Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Your reason for accepting evolution
Beretta
Member (Idle past 5597 days)
Posts: 422
From: South Africa
Joined: 10-29-2007


Message 1 of 111 (431295)
10-30-2007 10:54 AM


Evolutionists and creationists/ID proponents come to different conclusions from the same evidence according to their world view and starting presuppositions.Which one does the evidence better support? Which evidence do you feel absolutely negates the possibility of special creation and has to point to evolution as the most valid option? Isn't it just the starting point of "I don't believe in the possibility of a transcendent creator" that then leaves evolution as the most plausible option.Neither can be experimentally proven -it is an historical concept that is not provable by either side.Nonetheless the evidence must support one option better than the other.One of them must be true -they can't both be.

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Modulous, posted 10-31-2007 9:29 AM Beretta has replied
 Message 5 by bluescat48, posted 10-31-2007 3:03 PM Beretta has replied
 Message 6 by nator, posted 10-31-2007 3:07 PM Beretta has not replied
 Message 7 by ringo, posted 10-31-2007 3:09 PM Beretta has not replied
 Message 8 by Taz, posted 10-31-2007 3:11 PM Beretta has not replied
 Message 9 by sidelined, posted 10-31-2007 3:58 PM Beretta has not replied
 Message 10 by jar, posted 10-31-2007 4:23 PM Beretta has not replied
 Message 11 by Chiroptera, posted 10-31-2007 5:39 PM Beretta has not replied
 Message 12 by PaulK, posted 10-31-2007 6:25 PM Beretta has not replied
 Message 13 by Dr Jack, posted 10-31-2007 7:11 PM Beretta has not replied
 Message 14 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-31-2007 8:11 PM Beretta has not replied
 Message 15 by RAZD, posted 10-31-2007 9:42 PM Beretta has not replied
 Message 18 by RAZD, posted 11-02-2007 3:51 PM Beretta has not replied
 Message 20 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-03-2007 1:13 AM Beretta has not replied
 Message 48 by Archer Opteryx, posted 11-05-2007 12:15 PM Beretta has not replied
 Message 53 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-06-2007 12:23 AM Beretta has not replied
 Message 58 by Archer Opteryx, posted 11-06-2007 7:01 AM Beretta has replied
 Message 85 by EighteenDelta, posted 11-06-2007 1:22 PM Beretta has not replied
 Message 89 by dwise1, posted 11-08-2007 8:47 PM Beretta has not replied

Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 2 of 111 (431468)
10-31-2007 8:54 AM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 3 of 111 (431478)
10-31-2007 9:29 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Beretta
10-30-2007 10:54 AM


In general, when examining a historical claim we have to look at the evidence. We have to then say, if this historical claim is true, what unique piece of evidence (or collection of evidence) simply has to come out of it?
In the case of natural history, we'd expect to find a pattern emerging in the fossil record which showed a nested hierarchy of forms. We'd expect that pattern to be defined it terms of age and location. We'd expect that any imperfectly inherited property above and beyond physical appearance would match this same pattern. We'd expect that whenever we develop a dating pattern, the dates will be consistent with natural history and biology. We'd expect that these dates would line up with astronomical historical conclusions.
In the case of special creation, I can think of no evidence that it uniquely postulates because of the 'miracle' factor. For example: it predicts that there will a sudden emergence of families in the fossil record (birds suddenly appearing at the same time that cats suddenly appear at the same time that humans suddenly appear), when we don't see this evidence it postulates a miracle that means the evidence looks different. Thus: no concrete predictions can be made.
Between the two models, and given the success of the natural history model in its predictions - I'd go for the former. Why would you choose the latter, unless it was simply a matter of faith?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Beretta, posted 10-30-2007 10:54 AM Beretta has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by Annafan, posted 10-31-2007 9:49 AM Modulous has not replied
 Message 22 by Beretta, posted 11-04-2007 8:58 AM Modulous has replied
 Message 92 by jsaunders327, posted 11-09-2007 2:09 AM Modulous has replied

Annafan
Member (Idle past 4579 days)
Posts: 418
From: Belgium
Joined: 08-08-2005


Message 4 of 111 (431483)
10-31-2007 9:49 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by Modulous
10-31-2007 9:29 AM


