Key points of Evolution

Bluejay says: I have only began to study this subject so I probably have no idea what I am talking about.However, an article by Douglas Theobald on the talk origin website lists numeorus mechanisms for macroevolution including natural selection, genetic drift, sexual selection, neutral evolution, and theories of speciation.I have no idea if these are mutually exclusive mechanisms, or interrelated processes. I am very much limited in the amount of time I can spend to look at this stuff.Have all of these mechanisms been rejected by the scientific community, or are they all considered part of natural selection?Here is the link if you want to look at it:http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/default.htmlThere is also an explanation of these mechanisms and some additional processes including adaptation, gene flow, and mutation at this link:Evolution - WikipediaYou say: I am curious, since BYU is a religious institution, how the professors explain the existence of the human soul? That part of a human being that the Christian world believes separates humans from all other living things.Is this part of the evolutionary process?It seems that if we evolve like any other animal, then God must be involved in the process somehow.Edited by Wumpini, : changed wording

---

"There is one thing even more vital to science than intelligent methods; and that is, the sincere desire to find out the truth, whatever it may be." - Charles Sanders Pierce

Dr Adequate says: No, I am trying to use the results of this study so that I can gain a better understanding of what scientists believe about the origin of life.Dr Adequate says: The study says nothing about whether these scientists agree completely with what is taught in biology textbooks. I can see that in your opinion that the 40% agree with what is taught in biology textbooks.The comment regarding "Darwinian evolution" appears to be the opinion of the author of the article. He also has the opinion that these scientists believe that God guided evolution so that man would possess a soul.The context of the quote in the article is as follows:

quote:

---

While most US scientists think humans are simply smarter apes, at least 4 in 10 believe a creator "guided" evolution so that Homo sapiens are ruled by a soul or consciousness, a new survey shows. Scientists almost unanimously accept Darwinian evolution over millions of years as the source of human origins. But 40% of biologists, mathematicians, physicians, and astronomers include God in the process.

---

Here is a link to the entire article: Many Scientists...It appears that the three questions that were asked the scientists were as follows:

quote:

---

On 6 occasions, the first in 1982 and the others between 1991 and 2001, the Gallup Poll asked respondents to choose among three statements:

​

God created man pretty much in his present form at one time within the last 10 000 years.

​

Man has developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life. God had no part in this process.

​

Man has developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process, including man's creation.

---

Here is a link to the questions: The Creationists...I do not know what these scientists that were polled believe except what relates to these questions.Everything else that is being considered are opinions. You and others are telling me what the scientists believe, the man (Larry Witham) who wrote the article is telling me what they believe, and another member told me that it does not matter what they believe because if they are not scientists in the field of biology then their opinion is about as valuable as a custodians's opinion (Those are not the exact words, but that is the jist of it).Here is what I do know based upon this study.Of the scientists that were polled:5% believe "God created man pretty much in his present form at one time within the last 10 000 years. "40% believe "Man has developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process, including man's creation."55% believe "Man has developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life. God had no part in this process."So the study appears to show that scientists are divided on whether God was involved in the process of the evolution of man, including man's creation.I am not attempting to misconstrue what scientists believe. Since the study that is being quoted is the only evidence that I have found that relates to the beliefs of scientists, I am attempting to use the information to get an idea in my mind (however rough or accurate) of how scientists view the theory of evolution, including the mechanisms, and the origin of life. Edited by Wumpini, : Added link to first articleEdited by Admin, : Shorten links.

---

"There is one thing even more vital to science than intelligent methods; and that is, the sincere desire to find out the truth, whatever it may be." - Charles Sanders Pierce

