Evolution Is Religion--Not Science

[Barbarian]

Just to throw in another ...I'm not entirely sure of how to articulate everything, but this is how I see it.

I don't believe in an evolution where information is magically created from mutations.

No magic. Just changes. Any new mutation in a population adds information to that population. If you want to see the calculations, I can show you how it's figured. But a new mutation, if it reaches fixation can decrease information when that happens. In reality, any time an allele reaches fixation (no other alleles exist in the population for that gene locus) there is a loss of information. But usually, in a healthy population, information increases. Evolution is really neutral as far as information goes.

It's important (at least for me) that we make a clear distinction between Darwinism and modern evolution because both systems tend to be mixed and used interchangeably when there are some important differences.

Darwinism isn't about mutation. He had no idea that genetics was particulate rather than humoral. So the modern theory is mostly Darwin's theory plus genetics.

The odds of mutations being the driving force for evolution are pathetically low.

It's the source of variation, without which, no evolution. And without natural selection, mutations would quickly destroy a population.

Mutations are frequently harmful. If you change the code, it's likely that you're going to get a combination that doesn't work.

Usually. But it's rarely harmful. Most mutations don't do very much. Cytochrome C, for example, has had many mutations, and exists in a variety of kinds, but they all still work. There are some sites on the molecule, though, that can't change because they change its function. And that is lethal, because it does a very specific thing in energy transformation in the cell.

This of course isn't the only issue...because sometimes you're going to get a combination that does work. Statistically speaking, it's bound to happen at some point. The issue is that a single mutation has to spread across an entire population. This requires a whole bunch of fortuitous bottlenecks happening at regular intervals in our history...and the history of other animals. The whole thing is rather miraculous.

Would be, if not for natural selection. Natural selection is quite capable of removing the harmful alleles and keeping the useful ones. Because many alleles are so close to harmless that we can't measure their selective value, it means that a lot of them stick around. And harmful alleles are recessive, which means there isn't a huge problem, unless a lof people marry their cousins. If Lynch is right, this is really a good thing, since it produces enough variation to assure survival in a world filled with evolving parasites and disease organisms.

What makes a lot more sense to me is that the genetic information exists already, and based on the environment, certain genes are switched on and off. In fact, I read an article a while back (I wish I could find it) that explained how cells actually make these changes proactively! We've found evidence that they're aware of their environment and can switch these genes on and off on their own.

Actually, the cell doesn't do it. There's a regulator of some sort that causes the switch to turn on or off, in the presence of certain things. This is not evolution. Evolution is when the allele frequencies in a population change.

In the end though, this has nothing to do with whether or not God created the universe.

True.

 

[Tristan]

No magic. Just changes. Any new mutation in a population adds information to that population. If you want to see the calculations, I can show you how it's figured. But a new mutation, if it reaches fixation can decrease information when that happens. In reality, any time an allele reaches fixation (no other alleles exist in the population for that gene locus) there is a loss of information. But usually, in a healthy population, information increases. Evolution is really neutral as far as information goes.



Darwinism isn't about mutation. He had no idea that genetics was particulate rather than humoral. So the modern theory is mostly Darwin's theory plus genetics.



It's the source of variation, without which, no evolution. And without natural selection, mutations would quickly destroy a population.



Usually. But it's rarely harmful. Most mutations don't do very much. Cytochrome C, for example, has had many mutations, and exists in a variety of kinds, but they all still work. There are some sites on the molecule, though, that can't change because they change its function. And that is lethal, because it does a very specific thing in energy transformation in the cell.



Would be, if not for natural selection. Natural selection is quite capable of removing the harmful alleles and keeping the useful ones. Because many alleles are so close to harmless that we can't measure their selective value, it means that a lot of them stick around. And harmful alleles are recessive, which means there isn't a huge problem, unless a lof people marry their cousins. If Lynch is right, this is really a good thing, since it produces enough variation to assure survival in a world filled with evolving parasites and disease organisms.



Actually, the cell doesn't do it. There's a regulator of some sort that causes the switch to turn on or off, in the presence of certain things. This is not evolution. Evolution is when the allele frequencies in a population change.


True.

