Melding Evolution and Creationism

neil, ross

I don’t think that the two are mutually exclusive. The only problem i see for attacking evolution using the Bible is that I don’t think that the Bible was meant to become a science book.

If I wanted to find out how a plane flies, I shouldn’t look in the Bible to understand the laws of physics. The Bible is here to tell us of human nature and how to become a better person/follower of God. To think that the Bible supposed to explain HOW He made the universe is what doesn’t make sense to me. He made it, period.

BTW they are not mutually exclusive. What do you (ross) think makes a human? Is it your genetic makeup? I think that what makes a human is free will. God gave us free will in one “breadth” if you will. Free will wasn’t evolved and the Bible could just be telling us Adam and Eve were the first with free will, what process God used is irrelevent.

In conclusion (hehe) I don’t really think that the Bible meant to tell us the “how” in cases like this.

[quote]Ross Hunt wrote:

Evolution is a series of accidents determined by natural necessity and not at all influenced by any will.[/quote]

Again, you keep showing that you are simply looking for something to argue. Evolution is not a series of mistakes. It is adaptation, something that is seen throughout the human race from the increase of DNP in those who live in colder climates (think of it as an internal heating unit that was also once used in bodybuilding for fat loss before its dangers were realized) to what I wrote earlier about how our jaws are changing. If you believe in destiny and a guidance by a higher power while a deep root in free will is incorporated, then evolution is simply part of the plan. Humans today are not exactly like humans 5 million years ago. Hell, just 20 years ago, it would be unheard of for third graders to weigh as much as 9th graders in 1980…and not all of that is because of body fat.

To believe like you do, there would have to have been absolutely no extreme physical change in the human body since man was first created. You have been given examples of how this is not true. Do you just choose to ignore them? Do you want to act as if it didn’t happen? Do you think humans 5,000 years ago all needed their third molars removed? I just want to understand how you think and why you avoid the examples others have given.

The problem in comparing creationism vs. evolutionary theory lies in the approach.

The former relies on faith as a system for attaining knowledge, the latter relies on compiling evidence based on observation and allowing it to face the the most intense scrutiny so as to test its validity. THIS is the crux of the issue and the major difference between the two…faith rejects questioning; science relies on it.

When the day is done, I’ll be happy having never put any credence in the bible. It is absurd.

On what Professor X wrote:

Well the weight thing isn’t evolution at all, that’s just overnutrition. But Evolution is partly a series of accidents in the case of DNA mutation. At least in the neo-Darwinian sense of evolution.

[quote]veruvius wrote:
On what Professor X wrote:

Well the weight thing isn’t evolution at all, that’s just overnutrition. But Evolution is partly a series of accidents in the case of DNA mutation. At least in the neo-Darwinian sense of evolution.[/quote]

Actually, to be specific, it is a series of mutation which can not always be labeled “an accident”. Those mutations may lead to failures in which case, yes, many would call them accidents. If they lead to successful survival in an increasingly dangerous environment, they are far from an accident.

[quote]neilbudge wrote:
okay,
Prof X, why not teach the kids three theories, Intelligent Design, Random Design and Evolution. Do you see any issue with that? Present the arguments for all three, and let the kids think about it. It’s alot better then the current offerings.

Neil[/quote]

Neil,

The problem is, there is absolutely zero scientific evidence for intelligent design. There are no reasonable or logical arguements for Intelligent design.

none.
nada.
zip.
nothing.

All you have is a literal interpretation of the bible.

This is something that keeps me up at night, everyone needs to draw there own conclusions, but teaching Intelligent design is like teaching that the earth is flat.

[quote]Professor X wrote:

Actually, to be specific, it is a series of mutation which can not always be labeled “an accident”. Those mutations may lead to failures in which case, yes, many would call them accidents. If they lead to successful survival in an increasingly dangerous environment, they are far from an accident.[/quote]

Well I mean just in terms of DNA replication and protein synthesis. The whole process is meant to work perfectly, as a general rule, a mutation is inconsequential or detrimental. When it turns out to be good, the mutation didn’t happen actively - it just happened. That’s what I meant by accident. Now I’m just being anal retentive.

Neil brought up something interesting before, and it was glossed over because it’s not on point, but given all this stuff about “faith” and “proof” I think we should revisit for a moment.

