Evolution is NOT science: A challenge

Before I post anything, I want to apologize if I am simply restating something that has been previously said in this thread, as I have not read the entire thing. Now, with that said...

quote:

---

Where are those other scientists then, except for fundamentalist creationist scientist, who trace back origins to the events that caused their appearance, in stead of just tracing back lineage?

---

Look into the field of Cosmology. One of the main focuses of Cosmologists (I would argue, anyways) is to research the origins of the universe. Note that many of these scientists are highly qualified physicists, chemists, and mathematicians.

quote:

---

Why would this have to come from outside of biology? It is biologists task to investigate it ofcourse, and their failure to so is suspect.

---

I would say that it doesn't HAVE to come from outside of biology, but I would consider the origins of the universe to be more of a physical property than a biological property, thus leaving it in the hands of the physical sciences (physics, chemistry, geology, etc.). Thus, your claim that it is biologists' task to investigate it is HIGHLY suspect as a biased claim (or attack, as the case may be).

quote:

---

What do you think the effect of the atheism, materialism and social darwinism is that is associated to the fact of evolution, in respect to this issue? It is to block investigation into creation of course.

---

So, let me get this straight. You're saying there is some secret organization of atheists, materialists, and social darwinists running around in the scientific community with the sole aim of stopping research into the creation of the universe? Well I sure hope cosmologists are watching their backs, because I'm sure this organization will be sending assassins their way any time now .

quote:

---

It would be no use to point out some Christian who believes in evolution, because it is a fact that the way things are, atheism, materialism and social darwinism are the main things associated to evolution, and not Christianity. That it is a mater of choice what to associate to evolution theory, doesn't deny that atheism etc. are in fact the main things associated to it.

---

In the immortal words of...well...anyone with decent debating skills, show me some statistics on that. Until you can back that claim up with some sort of data, it means gibberish to me. In fact, seeing how as Homepage - adherents claims that 33% of the world's population is Christian and only 14% is non-religious (which encompasses much more than just atheism, mind you!), intuition would tell me that there are more Christians that study evolution than Atheists. But then, if the invisible muskrat says that the study of evolution is dominated by atheists, well I suppose that it is...In short, I think you have some sort of preconceived notion that scientists (or at least evolutionists) are all atheist and out to falsify the creation theory. While I'm sure there are plenty that fit this description, it certainly isn't true of all or even the majority of them.What's worse, you're hashing the scientific method down into something it isn't. Scientists don't choose what evidence to accept or find! Sure, they have hypotheses, but they cannot alter evidence or data based on their own biases. You make it sound like it's some sort of conspiracy that the evidence they find supports evolution and not creation. The fact is, the theory of evolution was formulated OUT of the evidence, and not the other way around. Science isn't developed by making up things out of thin air.This message has been edited by Glordag, 07-18-2004 11:23 AM

---

Where has my heart gone
Trapped in the eyes of a stranger
I want to go back to
Believing in everything
-Evanescence, "Field of Innocence"

quote:

---

Gee, my impression of intellectual climate of opinion surrounding evolution science is not of Christian or likewise belief, I don't see how you can get any other impression except by willing yourself to the impression convenient for your argument.

---

Well, I'm not exactly sure how an "intellectual climate of opinion" is a belief, but I get this impression by discussing this with various people. If I had to sum up my experiences, I'd say about 4 out of 5 Christians I've met believe evolution is true. Now, assuming all non-religious folk believe it is true, and using the percentages from the website I cited in my last post, this still leaves 26.4% Christians that believe evolution to 14% non-religious folk. This works out even if you use 3 out of every 5 Christians. I'm sure you'll dismiss this all as nonsense, though.

quote:

---

That most people who study evolution are christian or likewise, doesn't mean that they all associate christianty to evolution theory. I'm pretty sure most christians view it as problematical to have for instance a Darwinist view of nature red in tooth and claw, in relation to their Christianity, which generally emphasizes the harmony and order in nature.