Rahvin says: I really don't think it matters what supernatural force these scientists believe was involved. It could even be your fairies for that matter. The point is they believe that something had an effect that was not natural. Not really. It appears to me that there is a fallacy in your calculation.>>>>>>You are assuming that God had no part in anything. This formula would be true for the 55% of scientists who say God was not involved in any way whatsoever.In that instance:God = 0Therefore - evolution = evolution + GodTherefore - Observed diversity = life forms + evolution + timeGod is irrelevant as you stated.>>>>>>>However 5% of the scientists believe God created these organisms completely formed 10,000 years ago. Therefore on day one of creation, for these scientists, the formula would be as follows:evolution = 0 (There was no time for any evolution)time = 0 (Time had only just begun)Therefore - God = God + evolution + timeTherefore - Observed diversity = life forms + GodOn the day of creation evolution and time are irrelevant.>>>>>>That leaves the 40% that believe that God was involved in the process, including man's creation. We do not know how involved. However, we do know that His involvement does not equal zero.God does not equal zero.Evolution does not equal zero.Time does not equal zero.Therefore - Observed diversity = life forms + God + evolution + timeAll of the components are necessary for the calculation.>>>>>>>The fact that you cannot measure the value that God played in the observed diversity does not mean that He played no part.You may say that we must ignore the supernatural part because it is impossible to measure. You may say that we do not teach the supernatural part as science because it is impossible to measure.However, if 45% of scientists believe that the supernatural exists and was part of the process, then I believe this is significant.Edited by Wumpini, : corrected spelling

---

"There is one thing even more vital to science than intelligent methods; and that is, the sincere desire to find out the truth, whatever it may be." - Charles Sanders Pierce

lyx2no says: How would you say that I am ignoring scientists?I am quoting a study where scientists were asked what they believe. I have no idea whether the people responding on this forum are auto mechanics, custodians, physicians, theologians, biologists, accountants, gas station attendants or whatever. I am hearing and analyzing all of the opinions that I receive.The only evidence that I have from scientists is the study that I quoted. If some of those who are responding on this board are scientists, then they would fall in one of the three categories that have been mentioned. Either they believe in creation, naturalistic evolution, or God assisted evolution. Even then they could not speak for all scientists. They could only speak for themselves. They could obviously give their opinions on what others believed.You can feel free to give me your opinion.Are you a scientist?What branch of science?In which category of beliefs do you fall?What is your opinion about the part that God played in man's origin?I assure you that I will not ignore your opinion!

---

"There is one thing even more vital to science than intelligent methods; and that is, the sincere desire to find out the truth, whatever it may be." - Charles Sanders Pierce

I appreciate your input. I am not suggesting that I know what these scientists believe. I have only been attempting to understand what they say they believe. However, it does reassure me that 45% of the scientists polled believe in God.Percy says: Actually, I had gotten to the point where I understood that almost all of the scientists believed that evolution was a sufficient explanation for the diversity of life, and they were teaching the theory as such.I was wondering though if some or many of them may believe that there were forces beyond evolution at work sometime in the past. You know for things like the creation of the first living organism, or complex organs, or the human brain, or the soul. What I was considering is whether these two beliefs are really mutually exclusive. You may say, "why believe God did anything if evolution is sufficient to explain the diversity?" It seems that if you are going to believe in God then He ought to be doing something. You know like creating the universe, and life.I think it could be the wording of the statement that is causing me some difficulty. The statement says that "God guided this process, including man’s creation." It also may be that since I do not have a good understanding of the theory of evolution yet, that I can not perceive how someone can believe in God, and also believe in what appears to be a naturalistic theory for the creation of man without any intervention.I think I will leave it at that and spend more time studying the theory. Maybe that will help me to understand how so many scientists that believe in God can also accept the theory of evolution.

---

"There is one thing even more vital to science than intelligent methods; and that is, the sincere desire to find out the truth, whatever it may be." - Charles Sanders Pierce

lyx2no says: The poll divided them. I was only attempting to understand the division. I think I am coming to that understanding. They are divided on personal beliefs about God, however they do not appear to be divided regarding the sufficiency of the theory of evolution.That does not mean that scientists are right (or that they are wrong). It means that scientists are either all right or all wrong regarding the theory of evolution. I have not come along far enough to make that conclusion.By the way, what do you mean by vaulted?lyx2no says: Maybe God already has already presented himself for examination.As Percy says: lyx2no says: You spend the day ignoring most of your opinions. Don't be so hard on yourself. I truly appreciate your opinion!

---

"There is one thing even more vital to science than intelligent methods; and that is, the sincere desire to find out the truth, whatever it may be." - Charles Sanders Pierce

CS says: Acutally, the scientists are divided on whether they believe God exists. They could also be divided on what role they believe that God has played in the past in this creation where we live. It is hard to tell from the statement they selected in the poll.Based upon your opinion and others, I would agree that they are not divided upon the sufficiency of the Theory of Evolution.That does not mean they are right (or that they are wrong). I have not reached that conclusion yet. Though, I am working in that direction.So, yes they are divided, but no they are not divided! I agree totally.