Going back pre-Evolution to the “Big Bang” theory that Neil referenced, and we are all pretty well operating on faith.

Here’s an excerpt from an article by John Derbyshire you’re sure to find interesting:

[Begin excerpt] In recent months, however, cosmologists have been able to add a great deal to our understanding. Some long-standing mysteries have been clarified, some once-popular theories knocked on the head, some margins of error narrowed. All this has been made possible by a very clever little NASA satellite known as WMAP ? the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe, launched in June 2001.*

What WMAP is doing up there above our heads is looking at the oldest light in the universe. The light that comes to us from the Sun is about 8? minutes old; the light that comes to us from Pluto is 5? hours old; the light from the Pole Star is around 430 years old. The most distant thing you can see in the night sky is the M31 galaxy, whose light is nearly 3 million years old when it reaches us. WMAP is looking at light way, way older than that: light over 13 billion years old. This was the first light in the universe, the light that shone when (to state the matter approximately) there was first enough space for light to shine. What WMAP can do much, much better than we have ever been able to do before is examine the variations in this ancient light, the patches of greater or lesser luminosity. In this way, the satellite can tell us new and interesting things about the very early universe ? for that, of course, is where this ancient light originated. This is light from a short time ? a mere 380,000 years ? after the Big Bang.

The Big Bang concept is widely misunderstood. It was not a case of a blob of stuff suddenly exploding outward into an empty blackness beyond itself. There was no empty blackness; there was no “beyond.” The Big Bang theory, confirmed by all of WMAP’s observations, says this:

  1. In the remote past, the universe ? the entire universe ? was much hotter and denser than it is now.

  2. At some period before that, it was so hot and dense that ordinary matter could not possibly have existed.

  3. At some period before that, it was so hot and dense that our current understanding of physics is unable to describe it.

There is very little point in asking what the situation was before that. The word “before” has meaning only when time is doing its usual thing ? advancing from the past into the future at a steady clip ? and preferably when we have some means to actually measure time. In the remotest, hottest, densest state of the universe, time (along with space, matter and energy) was doing something unfamiliar, something we really don’t understand very well. There was, in any case, nothing around with which we could measure time: no swinging pendulums or moving clock-hands, no vibrating atoms, no decaying particles. Far back in that zone ? very close to what physicists call “the initial singularity” ? our understanding breaks down completely. There we bump up against Ludwig Wittgenstein, the philosopher who said: “Of that of which we cannot speak, we must perforce be silent.” ** Pictures of a spiky bright starburst exploding into blackness are a childish misrepresentation of this profound mystery.

When was that state of affairs? How far back can our understanding take us? Answer: about 13.7 billion years. That is “the age of the universe,” according to the WMAP observations. At that distance in time, we know that the universe was fantastically hotter and denser than it is now. At some point shortly before that, conditions were so extreme our understanding cannot encompass them.

Now, 13.7 billion years is not actually a very great age. Our own Earth is around 4.55 billion years old, almost precisely one-third the age of the universe. The Sun is a little older ? the Earth and other planets are a sort of scum left over from the Sun’s condensation. These are big numbers, but in a way they are comforting. Taken together with the WMAP findings, they indicate that the entire universe operates on a scale of time that we can grasp imaginatively. The earth is very old, but we can come to mental terms with its age. We can handle rocks that were formed very early in Earth’s history; we can construct a plausible picture of the development of living things across most of that history. (Life seems to have got going almost as soon as the new Earth was cool enough to bear it.) That the universe is merely three times older than this means that the universe is Earth-scale in time. It might easily have been not three, but three trillion, or three googol***, times older than our home planet. That would present us with serious conceptual difficulties.

The WMAP observations indicate that the future of the universe may also be on this same friendly scale. Space and time may only have another 21 billion years of existence, according to one theory arising from those observations. WMAP has determined that only 4 percent of the universe is made of ordinary matter. An invisible stuff known as “dark matter” makes up another 23 percent, with the balance ? 73 percent ? consisting of “dark energy.” Now, just as ordinary matter and energy generate gravitational fields, which are always attractive, so dark energy generates antigravity, invariably repulsive. Depending on some parameters not yet known with enough precision, the average density of dark energy may increase as the universe ages, leading to a runaway expansion or “Big Rip,” with everything accelerating away from everything else until the cosmos becomes infinitely large and time comes to a stop 21 billion years from now. As unappealing as this sounds, it is no worse, and a good deal speedier, than the previously favored theory of The End, in which everything drained away into black holes over a time span of googols of years. Again, we are at least operating with Earth-size numbers.