---

Who said anybody associates Christianity to evolution? Indeed, it is bad practice to associate religion with science of any type. Data must be obtained without any bias whatsoever! Just because you have a problem with Darwinist views doesn't mean all Christians do (see my previous statement). I'm sure you'll meet plenty of Christians that have a problem with it in your church (assuming you go to church, which might be a bad one, I wouldn't know), seeing how as they probably share similar beliefs.

quote:

---

There are some statistics which say that scientists in general are much atheist, and very atheist for the most influential scientists, and especially atheist in biology, and mathematics the least atheist. Something like more then 10 percent more atheists in biology then in science in general. I find this rather surprising, because I would have expected that there would be more theists in biology, because of being overawed by studying organisms, and the need to give thanks for it.

---

Until you can show me "some statistics", then I am forced to dismiss every last bit of this. I, too, would expect more theists in biology than the physical sciences.

quote:

---

It is appropiate for biology because biology is much linked to complexity and information, and creation is also much linked to that. Anyway, it's a bit absurd to say that for instance the question what event or events caused the existence of plants is not appropiate to biology. We do this every day in our every day lives, try to trace back the origin of something to it's root cause. Please don't make it out as if this is somehow only appropiate for super-expert scientists, although of course things can get very complicated...

---

And the physical sciences AREN'T linked to complexity and information?! As a physics major, I must disagree (;. Actually, it's a bit absurd to say that the question of what event or events CAUSED the existence of plants is not appropriate to the physical sciences, especially chemistry. Sure, biology plays a part, but I would argue not nearly as much so as chemistry until there actually IS life. I'm not attempting to make this out as if only super-expert scientists can study this, though I would say they understand it much better than any of us. Besides, there are super-expert scientists in every field, including biology.

quote:

---

I wish the atheists / materialists / social darwinists were secret about it, that they didn't mix their ideology into their books, or at least provide formalized and abstract versions of their theories apart from their many times prosaic and ideological accounts.

---

Why yes, it is so wrong for people to state their opinions on the matter. Even worse, the "Darwinists" actually went about proposing and proving their theory in the correct manner! Oh, the agony! Oh, and if you can't find "formalized and abstract" versions of their theories, then you are most certainly not looking hard enough.

quote:

---

I don't think you have noted the distinction between evolutionist and creationist accounts of origins, so you are essentially arguing a strawman. In evolution the origin is the ancestor, in creation the events which caused it to exist is the origin. The point where evolution theory and creation theory tend to connect is randomness, because randomness is not an effect of a cause, and neither can a root cause be an effect of a cause.

---

If I didn't note the distinction between the two, why would I even be debating this? First, I was raised Christian, and I could still very well be Christian for all you know (although I am not), as I never said otherwise. You can still believe in a creationist beginning and believe in evolution. In fact, there IS no evolutionist account of the origin of the universe. Evolution simply states how organisms evolve/evolved. So, in fact, I think YOU are arguing a straw man by claiming that I failed to note a distinction and by claiming something of evolution that isn't really there. This talk of randomness and cause means nothing to me, perhaps you can clarify?

quote:

---

Maybe I not explain it so well here, but it is difficult to explain concepts of creation, choice, something not being an effect of what was before, to evolutionists, because they never much think about it for themselves.

---

Well, it's true that I have a hard time understanding how things magically appear out of nowhere. If I had proof, however, I most certainly wouldn't deny it (especially if this proof went through the scientific process of peer-review and whatnot). But I'd again like to bring up the Christians that also believe in evolution. Clearly, they are evolutionists that "think about it for themselves". I'd also like to add that I think about it, I just don't give any credit to it at this point.

I see you have failed to reply to my post, though I won't dog you on this because I'm sure you're busy and feel you might have replied through your replies to others. No big deal.

quote:

---

To make an argument you have to show that evolutionists don't deny or ignore creation in general. It is ok if they ignore biblical creation, much as it is ok for people to ignore the atheist, materialist, social darwinist ideology in evolutionist discourse.