Well I'm not an evolutionary biologist so I'll back down on most of the specifics.

The only issue I have with natural selection is that it tends to be worshipped among some of the more militant atheists. It's their God. There's a fine line between a process by which the fittest survive, and the almighty "nature" making these choices.

I find the whole discussion moot though and it's a little funny that Christians and nonbelievers alike seem to think evolution matters.

 

[Free]

Seeing as how this is not the Science forum, let's leave the actual science out of the discussion.

 

[Barbarian]

Seeing as how this is not the Science forum, let's leave the actual science out of the discussion.

Probably should be moved to the correct forum. Suffice to say that there are sincere and devout Christians on all sides of the issue, and it really has no relevance to one's salvation, unless one makes creationism or evolution one's god.

And that happens for some, I suppose.

 

[The Light]

If one believes mammals evolved from reptiles, why is killing or rape wrong for humans but not snakes? If all we are is just a chunk of matter in the universe with a conscience, why are pedophiles wrong? As soon as someone says pedophiles are wrong they imply they know what proper behavior is. People have to invoke a set of beliefs, not empirical evidence, to justify that position. Darwinism is in the same realm as Christianity in this respect, but all things considered Christianity Is much better.

Though I will 2nd and 3rd the position that Christianity is the best position to hold, in honesty, I cannot concur with your conclusion that if evolution was a fact, then right and wrong could not have a basis for existence. The case can be made that ethics and morality are both byproducts of society where individuals coexist and are considered peers. In a society of peers, mutual respect breeds standards of behavior that are utilized in interpersonal relationships. When an individual or many individual's behavior becomes such that the society feels bothered or threatened, then new rules/standards or implemented and codified so that the masses can know what behavior is acceptable and what is not. This is all just human nature which most Christians like myself believe to be a mirror of the divine nature/image.

We can say pedophiles are wrong because as a general concensus our society says that is the case. In some past societies and even today in more remote places, pedophilia is accepted and not viewed as wrong. Again, we as a society say that most killing of other human beings is wrong, yet we say it's okay to kill animals like guarder snakes we find in our gardens simply because they creep us out. Because we don't give snakes the value we give other people (our peers) other animals like stray dogs or cats, we justify killing snakes while villifying those like Manson and Vick for killing living creatures we ascribe more value to.

 

[The Light]

I find the whole discussion moot though and it's a little funny that Christians and nonbelievers alike seem to think evolution matters.

I used to feel much the same until it was brought to my attention that the study of evolution has helped lead to various medical discoveries that has make our lives better by reducing disease mortality rates, etc.

 

[Barbarian]

Though I will 2nd and 3rd the position that Christianity is the best position to hold, in honesty, I cannot concur with your conclusion that if evolution was a fact, then right and wrong could not have a basis for existence.

Since most people in the United States who accept evolution also accept God, there really isn't a dilemma.

However, my experience is that atheists are pretty much as ethical and moral as the rest of us. I don't know where they get the basis for their ethics, but they clearly do. The Department of Justice says that of those federal prisoners who submit a religious preference, about 0.07% are atheists.

I suspect that a lot of atheistic criminals claim a religion in prison to get some of the perks that believers get. But still.

 

[Vaccine]

I'm sure we could find good and bad people from both sides. To me this is about a philosophy that shapes how people view the world. Whether we should teach people their existence is nothing more than a cosmic accident, or whether we teach them their life was no accident, that it was willfully, purposefully made.
Materialism is what Darwin proposed. If evolution is a fact, Gould is correct, there is nothing more to life than the struggle to pass on one's genes. There is no reason to think we are nothing more than a cosmic accident, a chemical reaction happening with an apparent conscience. The reality would be: any meaning we attach to life is wishful thinking, because according to scientists when we die we're dirt. Some extreme physicists have even proposed the conscience can be explained by classical mechanics. If that were true, a natural conclusion would be love is nothing more than a chemical reaction, your hopes of heaven are nothing more than quantum mechanics. For what reason should humans have any special consideration in the universe? Just because some book says so? Many Christians don't even take that book seriously.
If we are indeed the result of abiogenesis and evolution, who's to say god isn't a fairy tale told to comfort people from death? The bottom line would be it's just a matter of personal preference, some need a crutch to face that reality some don't. I just don't see how these two ideas, Darwinism and theism are compatible.