What Modulous said, but approached somewhat differently:
For me personally, it has a lot to do with usefulness. Why do we have theories? I would argue that we have them to make sense out of things. Not just to have a theory. So you can make up theories that essentially match any observation you could ever make (Creation/ID), but WHY would you do that? Why bother? You know just as much after them, than before you got them. It's a waste of time.
Any mildly informative theory, no matter how incomplete, is still miles ahead of non-theories like ID.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Modulous, posted 10-31-2007 9:29 AM Modulous has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by Beretta, posted 11-05-2007 2:41 AM Annafan has not replied

bluescat48
Member (Idle past 4189 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 5 of 111 (431494)
10-31-2007 3:03 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Beretta
10-30-2007 10:54 AM


Basically I accept evolution because evolution over 3.8 billion years makes much more sense that a 6 day creation, 6000 years ago. Then when studying the 2 concepts, the evolution model is based on scientific experimentation together with fossils to show such an idea, whereas creation is a belief based on ideas created by men who were ignorant to the basic laws of physics and wrote on ideas they could see and on mystical ideas to explain what he could,t see.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Beretta, posted 10-30-2007 10:54 AM Beretta has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by Beretta, posted 11-05-2007 3:12 AM bluescat48 has replied
 Message 93 by jsaunders327, posted 11-09-2007 2:34 AM bluescat48 has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 6 of 111 (431495)
10-31-2007 3:07 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Beretta
10-30-2007 10:54 AM


quote:
Evolutionists and creationists/ID proponents come to different conclusions from the same evidence according to their world view and starting presuppositions.
No, that's not accurate.
Science-minded people end up accepting the ToE for the same reasons they accept the Theory of a Heliocentric Solar System, the Germ Theory of Disease, and the Atomic Theory of Matter; it is the best explanation science has so far come up with to explain the observed evidence. ALL of the obsserved evidence. The observation of evidence comes first, and theory is developed to explain the observations. Then predictions are made to test the accuracy of the theory.
By contrast, Creationists/IDists generally ignore a great deal of evidence, or begin with the conclusion they would prefer. This religiously-based desired end result is not derived after observation of the evidence, but before. They then twist and cherry pick the evidence that bolsters their preferred outcome and ignore the rest. There is no predictive power in Creationist's work at all, since they don't ever test their theories against reality.
quote:
Which one does the evidence better support? Which evidence do you feel absolutely negates the possibility of special creation and has to point to evolution as the most valid option?
There are, literally, billions of pieces of evidence that support the ToE. It is the body of evidence from around a dozen different fields of study that all point towards it having happened, and it continuing to happen.
There are none that support special creation.
Of course, that does not prove 100% that special creation didn't happen. However, it really, really, REALLY appears as though evolution did, if you look at all of the evidence.
quote:
Isn't it just the starting point of "I don't believe in the possibility of a transcendent creator" that then leaves evolution as the most plausible option.
No.
quote:
Neither can be experimentally proven -it is an historical concept that is not provable by either side.
Since evolution nor science are involved in trying to disprove religion, I don't see what the relevance is of the above statement.
Science is a great tool for figuring out natural phenomena in the present and in the past. Things that happened in the past leave evidence of their happening. This is true of crime scenes, and it is true of evolution. Every time you look at the night sky, you are looking far, far into the past.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Beretta, posted 10-30-2007 10:54 AM Beretta has not replied

ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 7 of 111 (431497)
10-31-2007 3:09 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Beretta
10-30-2007 10:54 AM


Beretta writes:
Isn't it just the starting point of "I don't believe in the possibility of a transcendent creator" that then leaves evolution as the most plausible option.
Nope. Even if there is a transcendent creator, the chemistry of DNA makes evolution inevitable.
DNA doesn't replicate perfectly. Every generation is a little different from its predecessors. No mechanism has ever been observed (or even suggested) that would prevent small changes from accumulating into big changes over many generations.
Creator or no creator, evolution has to happen. It's built right into the molecules.