---

Assuming I understand you correctly, I fail to see how you must show this to make an argument. Evolutionists can deny or ignore creation all they want, it should have no bearing on their studies.I have a challenge for you. Show me some evidence regarding creation that interferes with the TOE. The fact is, everything we trace back to creation can be explained alongside of evolution. The two are not dependant on each other! This is speaking strictly in terms of scientific evidence and observations, of course, and not in terms of stories or writings about how we were created.

quote:

---

The reason that evolutionists deny creation is the atheism, materialism, and social darwinism associated to the theory, evolution thereby becomes a part of those ideologies. In this sense it is a religion.

---

No evolutionist can deny creation, as we indeed came from somewhere. To deny creation would mean denying our existence. That hardly makes sense! Now, denying the creation story given to us in Genesis, that's a different story. I see no support that the reason evolutionists deny this story is the atheism, materialism, and social darwinism associated with it, though. In fact, I only find those things associated with the evolution because many people from other belief systems will not accept it! Making this your basis for evolution being a religion is nonsense, however. This is like me saying that internet gaming is a religion because people that play internet games share similar views on things.

quote:

---

Probably creation wouldn't be inconsistent with evolution. But you make no point with it, because evolutionists deny and or ignore creation.

---

I only brought this point up because you try to disprove evolution's scientific background through creation. The two have no bearing on each other, and thus creation shouldn't even be a part of this argument. I still fail to see how evolutionists deny or ignore creation.

quote:

---

What do you think would happen if evolutionists openly supported the search for root causes, creation events where kinds of organism became a certainty to exist. The controversy would dissipate, because religion would have it's connection to creation within science, and would counterballance the atheism / materialism / social darwinism associated to evolution theory.

---

There has ALWAYS been a search for these "root causes". I'm sure some evolutionists are a part of it and some are not. The controversy will never dissipate as long as there are people willing to argue that the facts are not true because their religion will not allow for it. Religion can only have a connection to science insofar as data is shown to support its set of beliefs. I would argue that at this point there isn't much support, and that is why there is such a controversy in the first place.

quote:

---

It seems to me creation events strongly imply a spiritual realm, although if you just look at the start of a creation event, you see nothing. You must see nothing because a creation event can't be an effect of what went before.

---

Well, that is your opinion, and you are certainly entitled to it. Perhaps one day we will discover that creation came from a spiritual source. Until that day, however, I am inclined to support the facts (which, by the way, explain a good bit about the creation of life when you break down lifeforms into their respective elements).Summary:
You seem to have the impression that nobody has ever looked into the origins of life. I would say this is a horrible inaccurate view, as people have certainly been studying it for years upon years upon years. Your argument that evolutionists refuse to look into this is amusing at best, and cannot be used to support your view that evolution is a religion.Also, another view you seem to have is that life is only life because of some supernatural force. While I cannot prove this to be an incorrect view, you must understand that you cannot prove it to be a correct view, either (or, if you can, I would most certainly like to see your proof). You seem to think that studying the origin of life would bring up proof for this supernatural force, but you fail to recognize that people have been studying this for years, and no such proof has been found!And lastly, I will repeat something that has been said many times in a different form: CREATION CANNOT BE USED TO PROVE EVOLUTION IS A RELIGIONP.S.: If I ever become a notable scientist, and some fundie quote mines "EVOLUTION IS A RELIGION" out of my above sentence, I will personally hunt them down, slay them, feed them to my pets, and use their bones for my kitchen utinsels.This message has been edited by Glordag, 07-20-2004 04:23 AMThis message has been edited by Glordag, 07-20-2004 04:25 AM

quote:

---

Considering all the soundbites that are out there today, I doubt that you will be able to escape your fate. 50 years from now, when you are rich and famous, your empire will collapse overnite after someone posts on a news paper "Evolution is a religion.-Glordag"

---

Since you have already proven yourself to be a prophet in another thread, I would ask you to kindly retract this prediction. Thank you.

quote:

---

I think you fail to understand creation. It's not neccessarily true that the first ever singlecelled organism is a creation event which made the existence of plants later on a relative certainty. In turn the origin of the first single celled organism may be predetermined to happen within a timeframe from some point previous. Why do you not consciously understand a method which in all probability you practice in everyday life?