I also don't see how proving in part proves in whole. It is like finding an "X" in the sand and inferring natural processes could write war and peace in the sand. If Darwinists are to be believed the slight variation we see explains the millions of species. It's nothing more than a mask to hide the glory of God. It's like teaching kids Easter is about bunnies, candy, and eggs, not the resurrection, or teaching them Christmas is about Santa, presents and pagan religions, not celebrating the birth of Jesus. Life is about evolution and natural processes, which is contrary to Job 12:7-9:
"But ask the animals, and they will teach you, or the birds of the air, and they will tell you; or speak to the earth, and it will teach you, or let the fish of the sea inform you. Which of all these does not know that the hand of the LORD has done this?"

ATP Synthase is one of the "tiniest and most powerful motors ever made" weighing in at almost 400,000 atomic mass units, millions of these would fit into 1 drop of blood.
If we gave any scientist in the world some Carbon, Hydrogen, Nitrogen, Oxygen, and Phosphorus and asked them to make ATP Synthase by themselves, they couldn't do it. They now how it's made, how it works, what it's for and yet, in a lab under pristine conditions with every tool at their disposal no scientist can make ATP Synthase.
Abiogenesis is the belief life arose from non-living matter by natural processes. If intelligent people like scientists are unable to make the motor that powers living organisms, how absurd is it to believe any "natural" process can? Knowing intelligent people can't make this motor, many scientists continue to hope to find a natural process than can make that as well as every other component necessary for life. I don't think they're being intellectually honest since it's also ignoring the law of biogenesis, that only life makes life.

 

[Barbarian]

I'm sure we could find good and bad people from both sides. To me this is about a philosophy that shapes how people view the world. Whether we should teach people their existence is nothing more than a cosmic accident, or whether we teach them their life was no accident, that it was willfully, purposefully made.

It's a moot point, since evolutionary theory doesn't say anything like that.

Materialism is what Darwin proposed.

Well, let's see what he had to say about that...

There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.
Charles Darwin, last sentence from The Origin of Species, 1872

So no, that's not what he proposed.

If evolution is a fact, Gould is correct, there is nothing more to life than the struggle to pass on one's genes.

That would be true, if God hadn't given us an immortal soul and the ability to know right from wrong. But He did. So that's not an issue, either.

There is no reason to think we are nothing more than a cosmic accident, a chemical reaction happening with an apparent conscience.

If you think so, you're on your own, because evolutionary theory doesn't say so.

I just don't see how these two ideas, Darwinism and theism are compatible.

People who know a lot more about Darwinism and theism than we do, disagree with you. You have a right to an opinion, but given the facts...

I also don't see how proving in part proves in whole.

Science goes with the evidence. That's how it works. Not everyone thinks that science is capable of knowing things about the universe, but very little else we do works as well.

If Darwinists are to be believed the slight variation we see explains the millions of species.

Yep. And it works. You might have noticed that the number of directly observed speciations would mean millions of new species in a few hundred thousand years.

It's nothing more than a mask to hide the glory of God.

To my mind a God capable of making a universe in which such wonders can evolve is far, far greater than a little Middle Eastern fertility god making a tree here and a bear there. The way He did it is elegant and to His glory.

ATP Synthase is one of the "tiniest and most powerful motors ever made" weighing in at almost 400,000 atomic mass units, millions of these would fit into 1 drop of blood.
If we gave any scientist in the world some Carbon, Hydrogen, Nitrogen, Oxygen, and Phosphorus and asked them to make ATP Synthase by themselves, they couldn't do it.

Once, some misguided theists decided that God was proven because man could not synthesize organic compounds. Then we could. It's a bad idea to hide God behind whatever man can't do at the time.

Abiogenesis is the belief life arose from non-living matter by natural processes.

Since God says that the earth brought forth living things as He intended, I'll go with Him on this one.

If intelligent people like scientists are unable to make the motor that powers living organisms, how absurd is it to believe any "natural" process can?

There are lots of things God's creation can do, that we can't. But remember organic compounds.