“Faith moves mountains, but only knowledge moves them to the right place”
-- Joseph Goebbels
-------------
Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Beretta, posted 10-30-2007 10:54 AM Beretta has not replied

Taz
Member (Idle past 3291 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 8 of 111 (431498)
10-31-2007 3:11 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Beretta
10-30-2007 10:54 AM


For me, it has to do with practicality. Can anyone name a single thing that has resulted from creationism that directly help better the living condition of the human race? The concept of random mutation and natural selection has not only benefited us in the fields of biology, this concept has helped further our understanding of the natural world in other disciplines as well. But specifically, anti-biotics, which resulted directly from understanding evolution, has literally saved millions and millions of lives.

Disclaimer:
Occasionally, owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have used he/him/his meaning he or she/him or her/his or her in order to avoid awkwardness of style.
He, him, and his are not intended as exclusively masculine pronouns. They may refer to either sex or to both sexes!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Beretta, posted 10-30-2007 10:54 AM Beretta has not replied

sidelined
Member (Idle past 5908 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 9 of 111 (431502)
10-31-2007 3:58 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Beretta
10-30-2007 10:54 AM


Beretta
Which one does the evidence better support?
From quantum mechanics the laws of nature support the physics... that support the chemistry... that supports the geology that is reflected by deep time as per fossils and plate tectonics... as well as, the biology that is underpinned by the concept of the non-random selection of randomly varying replicators which is evolution.
The cosmos also exhibit thrall to these explanations and show us far richer and more subtle beauty than any ancient mythos ever could hope to instill in our imaginations.
As my favorite scientist put it.
Nature uses only the longest threads to weave her patterns, so that each small piece of her fabric reveals the organization of the entire tapestry.
I am not sure what the ID equivalence to this is but I bet the evidence does not even exist for it much less be open to a separate interpretation.

"A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death."
Albert Einstein

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Beretta, posted 10-30-2007 10:54 AM Beretta has not replied

jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 10 of 111 (431506)
10-31-2007 4:23 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Beretta
10-30-2007 10:54 AM


Beginning with a false premise.
One of them must be true -they can't both be.
That of course is a false premise, and so anything based on that premise is bound to turn out wrong.
There is no conflict between Evolution and Creation. Evolution is simply "What God Did" and the Theory of Evolution is simply "How God Did It."

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Beretta, posted 10-30-2007 10:54 AM Beretta has not replied

Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 11 of 111 (431510)
10-31-2007 5:39 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Beretta
10-30-2007 10:54 AM


Evolutionists and creationists/ID proponents come to different conclusions from the same evidence according to their world view and starting presuppositions.
I do not believe that this is true. Creationists start with their conclusions, and then ignore evidence or force fit the evidence into their conclusions. Reading a website like Answers in Genesis is quite informative, if you know something about the science or are willing to go to a university library and look up actual scientific papers. AiG distorts the evidence, misquotes researchers, and/or ignores facts that are inconvenient.
-
Which evidence do you feel absolutely negates the possibility of special creation and has to point to evolution as the most valid option?
There is no single piece of evidence that absolutely negates the possibility of special creation. Rather, it is the entire body of evidence that, looked at in its entirety, gives a pretty unambiguous picture of the history of the world.
That said, my favorite single piece of evidence is the nested hierarchical classification of the species. No single piece of evidence by itself will totally refute special creation, like I said, but this one piece is my favorite single piece.
-
Nonetheless the evidence must support one option better than the other.
Well, it could be that the evidence doesn't support either one very well at all. In that case, we should decide that neither theory is very likely and admit the truth is probably something else entirely.
Another possibility is that the evidence supports both theories pretty well. In that case, we would say that, until further tests and evidence comes up, both theories are likely contenders.