---

Well, I've mentioned the creation of the universe, the creation of life, and the creation of mankind, and you insist that none of these are what you are talking about. Based on this, I really no longer have any idea what you are talking about when you say 'creation' and 'predetermined'. Feel free to explain, if you will.

quote:

---

You are evidently not inclined to support the facts of creation, only the facts of evolution, it is prejudicial.

---

As above, I no longer know what you mean by 'creation', thus you may be correct in saying that I do not support the facts of this 'creation'. Until you explain to me just what you mean, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

quote:

---

As a basic understanding of creation you should consider events where the outcome is not predetermined, such as choice. Your lack of basic understanding of creation is already evidence that evolutionists deny, and or ignore creation. Talk to an evolutionist about choice, things turning out one way or another, and 10 to 1 they conjure up a material cause which predetermined the outcome of the event, denying choice. Materialism of the gaps, so to speak.

---

Though I will acknowledge that I seem to have little understanding of your concept of 'creation', I will claim that it is your fault that I lack such an understanding, not mine. Furthermore, I've already said that some evolutionists might deny or ignore creation, but look at Born2Preach and his arguments concerning that topic. I agree that humans (and indeed, many living things) have choices. The fact is, however, that the choices that are made have affects on the rest of the world. Everything is a result of something else, up to a point. Nobody ever claimed that evolutionists do not believe in choice.

quote:

---

It's difficult to find evidence if or not evolutionists deny the fundamentalist christian story of creation, but accept creation in general. I certainly have never found any such acceptance of creation in general terms, on the contrary. I assume you're just being oppositional to say you have the impression that evolutionists accept creation in general, although I admit that an impression is soft evidence.

---

How can anybody deny some sort of creation? We had to get here somehow! That's like saying nothing is real! I'm sure I can gather some evidence that supports 10/10 evolutionists believing in some sort of creation. Whether that creation is of a supernatural nature or not, that's a different story. But then, this mixup might again come from your skewed (from the usual sense, anyways) definition of 'creation'.Perhaps once we have an agreement on the definition of 'creation' we can continue this discussion.This message has been edited by Glordag, 07-20-2004 03:17 PM

Well you know, prophecy is unnatural. Based on this, I would have to say it is sinful, and thus, I must persecute you. In fact, I rather feel like burning you on the stake. *gets a torch*

*plays the part of a creationist*My keys are missing, oh no!
Observation: There are evil fairies in the movie Labyrinth. Observation: My keys are missing. Observation: My keys are small enough for a group of fairies to carry. Observation: The couch is a perfect environment for fairies to live in (Data available at http://www.answersinthebookoffairies.com/habitat/evidence). Hypothesis: The fairies took my keys and put them in the couch! Test: I look in the couch and find my keys. Conclusion: The fairies indeed took my keys and put them in the couch.See, fairyology is science as much as evolution! Also, evolutionists, highly influenced by anti-fairytale-ism, deny and ignore fairyology, therefore evolution is not real science! Ha!Note: This is all purely humor, do not take any of it seriously. I take no responsibility for my words in this post, and will not attempt to back any of it up. Thank you.

quote:

---

I will try to tell you about creation, but you will not comprehend anything about it unless you develop your own thoughts on the matter.