I don't think they're being intellectually honest since it's also ignoring the law of biogenesis, that only life makes life.

Again, the "law of biogenesis" has to bow to God's word, which says that life came from non-living matter. And you surely remember that evolutionary theory doesn't predict or depend on any particular origin of life. If you want to believe God just poofed the first living things instead of the way He says He did it, that would be no problem for evolutionary theory. As you see above, that's what Darwin suggested.

 

[mondar]

People who know a lot more about Darwinism and theism than we do, disagree with you. You have a right to an opinion, but given the facts...

It is curious how evolutionists use the term "fact." We observe the survival of the fittest, we observe mutations, we observe the fossil record. Yet both evolutionist and non evolutionists observe those facts. Yet to the evolutionist, those facts prove the fact of evolution, to the non evolutionist those facts demonstrate their non-evolutionary system as a fact. Me thinks the term "fact" would be best understood as a presupposition, not a "fact."

Science goes with the evidence. That's how it works. Not everyone thinks that science is capable of knowing things about the universe, but very little else we do works as well.

It seems to me that presuppositions are hanging out all over in these statements. One presupposition is that there are no presuppositions in science.

Take the statement above. Barbarian, can you show me this mythical person who denies that "science is capable of knowing things about the universe?"

Of course science is the systematic observation, measurement, experiment, formulation, testing, and modification of the hypothesis.
Where are the experiments or testing that shows that one species evolved into another species. We come across finches. One finch adapts to one environment, and the next island is totally different and the finch adapts to that environment. How does that prove that finches can swim under water and become fish? Everyone accepts the adaptability of finches to an environment, so how does that prove evolution?

One person see bones in the ground and says "ahh look, this proves evolution." The next person comes along and see the bones in the ground and says "ahh, this proves creationism." Would not true science say "ahh, this proves there are bones in the ground." Once anyone says how those bones got there, it necessarily involves presuppositions. The evolutionist claims "facts" and "science." What they are really talking about is presuppositions.

Yep. And it works. You might have noticed that the number of directly observed speciations would mean millions of new species in a few hundred thousand years.


To my mind a God capable of making a universe in which such wonders can evolve is far, far greater than a little Middle Eastern fertility god making a tree here and a bear there. The way He did it is elegant and to His glory.

Is this any more then subjectivity?

Once, some misguided theists decided that God was proven because man could not synthesize organic compounds. Then we could. It's a bad idea to hide God behind whatever man can't do at the time.

Does the proposition that "there are some misguided theists" prove that "all non-evolutionary theists are misguided?"

Since God says that the earth brought forth living things as He intended, I'll go with Him on this one.

There are lots of things God's creation can do, that we can't. But remember organic compounds.

Again, the "law of biogenesis" has to bow to God's word, which says that life came from non-living matter. And you surely remember that evolutionary theory doesn't predict or depend on any particular origin of life. If you want to believe God just poofed the first living things instead of the way He says He did it, that would be no problem for evolutionary theory. As you see above, that's what Darwin suggested.

I totally do not get this. I am not sure that you are saying what you are saying. Pasteur's law of biogenesis simply asserts that living things must come from living things. What chapter and verse in the bible forces this proposition to "bow?"

Evolutionary theory does not fit well with Christianity because the two world views have different starting presuppositional basis. It does not matter if Darwin had some Christian ideas, anyone can be inconsistent. Once you presuppose evolution, then it is logical to extend that materialistic world view to its logical end. That end is atheism. It is inconsistent to affirm that the Bible is true when it states "12 And the earth brought forth grass, herbs yielding seed after their kind, and trees bearing fruit, wherein is the seed thereof, after their kind:" and also assert that evolution is fact.

I want to say that presuppositions are not dangerous if you recognize your own presuppositional basis. Presuppositions are dangerous only when one is not aware of their own presuppositions. The person who denies that they have presuppositions never needs to honestly consider evidence. For such a person, those bones prove either evolution is fact, or the bones are sufficient proof that creationism is true. Its called "epistemology."

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
People who know a lot more about Darwinism and theism than we do, disagree with you. You have a right to an opinion, but given the facts...