Computers have cut-and-paste functions. So does right-wing historical memory. -- Rick Perlstein

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Beretta, posted 10-30-2007 10:54 AM Beretta has not replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 12 of 111 (431514)
10-31-2007 6:25 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Beretta
10-30-2007 10:54 AM


Let us consider transitional fossils.
Most creationists accept that some evolution has occurred within what they call "kinds". "Kinds" are thought to be roughly equivalent to the families of biological taxonomy but there is no way to recognise a "kind" scientifically. (This, in itself is a serious problem for creationists).
Transitional fossils making a transition between groups at higher taxonomic levels, therefore are something we should not expect if creationism is true. Their discovery is not enough to disprove creationism because creationism allows for almost any possibility that we could see, but it is definitely unexpected. Evolution on the other hand predcts that we should find such fossils. In an especially impressive example, the discoverers of Tiktaalik even predicted where they would find a fossil of this sort, through their understanding of evolution and geology.
But let us be clear what evolution does predict here. For some time the predominant mode of speciation has been thought to be allopatric speciation where a small isolated population diverges from the parent species. Gould and Eldredge recognised that the fossil record would tend to miss these speciation events, unless they took place in a region where there was a very good fossil record. Equally the known fossil record does not include all the species that ever existed (we are still finding new species - including new transitional fossils !). Therefore we do not expect to find direct ancestors - and we have no way of certainly identifying them if we did. However, when we deal with the larger transitions we can expect to at least find closely related species.
And that is what we do find. And keep on finding.
The creationist response is generally to find a way to wish away this evidence. Often they deny that transitional fossils even exist, citing Gould. However they misrepresent Gould - what Gould was referring to was the transitions between species, as I explained. But creationists believe that many of these transitions did take place. The ones they want to deny are the transitions between higher level taxa - and Gould does not deny their existence. Sometimes they try to insist that transitionals must be direct ancestors. That is wrong for the reasons I have explained. When dealing with archaeopteryx they either deny the dinosaurian features of archaeopteryx or even insist that because archaeopteryx is classified as a bird it cannot be a transitional. The last ignores the fact that the rules of taxonomy mean that any transitional form between dinosaurs and birds would be classified as one or the other. The more birdlike examples would be classified as birds.
This is not coming to conclusions based on the evidence. It is trying to deny the evidence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Beretta, posted 10-30-2007 10:54 AM Beretta has not replied

Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.7


Message 13 of 111 (431517)
10-31-2007 7:11 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Beretta
10-30-2007 10:54 AM


For accepting evolution? Hmm...
There's a very real sense in which it never occured to me not to. My parents both hold Zoology PhDs, so I "accepted" evolution since I was old enough to understand what the words meant. I certainly accepted it when about 6 or 7.
As time as gone on, of course, I've found out more about it and learnt about the evidence that supports it. And none of that has ever given me a reason to reject it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Beretta, posted 10-30-2007 10:54 AM Beretta has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 14 of 111 (431520)
10-31-2007 8:11 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Beretta
10-30-2007 10:54 AM


Evolutionists and creationists/ID proponents come to different conclusions from the same evidence according to their world view and starting presuppositions.
But this is not true. Evolutionists look at the evidence, creationists look at creationist pamphlets and websites full of stuff that creationists have made up.
That they should come to different conclusions is hardly surprising.
Which one does the evidence better support? Which evidence do you feel absolutely negates the possibility of special creation and has to point to evolution as the most valid option?
The fossil record, comparative morphology, molecular phylogeny, biogeography, embryology, behavioral ecology, and so forth.
Isn't it just the starting point of "I don't believe in the possibility of a transcendent creator" that then leaves evolution as the most plausible option.
No, of course not. This is why so many evolutionists believe in a transcendent creator.
Neither can be experimentally proven -it is an historical concept that is not provable by either side.Nonetheless the evidence must support one option better than the other.One of them must be true -they can't both be.
Of course it can be proved one way or the other. Specifically, it can be proved that evolution happened and that fiat creation of organisms didn't.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Beretta, posted 10-30-2007 10:54 AM Beretta has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 15 of 111 (431546)
10-31-2007 9:42 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Beretta
10-30-2007 10:54 AM