Space may also, like time, turn out to be on a scale we can just about comprehend. The simplest model of the universe, mathematically speaking, is one that is infinite in size and “flat.” That is, if you were to start off from Earth and travel through space in a straight line, you would (a) never return to your start point, and (b) always be among familiar types of matter and energy. The universe may indeed be like that, but WMAP is offering some hints that suggest otherwise. Our three-dimensional universe may do something analogous to what the two-dimensional surface of a sphere does ? wrap round on itself, so that if you head off in a straight line in any direction (like an ant setting off southward from the north pole of a sphere), you return to your starting point in some definite time. It might even do something analogous to what the two-dimensional surface of a tire inner tube does ? wrap round on itself in such a way that you get back to your starting point much faster in one direction (“across” the inner tube) than in another (“around” the inner tube). In either case the universe would be finite, as the surface of a sphere or an inner tube is, and probably not very large: billions of light-years, not googols of light-years, around. Physicists will be content with whatever has emerged when we have enough data to settle the matter; but on the whole they would prefer the universe finite, as infinity presents some knotty problems.

[Though not the problem the newspaper reports have been telling us about: the problem that, in an infinite universe, absolutely everything must happen. There would, these reports claim, somewhere in the remote reaches of an infinite universe, be another world exactly like our own in every respect, except that my name would be spelt “Darbyshire.” This is not true. You can have an infinite universe in which certain things never happen. The set of numbers 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14,… is infinite, but that doesn’t mean you can find every conceivable kind of number in it. In fact, it contains no odd numbers at all. You can, in fact, have an infinite universe in which nothing ever happens ? a sort of Virginia Woolf universe.]

You will often hear it said that the size and age of the universe are so large we cannot grasp them. The evidence coming in from WMAP suggests that this is not so. The entire age of the universe may be only 35 billion years, nearly forty percent of which has already elapsed. It may be only a few billion light years around, or across. These are big numbers against the scale of our everyday lives, but they are not breathtakingly unapproachable. They are very small potatoes by comparison with what they might have been. Mathematics has numbers far, far larger than this.**** The universe may not be infinite, nor even very large. It is entirely possible that one of the distant galaxies we can see with our telescopes is in fact our own galaxy, its light having traveled all the way round the cosmos and back to our eyes.

( * All told, WMAP will cost about $145m, spread over five years. For comparison, one Space Shuttle flight costs $550m. The satellite has been designed and built for NASA by a consortium of scholars, with Princeton University a principal player. David Wilkinson was a Princeton cosmologist who died last September. The satellite, originally just MAP, was re-named in his honor.

** In German: Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, dar?ber muss man schweigen. I have often envied the Germans for their having a single verb, the verb schweigen, that means ?to be silent.? We could use a verb like that in English.

*** A googol is ten thousand trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion. In its written form, it is a ?1? followed by a hundred zeros. The probability of you typing out the Wittgenstein quote above (ignoring the umlaut) by hitting the keys on a 50-key keyboard at random are about one in a googol.

**** The biggest one mentioned in Prime Obsession has ten to the power of ten billion trillion trillion digits, i.e. 1010,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 digits. That?s not the number, that?s the number of digits in the number. You didn?t think I was going to get through this without a plug for my book, did you?)[End excerpt]

The excerpt above was for the purpose of illustrating how little we actually know about cosmic origins.

Basically, when you’ve gone back far enough, you’re required to rely on faith, whether that be faith in the latest unproven (and unprovable, so far as we know) hypothesis, or faith in the idea of a divine hand behind all the observations.

It seems a monumental coincidence that all the forces of nature have come together on earth in a manner that can support this process of life and evolution that we are arguing about. And the odds don’t justify the idea that it “must have happened” eventually. This is the genesis of the “infinite dimensions” hypotheses that have been floated around in theoretical physics. Yet there isn’t one ounce more evidence of a single other dimension, let alone infinite other dimensions – in the end, it’s just faith in one theory because of disinclination for faith in another.

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Ross Hunt wrote:

Evolution is a series of accidents determined by natural necessity and not at all influenced by any will.