It is curious how evolutionists use the term "fact."

For science, a fact must have evidence. This seems to annoy creationists, but most Christians have no problem with it.

We observe the survival of the fittest, we observe mutations, we observe the fossil record.

We also observe evolution in process, even speciations. So we know it's a fact.

Yet both evolutionist and non evolutionists observe those facts.

Creationists just ignore them, because they are inconsistent with the presuppositions of creationism. But of course, that's not a problem for Christianity.

Barbarian said: ↑
Science goes with the evidence. That's how it works. Not everyone thinks that science is capable of knowing things about the universe, but very little else we do works as well.

It seems to me that presuppositions are hanging out all over in these statements.

It's demonstrably true. Science has greatly increased our understanding of the universe. And nothing else has worked. If you doubt this, show us.

there are no presuppositions in science.

One big one. Uniformitarianism. It's not what creationists have been taught to think it is. It's the idea that the universe is consistent and knowable, and operates by a consistent set of rules.

Take the statement above. Barbarian, can you show me this mythical person who denies that "science is capable of knowing things about the universe?"

A quick look shows this:
http://www.geos.ed.ac.uk/homes/tcrowley/creationism_BigBang.pdf

Of course science is the systematic observation, measurement, experiment, formulation, testing, and modification of the hypothesis.
Where are the experiments or testing that shows that one species evolved into another species.

Drosophila miranda; a New Species
http://www.genetics.org/content/20/4/377.full.pdf

We come across finches. One finch adapts to one environment, and the next island is totally different and the finch adapts to that environment. How does that prove that finches can swim under water

You think that's what evolutionary theory says? Seriously? But larger birds can do that...

and become fish?

That's not what evolutionary theory says. If a bird turned into a fish, the theory would be in big trouble.

Everyone accepts the adaptability of finches to an environment, so how does that prove evolution?

Evolution is a change in allele frequency over time, so that is evolution. It's just very short-term evoluiton. As you see, slightly longer periods of time can result in new species, and even longer periods can result in higher and higher taxa.

One person see bones in the ground and says "ahh look, this proves evolution." The next person comes along and see the bones in the ground and says "ahh, this proves creationism."

It all comes down to evidence. And that's where creationism takes a beating. Which is why scientists overwhelmingly accept the fact of evolution. I think when you say "evolution" you mean "common descent." But the evidence for that is overwhelming as well. Would you like to learn about that?

Would not true science say "ahh, this proves there are bones in the ground." Once anyone says how those bones got there, it necessarily involves presuppositions.

Nope. Just a willingness to accept the evidence. Presuppositions is imagining magical "firmaments" made of ice, covering the continents, when such a thing is physically impossible. Science is about infernces made from evidence.

Barbarian, regarding science:
Yep. And it works. You might have noticed that the number of directly observed speciations would mean millions of new species in a few hundred thousand years. To my mind a God capable of making a universe in which such wonders can evolve is far, far greater than a little Middle Eastern fertility god making a tree here and a bear there. The way He did it is elegant and to His glory.

Is this any more then subjectivity?

It is. Mathematically demonstrable. Want to see?

Barbarian observes:
Once, some misguided theists decided that God was proven because man could not synthesize organic compounds. Then we could. It's a bad idea to hide God behind whatever man can't do at the time.

Does the proposition that "there are some misguided theists" prove that "all non-evolutionary theists are misguided?"

It merely demonstrates that it's dangerous to "prove" God by citing what humans can't do.

Barbarian observes:
Since God says that the earth brought forth living things as He intended, I'll go with Him on this one.
Again, the "law of biogenesis" has to bow to God's word, which says that life came from non-living matter. And you surely remember that evolutionary theory doesn't predict or depend on any particular origin of life. If you want to believe God just poofed the first living things instead of the way He says He did it, that would be no problem for evolutionary theory. As you see above, that's what Darwin suggested.

I totally do not get this.

I'm trying.

I am not sure that you are saying what you are saying. Pasteur's law of biogenesis simply asserts that living things must come from living things. What chapter and verse in the bible forces this proposition to "bow?"