Science, Logic, and a Rational Approach
Evolutionists and creationists/ID proponents come to different conclusions from the same evidence according to their world view and starting presuppositions.
Given that the conclusions many creationists & IDologists often reach are so bedded in their particular world view and starting presuppositions, bedded to such a degree that evidence is ignored that contradicts it, it is hardly surprising that the conclusions would be different from those who approach evidence with an open and inquiring mind, one encumbered with a minimum of presuppositions.
Which one does the evidence better support?
Looked at dispassionately and without reference to any one of the many different initial positions possible in relation to all the world views and starting presuppositions (for there are thousands if not millions), there are two possible initial positions that can be taken on what the evidence supports:
  1. Truth
  2. Falsehood
If we assume (presuppose) that the evidence is true, then we can ask what the evidence means. We can test our thoughts on the meaning with other evidence to see if it is consistent. We can form hypothesis based on the evidence, make predictions for new discoveries and test those hypothesis against the results to see if the concepts can be falsified. We can then use evidence to find the truth of reality, readily discarding concepts that prove to be false.
If we assume (presuppose) that the evidence is false, then we can make no use of it. Thus if, at any time in our evaluations, we come to a conclusion that the evidence is or must be false rather than our evaluations of the meaning of the evidence, then no conclusions can be reached that have any logical or rational meaning. If the conclusions are based on falsehoods then the conclusions are false.
The question then of what world view (of the thousands or millions) is better supported by the evidence then comes down to the one with the least denial of evidence that contradicts it. The world view that makes the minimal conclusions of evidence being in error for the world view to be consistent.
Which evidence do you feel absolutely negates the possibility of special creation ...
The denial of evidence that contradicts it. Not just the evidence of extreme age of the earth, of the much greater age of the universe, or the total absence of any evidence for a worldwide flood of any kind, for these are not necessary to "special creation" per se, but the evidence that shows common ancestry between all living things, and the nested hierarchy of life at every level of detail. The genetic and the fossil (natural history) evidence that are each independently consistent with the nested hierarchy of all life.
... and has to point to evolution as the most valid option?
One of them must be true -they can't both be.
This of course is a typical creationist false dichotomy. Every religion on earth has a creation myth, with many irreconcilable differences between them, and any one of them can be considered to be true and tested against the evidence. Proving any one of them false does not automatically make evolution a more valid option, just as proving evolution wrong does not mean that any specific one of those mythological beliefs is true. Many such beliefs have already been discarded as falsified, but this does not mean that any one view remaining is necessarily true.
What makes evolution the most valid option is testing it against the evidence and seeing if it explains the evidence with a minimum of denial of contradictory evidence compared to all the other concepts. What makes evolution a very likely valid option is that there is no known evidence found to date that contradict the concept, in spite of many tests and an ever increasing body of evidence, both from experimentation and from discovery of fossils and other evidence of the natural history of life on earth over the last 3.5 billion years..
Isn't it just the starting point of "I don't believe in the possibility of a transcendent creator" that then leaves evolution as the most plausible option.
No more so than the starting point of "I don't believe in the possibility of the pantheon of Greek Gods" that then leaves any other world view as a more plausible option, for denial is not an explanation, a conclusion or evidence for one. It is also entirely possible for one to believe in a transcendent creator that made things so that life would begin and evolve on earth without any contradiction between belief and science in general and evolution in specific. The deist point of view for instance.
What makes any world view (of the thousands or millions) the "most plausible option" is the minimum of contradictory evidence.
Neither can be experimentally proven ...
Nothing can be experimentally proven to be true, but concepts can be proven false. Concepts like a young earth, an earth at the center of the universe about which the sun and everything else orbits, a world wide flood, and the pantheon of Greek Gods, which have all been proven false (there is no god of thunder for example).
... it is an historical concept that is not provable by either side. Nonetheless the evidence must support one option better than the other.
Again, this is the false dichotomy. The evidence - together with the minimal presupposition that the evidence is true - leads to the conclusion that the option (among those many that are possible), that has a minimum of contradictory evidence is the one most likely to be a true reflection of reality.
Denial of contradictory evidence is not an alternate explanation, it is not faith, it is delusion:
de·lu·sion -noun1. an act or instance of deluding.
2. the state of being deluded.
3. a false belief or opinion: delusions of grandeur.
4. Psychiatry. a fixed false belief that is resistant to reason or confrontation with actual fact: a paranoid delusion.
One presupposition -- that the evidence is true -- does away with delusion. The more presuppositions one starts with the greater the likelihood of conflicts with contrary evidence.
One of them must be true -they can't both be.
Both can be wrong: all it takes is contradictory evidence.
Enjoy.

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Beretta, posted 10-30-2007 10:54 AM Beretta has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024