---

"There is one thing even more vital to science than intelligent methods; and that is, the sincere desire to find out the truth, whatever it may be." - Charles Sanders Pierce

Bluejay says: Thank you. That is nice of you to say that.Thanks, also for the definitions of the mechanisms. I found a textbook entitled Evolutionary Analysis, and I have only begun studying natural selection through the analysis of the mutation of a virus. As for the other mechanisms, if I had not read about them in that article, I would have had no idea that they exist. Through my research in the past few days, I have noticed there is a difference between theistic evolution and intelligent design. I wonder if the scientists that were polled that believed in intelligent design would be classified with the 5% that believe in a young earth, or would some of them have been mixed in with the 40% that believe in the God guided process for evolution?

---

"There is one thing even more vital to science than intelligent methods; and that is, the sincere desire to find out the truth, whatever it may be." - Charles Sanders Pierce

Thanks for the definitions. It seems like it makes the choice kind of like Walmart. You can pick and choose exactly what fits your price range and needs. Old earth, Young earth, ID, Creation, Evolution, God guided, No God, Abiogenesis, Biogenesis, Big Bang, etc, etc. You can mix and match and come up with exactly what fits your beliefs and knowledge. Actually, I am the type of person that would rather run in and grab the only coffee pot on the shelves rather than try to choose between a 100 different coffee makers.My choice is very simple. I know that I agree with God, and if anything or anyone disagrees with God then I disagree with them. That may not seem very scientific but it is reality. People on this forum keep comparing the law of gravity and subatomic principles to evolution and origin of the universe theories. Well obviously from my standpoint (and much of the population of the earth's standpoint), it is like comparing apples and bowling balls.From a scientific standpoint, I really should know more about this stuff. I have studied different theories about the age of the earth, and creation but I really have not spent much time to figure out what scientists believe. That does not mean that I agree with you. It means I am not sure how much that I disagree.It really is not my entire fault (Maybe it is, but I will blame others anyway. You know it is the American way. Like when you spill hot coffee on yourself at McDonalds). I went to high school in the state of Arkansas and evolution was not mentioned, and when I attended the University of Arkansas almost thirty years ago the extent of my science classes were basic chemistry and geology. Even up until now most science teachers in schools (not colleges) in Arkansas do not teach evolution. You may think, "They can't do that because it is a scientific theory so they must teach it in biology class." Actually no! Here is a quote from an article dated in January of this year that has something to say about that subject:

quote:

---

Science educators in certain U.S. states operate a bit like dissidents in the old Soviet bloc. ... Only about a fifth of the science teachers in Arkansas taught evolution, though it was part of the school science education guidelines.

