, allowing us free will,
  this is neither scientifically provable nor disprovable.
• This is more a commentary on the material limitations of science than it is about the limitations of God.
  Both Creationists and Evolutionists need to come to grips with that.

Evolutionists say "random spontaneous mutagenic speciation."

• Where has that been observed or demonstrated?

[Sabertooth]

Who is to say that Evolution is not his paintbrush?

Not me, as you'll see from my posts. But my question...

"Where is the observation or evidence of random spontaneous mutagenic speciation?"

Is directed at those Evolutionists who pre-emptively deny your paintbrush analogy.

[Dimensio]

Evolution does not deal with events before the big bang and the start of wordly time

There's more to it than that. Evolution doesn't deal with events several billion years after the Big Bang either. Many creationists seem to think that evolution encompasses life origins and cosmic origins and start lobbing attacks based on that (usually founded in bad science as well) without realising that they're not even addressing evolution.

[Dimensio]

The Darwinite Creed* I believe the Universe began in a quantum fluctuation.

"Darwinism" -- or any other form of study of biological evolution -- does not deal with origins of the Universe. You are arguing a strawman.

[Quila]

Funny you mentioned Asimov. Did you know he was quite the biblical scholar?

[Quila]

All of the examples given in your source involve selective breeding, hybridization, or laboratory conditions. Not exactly random.

Some of it was observing speciation in the wild, guessing it was speciation, and then replicating it in the lab to see if the hypothesis was correct. I'm still looking for an old article about some worms or something that were taken from the general population in a bay for several years. With nothing done, it was found they could later not mate with the wild ones -- they had become another species.

We would get into a idea of quantum physics here if you want to talk about true random, since you could consider anything we observe not to be random anymore since we observed it.

[Quila]

Derived Forms tautological, adj. ; tautologically, adv. Science--evolution--atheism...

Saying evolution is a tautology shows a serious misunderstanding of the theory. Fitness is more than just survival.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

In the name of the Monkey-Uncle, the Pond Scum, and the Holy Mutation, Amen.

LOL!

[Rudder]

A lot of what you mention is sometimes given as a fiat (not a car) e.g., a given. Given that electricity exists, we can perform such and such measurments and predictions, etc., etc. Fiats ususally have to be given since they are not understood well enough to explain without reference to other phenomena, which they, too are often given as fiat. And so it goes. Our knowledge of facts is sparse, indeed. Having said that, we can still make wonderful and highly accurate predictions concerning physical phenomena.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Thanks for the ping!

A good discussion on the thread!

[Sabertooth]

We would get into a idea of quantum physics here if you want to talk about true random, since you could consider anything we observe not to be random anymore since we observed it.

Like you, I was trying to avoid the Heisenberg tar-baby.

Not only that, how can we reconcile the concepts of an Omnipotent Omnipresent Omniscient God and absolute randomness?

Look, I'm not denying the possibility (to some degree) of random sponateous mutagenic speciation... But I'm questioning the dogmatic adherence to its presumption.

[Quila]

Is directed at those Evolutionists who pre-emptively deny your paintbrush analogy.

There's still no conflict. God nudging his creation here and there according to his plan would appear to be random speciation to us. Things tend to appear to be random when you don't know the big picture, but appearance is all scientists have to go on.

[Quila]

Of course, even that thousand years can be considered largely symbolic, much

Unfortunately, we're often dealing with Biblical inerrantists and literalists who say if the Bible says seven days, then it meant seven 24-hour days just as we experience them now. Take Kent Hovind for example. There can be no reconciling with these people because the world is young and it got wiped out in a flood (and somebody forgot to tell the Chinese and Egyptians about it).

[Quila]

Not only that, how can we reconcile the concepts of an Omnipotent Omnipresent Omniscient God and absolute randomness?

I think I answered that in the other post. Random in appearance to us, not necessarily random to God.

[Sabertooth]

God nudging his creation here and there according to his plan would appear to be random speciation to us. Things tend to appear to be random when you don't know the big picture, but appearance is all scientists have to go on.

Totally fair point, and such nudges would be the "singlarities" I referred to in the initial post.

And if Evolutionists were to say "apparently random" or "observably random" mutation, much of the rest of this could fall by the wayside.

When they won't, I name their god, "random."

[f.Christian]

Derived Forms tautological, adj. ; tautologically, adv. Science--evolution--atheism...(me)

Saying evolution is a tautology shows a serious misunderstanding of the theory. Fitness is more than just survival(you).

46 posted on 2/3/02 12:08 PM Pacific by Quila

How about---science--evolution--atheism--magic--tricks...

misunderstanding of the theory. Fitness is more than just survival.

What does that mean---word/mind/card games??

[elephantlips]

If scientists approached their investigations with honesty we wouldn't have the degree of contention we do. With virtually no exceptions, scientists look at what has gone before with a major presumption: "There is no God, therefore, what really happened?" That presumption is what taints modern science and it always will.

[Dimensio]

If scientists approached their investigations with honesty we wouldn't have the degree of contention we do. With virtually no exceptions, scientists look at what has gone before with a major presumption: "There is no God, therefore, what really happened?" That presumption is what taints modern science and it always will.

So you suggest that scientists should consider a supernatural element when forming theories, even though science by definition only deals with the natural world?

[CalConservative]

Evolution started as "How did we get here? Let's look at all the evidence and come up with the best answer that explains it." Creation started as "This book tells us how everything started, let's find evidence to back it up." The two approaches are quite different: the former is science, the latter is religion.

Not true. Science usually starts with a hypothesis and then seeks to prove or disprove the hypothesis based on controlled observations, or at least as controlled as possible. As Sabertooth points out, without direct observation of spontaneous mutagenic speciation, you can never get past the hypothesis stage. Thus we simply have a theory of evolution and it should be designated as such.

By the way, I am a geologist who started off as believing evolutionary theory and, after my own investigation into the evidence, have emerged as a strong creationist.