Again, you keep showing that you are simply looking for something to argue. Evolution is not a series of mistakes. It is adaptation…

[/quote]

Professor,

      I cannot speak for neil, but I, at any rate, am not interested in arguing; I am interested in getting to the bottom of this question, and learning a thing or two along the way if I can.
      I see that I did I not clearly explain what I meant by 'accident.' By 'accident' I understand any event conditioned by a cause, as opposed to an event conditioned by will (whatever that would mean). So in this sense, evolution is most certainly 'accidental' - that is, human beings are the way they are because of the circumstances in which their ancestors lived, and ultimately, because of the circumstances that conditioned the generation of that peculiar motion that scientists call 'life.'
        All I was saying is that I see no place in any of this for anything resembling the will of a God who 'caused' humanity any more than he 'caused' anything else.
       I am not arguing for one side or another; rather, I am trying to point out that the doctrines of natural necessity and will constitute an antithesis - either of them might be true, and the demonstration that either one of them is true is beyond the scope of human thought.

Boston, my head is still spinning from trying to read that article. Your point is good though. Ultimately any theory, of which Evolution is one, takes a certain amount of faith to accept. I don’t buy the arguement that it requires less faith to accept Evolution, because it is suppose to be based on ‘science’. It’s based on assumptions, which science has not been able to prove. So it takes an equal amount of faith to accept it (probably more faith, since mathematically, the chances of the right chemicals reacting to form life is astronomical).

Prof X, you said in your comment above:
“Humans today are not exactly like humans 5 million years ago”. I can’t say this with 100% certainly, but I would think that that humans have always had two eyes, two ears, two arms, two legs, one mouth, one nose, a free will, etc, now and 5 million years ago. Just because we may be heavier, that is a great leap of ‘faith’ to suggest that means we are evolving into another class of animal, or that we evolved from a different phyla.

I’m surprised that Vroom hasn’t joined this thread.

Seanc, try and get some sleep, ehh.

Neil

Considering Genesis contains two DIFFERENT stories of creation, which is true?

[quote]lizard king wrote:
Considering Genesis contains two DIFFERENT stories of creation, which is true?[/quote]

Both is the correct answer.
http://www.tektonics.org/jedp/creationtwo.html

Lizard, Care to share what the two stories are? I only know about one. Please specify the verses. Thanks.

By the way, this discussion is not around what is ‘true’, since none of the theories can be absolutely proven.

Thanks for the link Haney.

[quote]neilbudge wrote:
It’s based on assumptions, which science has not been able to prove. Neil[/quote]

Yes absolutely. If by ‘assumptions’ you mean observable evidence and repeatable experiments which have withstood rigorous scrutiny from the scientific community for decades.

For what it is worth National Gegraphic’s November Magazine said
“Darwinism is like 1,000 frame film in which 999 frames have been left on the cutting room floor”

[quote]haney wrote:
For what it is worth National Gegraphic’s November Magazine said
“Darwinism is like 1,000 frame film in which 999 frames have been left on the cutting room floor” [/quote]

The intelligent design left all 1,000 frames on the floor.

[quote]neilbudge wrote:

Seanc, try and get some sleep, ehh.

Neil[/quote]

I do need sleep, you’re right.

But 'cmon, there is no evidence.

The “theory” of intelligent design is more aptly called a hypothesis, and clearly, it even falls short of that definition.

A theory is a hypothesis which has been tested and evaluated by many many scientists and there is both expiremental and observable data.

Evolution and abiogenesis(creaton of life) are mutually exclusive.

How life began I have no clue, and I’m willing to accept God, Aliens, or whatever.

But evolution, that’s a fact.

[quote]T-chick wrote:
neilbudge wrote:
It’s based on assumptions, which science has not been able to prove. Neil

Yes absolutely. If by ‘assumptions’ you mean observable evidence and repeatable experiments which have withstood rigorous scrutiny from the scientific community for decades.[/quote]

It’s called the “THEORY of Evolution” for a reason. They’re called the “LAWS of Thermodynamics” for a reason.

A law is a theory that has been proven. A theory, however much we think it is true, has yet to be proven as such.

But I could be wrong.

[quote]seanc wrote:
The intelligent design left all 1,000 frames on the floor.
[/quote]

Don’t hate the messenger. NG is by far not a Christian publication, and would lean to the side of supporting evolution. I just thought it was interesting that even they see there are issues with the idea of evolution.