---

Here is a link if you want to read the entire article:http://washingtonindependent.com/view/arkansas-teachersThis is fact because I have personally spoken with Arkansas high school students within the past few years. I live in Africa, but I have a house in Arkansas. Most of my time is spent in West Africa. In the town in Arkansas where I live they do teach an old earth, however they leave the subject of origins up to the student. Really this leaves the student with a very mixed up view.Here is a recent conversation I had with a student who had graduated from high school. I asked what he believed about creation. He said, "God created the world." I asked, "When?" "About 6,000 years ago." I asked what they taught about creation in high school. He said, "They did not mention it. They leave it up to us to decide." I asked, "What about dinosaurs? Do they teach you about dinosaurs?" He said, "Sure!" I asked, "When did they live?" He said, "Millions of years ago." I said, "Don't you see a contradiction there! If the earth is only a few thousand years old, how did dinosaurs live millions of years ago?" He said, "Oh!"This thread was intended to address what is taught regarding the theory of evolution to young people in schools. Some have the impression that I was attempting to create a division among scientists related to what they believe regarding the origins of man. I was not trying to create a division! I was trying to show there is a division in what scientists believe. It seems that most scientists believe that evolution is a sufficient theory to explain the diversity in the world today, but at least in Arkansas, they are not teaching that theory as fact. And, the majority of the people where I live in Arkansas do not believe the theory of evolution explains the origin of man. I can assure you that almost all of the people where I live in Africa believe in creation!This is my opinion. It seems that by keeping alternative theories of the origin of man out of the elementary, middle, and high schools, that we are keeping science out of the science classes, and graduating students who are very confused. The problem, in my opinion, is this movement that attempts to divide church and state. A movement that attempts to keep religion, not out of science classes, but out of schools, and out of America. So those who believe in God, and want their children exposed to supernatural theories of creation must attempt to turn religious theories of origin (which are supernatural) into science (which studies the natural world). The end result is a lot of confusion.In Ghana, where I live, it is required in the curriculum for all students to take Religious and Moral Education at school. Not for only one year, but for numerous years. The area where I live is almost completely Islamic. However, Muslim children are taught about Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Traditional Religion, and other World Religions in public school. Even private schools are required to teach these classes. The science classes can teach science. The religious and moral education class teaches religion and moral education. However, the students don't seem to be confused. They know what Muslims believe, they know what Christians believe, and they know what those in Traditional Religion believe (Actually, most of the people here have a difficult time understanding the concept of being an Atheist.) And, they seem to know what scientists believe.I think I will try to spend some time attempting to understand what the scientific world has concluded based upon their observations of living things, and their observations of the earth and the universe. This will give me a better idea of where I stand in relation to those theories. As of now, I would place myself in a category of a creationist who takes a literal interpretation of the Bible. But as I said before, if I become convinced that I am wrong, then I will change what I believe. As long as it does not contradict God!Rahvin says: Your right, but I kind of liked the word. It made me feel smart.Actually, I took a one hour course in logic back a long time ago when I was in college. So, I have vague memories of terms like inductive and deductive reasoning, premises, arguments, and fallacies. I looked up the word, and I can see that I used it incorrectly. The basis for the statement was that I am arguing that one of your premises is wrong. That premise was that God equals zero for those who believe in Theistic Evolution. If it is true that the premise was incorrect, then your conclusion was incorrect.I do not believe that God equals zero. Even if evolution is a theory that is sufficient to explain the diversity in the world today, and I come to agree with that conclusion then God still does not equal zero. He has played a part in the process. He is responsible for the universe that exists, and for the existence of all human life. Science can choose to ignore God because they cannot observe and measure His impact. But, that does not eliminate His contribution, and if a person says they believe in Theistic Evolution then scientifically God's contribution is being included in the term evolution.For ID and Theistic Evolution the argument is:God > 0Evolution > 0Time > 0Therefore Observed diversity = life forms + God + Evolution + TimeI know you say this is only the ID argument. I propose that it is also the Theistic Evolution argument based upon the fact that you are combining God's effect into your calculation of the term Evolution.In other words.Evolution + God = Evolution + GodEvolution (including the effect of God) = Evolution + GodThen you hide the parenthetical notation.Evolution = Evolution + GodSo based upon this clarification of your premise (I don't know if I am using that term correctly but once again it makes me feel smart even though I may look dumb), I would agree with your argument that the formula for Theistic Evolution is:God = 0 (Only because you are including His effect in Evolution)Evolution > 0Time > 0Therefore Observed diversity = Life forms + Evolution (including God) + TimeHave a good day.In Dagbani I would say:"Nawuni sang Tuma" - "May God help you with your work."Almost all parting comments between people in the area of Africa where I live include God. It is interesting how in some parts of the world He is barely mentioned.

---

"There is one thing even more vital to science than intelligent methods; and that is, the sincere desire to find out the truth, whatever it may be." - Charles Sanders Pierce

CS say: With God all things are possible.Maybe it is possible that the Bible can be literal and inerrant, and the ToE is valid also.All it would take would be a little supernatural intervention.

---

"There is one thing even more vital to science than intelligent methods; and that is, the sincere desire to find out the truth, whatever it may be." - Charles Sanders Pierce