---

I have developed my own thoughts on the matter. These thoughts are what has brought me to my agnostic belief system. If I had never developed my own thoughts, I'd still be Christian, as that is how I was raised (heavily, I might add) for the first 16 or so years of my life.

quote:

---

The point of a creation event is that it's not a neccesary effect of what went before. Something new is introduced.

---

I'll accept this definition of creation and come to an agreement with it. The only event I believe we cannot trace back any further is the original creation of the universe (as in, where did the matter that constituted the big bang come from?). Thus, my previous posts on this matter stand, and I'd urge you to respond to them in more detail. If you can't figure out what specifically I am talking about, I will copy/paste and elaborate, if need be.

quote:

---

If you choose between left or right, and you choose left, then by definition there can't be any material property which makes you choose left over right, unless it wasn't in fact a choice which side you chose. Material properties neccesitate a particular outcome, or make one outcome more likely then another, but choice is not a material property this way.

​

Likewise if a rock falls to the ground and in the event it can bounce left or right, you can see that this is conceptually much the same as choice. I will not go into what the differences are between a choice, and the "outcome-determination" of a chance, I just want to note the basic similarity here, so to say that things are created without the presence of a material brain.

---

I fail to see how choice has anything to do with creation. This correlation seems to have come from nowhere. I do believe choice is a property of living organisms, though, and especially (or perhaps exclusively) of humans. I don't think many of these choices are an exact 50%-50% split, though, as you seem to imply. Furthermore, a rock falling to the ground behaves according to the laws of motion, which have nothing to do with choice. You claim that if a material property makes you choose something, then that choice was in all actuality (sp?) not a choice. Well, perhaps material things don't come right out and force you to make a choice, but they heavily influence choices, which I would argue in the end result often "make" the choice.

quote:

---

Materialism can be wholy counterintuitive to creation, but this should not be a problem once you recognize that the number zero is just as much a part of math as the number one is, and math describes all the material. Creation is from nothing, materially speaking.

---

The problem isn't understanding the concept of creation, the problem is lack of evidence of creation. Of course there had to be some sort of creation, but we have no evidence as to whether it is natural, spiritual, or anything for that matter.

quote:

---

The religious version of creationism says that there is something beyond or within choice, which is not material. The scientific version just notes what effects the creation event has.

​

I think you can vaguely see how choice relates to intelligence, and how intelligence relates to beliefs about God. The association to religion is quite straightforward when considering creation.

---

The only part I can even imagine choice playing in creation is to argue that we are a new type of being that didn't exist before, able to make choices independant of material properties. I believe there is a scientific explanation for this "choice", but I don't claim that it is the absolute truth on the matter.I can see how you believe creation relates to evolution if you take the stance that humans were "created" by some supernatural/spiritual force, as opposed to evolving into what we are. The fact is, however, that the evidence we have found all supports evolution, while much of it conflicts with a creation as told be Genesis, and none of it supports a spontaneous human creation.I think we've about beaten this subject to a pulp, though.

It's pinky and the brain brain brain brain....heh.

Well, I'm glad you feel that making accusitions and claims is enough basis for proof, but I doubt many share these feelings. I asked you to explain what your definition of creation was. When you did this, it seemed as if you were making references to things that had little or nothing to do with creation. I even stated the way in which I saw choice relating to creation, and you didn't bother responding to this to tell me whether it was correct or not.Me failing to understand your argument is not basis enough for saying I have no comprehension of creation. It is even less of a basis for saying that NO evolutionist has a comprehension of creation. Also, it's hard for me to deny or ignore facts that have not yet been presented and defended.We are not having a reasonable debate at this point. Perhaps you can provide a reasonable argument and make this debate more worthwhile.

Double post for some reason, sorry!This message has been edited by Glordag, 07-22-2004 04:07 AM

Well, first of all, I think the replies below me addressed a lot of your post. Second, I'm growing tired of this discussion, as neither of us are getting anywhere.Despite this, I will go ahead and reply to some of your post.

quote:

---

Perhaps you can tell us about creation. Since you don't deny or ignore creation, as you would have me believe, this should be easy for you.