Gen. And God said: Let the earth bring forth the living creature in its kind, cattle and creeping things, and beasts of the earth, according to their kinds. And it was so done. [25] And God made the beasts of the earth according to their kinds, and cattle, and every thing that creepeth on the earth after its kind.1:24

Evolutionary theory does not fit well with Christianity

For a Christian, it does. That's why most of the world's Christians admit that it's consistent with our faith.

because the two world views have different starting presuppositional basis.

Nope. You might as well declare that plumbing is inconsistent with Christianity.

It does not matter if Darwin had some Christian ideas, anyone can be inconsistent.

As you see, evolution is not only consistent with God, it's much more consistent with God than YE creationism, whose "life ex nihilo" doctrine contradicts God's word in Genesis.

Once you presuppose evolution, then it is logical to extend that materialistic world view to its logical end.

Nope. And it's been that way from the start. Even Darwin recognized that it was consistent with God.

That end is atheism.

Creationism is a very effective atheist-maker. Many people, raised to believe creationism, is essential to Christian belief, lose their faith when they learn it cannot be true. This is the real danger that creationism poses to faith.

It is inconsistent to affirm that the Bible is true when it states "12 And the earth brought forth grass, herbs yielding seed after their kind, and trees bearing fruit, wherein is the seed thereof, after their kind:" and also assert that evolution is fact.

No inconsistency there. It's just that evolution accepts the way He did it. Learn about it, and find out why most Christians don't see any difficult between God and the way he managed His creation.

 

[Rollo Tamasi]

I have a question, please answer anybody.
No double talk please, just a clear answer for a simple person.
If evolution is true, why does the speed of light travel at 186,000 miles per second, whether it comes from a flashlight or from a galaxy far, far away?

 

[Knotical]

I have a question, please answer anybody.
No double talk please, just a clear answer for a simple person.
If evolution is true, why does the speed of light travel at 186,000 miles per second, whether it comes from a flashlight or from a galaxy far, far away?

Actually, it doesn't travel at the same speed all the time. There are things in space that can effect light (planets, blackholes, stars, etc...).

 

[Rollo Tamasi]

Actually, it doesn't travel at the same speed all the time. There are things in space that can effect light (planets, blackholes, stars, etc...).

Just as I expected, a non-answer.

 

[Barbarian]

He's right. The speed of light in a vacuum is about 186,000 miles a second. But it varies when going through various media. However, the speed of light in a vacuum is a constant. If it was much different, evolution and life itself would not be possible. Radioactive decay and other phenomena are based on the speed of light, and if it was a lot faster or slower life wouldn't be possible. What makes you think that the speed of light as it is, makes evolution impossible?

 

[Rollo Tamasi]

He's right. The speed of light in a vacuum is about 186,000 miles a second. But it varies when going through various media. However, the speed of light in a vacuum is a constant. If it was much different, evolution and life itself would not be possible. Radioactive decay and other phenomena are based on the speed of light, and if it was a lot faster or slower life wouldn't be possible. What makes you think that the speed of light as it is, makes evolution impossible?

did I say that?
I don't remember saying that...

 

[Barbarian]

So perhaps it's time to clarify your question. If you didn't mean that, what did you mean?

 

[Rollo Tamasi]

So perhaps it's time to clarify your question. If you didn't mean that, what did you mean?

I just have questions.
How about this:
Malachi 3:6;
"I the Lord, do not change",..

God doesn't change.
He remains the same forever.
So if man is evolving and continues to evolve, how long before man passes God?

 

[Milk-Drops]

I just have questions.
How about this:
Malachi 3:6;
"I the Lord, do not change",..

God doesn't change.
He remains the same forever.
So if man is evolving and continues to evolve, how long before man passes God?

Why would man pass God in evolution?

 

[Free]

I just have questions.
How about this:
Malachi 3:6;
"I the Lord, do not change",..

God doesn't change.
He remains the same forever.
So if man is evolving and continues to evolve, how long before man passes God?

What do you mean by "I just have questions"? Are you not wanting answers? You accuse someone of a "non-answer" when they gave you one, yet you not only don't clarify what you meant when you were asked, you appear to evade and ask another question. If you don't want answers or don't want to provide clarification when asked, then why ask questions?