---

Well, it depends which type of creation you are asking me to explain. My belief of creation is rather brief and simple. The matter and energy out of which everything came into being had to come from somewhere. I do not pretend to know where it came from or why it was produced, therefore I do not attempt to explain it or worship any deity that "might" have made it.I can try to explain other beliefs of creation, but that is somewhat difficult, as they are all beliefs that I do not hold. Some believe in a literal Genesis account of creation. I'm sure all of you know what Genesis states about creation (if not, just open the Bible and begin reading), so there isn't much point into going into detail there. I know some Christians believe that god created the matter and energy I mentioned before, and the laws of science took it from there. Other religions have various stories about creation, some of which I have heard to some degree, some of which I have not. What else should I have to learn about creation to study science?

quote:

---

Maybe you should think about what a trial judge does for instanc3e in determening guilt or innocense. If a person's act was forced for instance by bad uprbringing or something, then what the person did was not, or less, his chosen act, but more the effect of circumstances. The origin of the act lay outside the suspect.

---

Everyone has their own set of morals. Judges must rely somewhat on morals, yes, but much moreso on law. As far as the reasoning being immoral (to some) acts, one (in my opinion) must simply try and determine what works out best for the most people, while not being obviously immoral and unjust to one. Of course, sometimes you must choose between the lesser of two evils, and nothing can be done in these cases.Now, could you please explain to me what any of this has to do with creation? Apparently someone else is having somewhat of a difficult time understanding you, so it's not just me. Are you trying to imply that people could not have a moral code without God or the bible? I'm just a little confused...

quote:

---

The point is, you have to do this kind of thing every day in normal life, trace back origins to root causes. I think we can say that the knowledge of creationist about creation is much deeper then evolutionists, even if the biblestory is not factually correct, even if their knowledge is not much systemized. They know more about creation then you, and this knowledge is the knowledge that generally matters most in life.

---

First of all, everyone ponders about issues relating to life, death, their origins, etc. etc. The fact that some Christians choose to believe in a creation story from the Bible does NOT necessarily mean that they have a deeper understanding of creation. In fact, I'm pretty sure that cosmologists who have studied the processes that occurred around the Big Bang and beginning of the universe have a deeper understanding than most, and especially than those who know nothing more of creation than what they are told in the Bible. If you would like to give me some reasons that show why creationists would have a deeper understanding of creation than evolutionists, I would be glad to receive them.

Lol...this has to be the most ridiculous challenge I've ever heard of .If something happens...then, in retrospect, it clearly could not happen another way. For whatever reason, the outcome was produced/chosen. Something was weighing in its favor.At any rate, since this is getting completely ridiculous and B2P asked all the atheists (which I assume means me as well, though I'm agnostic) to stand down for the time being, I am going to be silent until he says otherwise. May you have fun presenting others with your ridiculous arguments, scenerios, and challenges.

quote:

---

The Big Bang created -time-and space. Since time has a beginning, and space(universe) has a beginning, then something caused it. You can believe that the 'uncaused nothingness' created it, but I also have the right to believe that the 'uncaused designer' created it. Same results, different initiators.

---

Well, saying that an "uncaused nothingness" created the Big Bang is a bit of a stretch. It's really impossible to say how the Big Bang came about, so I won't pretend to speculate. For all I care, "God" could have created the Big Bang. I have no conflict with this idea, as there isn't any evidence to the contrary. Now, we have some pretty firm ideas about how everything came about after the Big Bang, and I DO have a problem (a serious one) with people claiming that these ideas are false without any supporting evidence. I choose to believe what we can observe as true, is that so difficult?Edit: I realize that the last bit doesn't really pertain to your post, so I apologize for the fact that I made it sound like I was attacking some point you didn't make. I was merely using your post to make a point of my own.This message has been edited by Glordag, 08-06-2004 10:13 PM