lyx2no says: Maybe that is because I believe in God and creation. Therefore, it is completely possible that my posts have a creationist slant.It seems that some of the posts that I read from others have an atheistic slant. I would not say that what is being written is Atheistic propaganda, if there is such a thing. I have read some of the "Creationist propaganda" but I don't recall any scientists are divided arguments. This whole discussion started because someone said evolution should be taught in schools because it was a theory accepted by the scientific community as scientific fact. I only attempted to research and discuss this assertion.The reason that I made the arguments that I made related to the poll was because it was poorly worded. If you believed in creation, and someone tells you that 40% of scientists believe that God guided the process (of man's development), including man's creation, "What would you think?" I think you would believe exactly what I did. That the scientists were of the opinion that God was actively involved in the development of man. This is not the theory of evolution that is being taught in schools, and not what others on this board have indicated that these scientists believe.I am only concerned with the truth. If scientists are divided about their personal beliefs related to God, that is the truth. If this could have some bearing on how I view the evidence related to evolution vs creation, then it is important to me. Creation deals with God, so God is relevant. A person's beliefs, even if they do not affect his scientific method, and the theory that he promotes, should not be disregarded in my opinion when they relate to the subject matter at hand. I don't think the pet ownership of scientists would be important to me whatsoever. And, I am not sure that they will. I would think that even those 5% believe in the principles of evolution. It is being observed so it exists. What I believe they would propose is that God has the power to intervene in the process in such a way that could change what you think you are seeing in the past. I do not believe it would change what you presently are observing as taking place now. Almost anyone that believes in God would accept the fact that God has that power.Is it possible God could have intervened in such a way that would change your conclusions? Or is that an intellectual dead-end as I have been told over and over again?Another interesting fact is the statistic (1991 Gallup Poll) for all Americans is 47% that believe in creation within the last 10,000 years (compared to 5% for scientists). Only 9% believe as you do; that man evolved and God played no part in the process.You can interpolate this to a worldwide view where 54% of the world's population professes to be either Christian or Muslim and believes in the monotheistic God of the Bible. Only a small percentage of the people in the world are atheists, or profess to have no religion, probably less than 8%.Here is a link if your interested:Homepage - adherents How can God clearly not present himself?God has given each of us free will. He has supplied the evidence, and made Himself known through His own creation. He wants each of us to examine the evidence and choose whether to love Him and follow Him. Therefore, He is not going to come down here and interfere with your free will. If you want to start another thread to discuss the different evidences that God has provided for his existence, I will be happy to participate. I assure you that God wants you to know Him. He doesn't just want you to acknowledge His existence. He wants you to come to an understanding of Him. He has provided what is necessary for you to come to that understanding.My primary objective on this forum is to come to a better understanding of what the theory of evolution means, and whether it is possible to reconcile what you believe to the Bible and my faith. If as a result of that endeavor, you or someone else comes to the realization that it would be a good time in your life to honestly examine the possibility that God exists, then that would be a bonus in my opinion.

---

"There is one thing even more vital to science than intelligent methods; and that is, the sincere desire to find out the truth, whatever it may be." - Charles Sanders Pierce

Rahvin says: I kind of like those bumper stickers myself. Your obviously not understanding my point either. It is good we don't have to put up with each other all the time. It could become very annoying.My point is that this is a creation vs evolution website. So I see scientific theories related to subjects such as evolution, abiogenesis, big bang theory, age of the earth, etc. as more relevant than theories about gravity and subatomic principles. I got throught the Arkansas school system and learned to read and write English, so I am sure I can understand a few simple concepts like natural selection, genetic mutation, and how populations are affected by their environment through time. Too bad everyone can't have the opportunity to grow up and live in a place where it is easier to obtain faith, and come to an understanding of the Truth (i.e. Jesus is the the Truth - John 14:6). I truly feel blessed. I never said to put it in the science classroom! Regardless of what scientists believe, almost all of the people on this earth believe in the supernatural. There is no reason to try to annoy most of the people on the earth by denying its existence. I really should have looked up a couple of definitions before I began using those logical terms. Next time I will either try to be logical without the terms or look up the definitions. I believe in God, and it is sort of difficult to leave Him out. Especially when I believe He is the creator of the universe and mankind, and this is a creation vs evolution website.Therefore, for now I am going to say that God > 0, at least for me. I know you don't think this is scientific but it makes me feel better if I give Him the credit. I will try not to annoy you by putting God into any of your arguments.I am sure it cannot be as hopeless as you seem to think it is. I think I am making progress, slowly. My brain is kind of old, so give it some time. Okay I get it. If the premises are correct, and the argument is sound, then the conclusion must be correct. Like I said it is coming back to me slowly.Have a good day!

---

"There is one thing even more vital to science than intelligent methods; and that is, the sincere desire to find out the truth, whatever it may be." - Charles Sanders Pierce

lyx2no says: Actually, I don't believe that you are way off topic. The topic is teaching evolution in schools. We have to realize that it is a very emotional issue for both sides. In the last week that I have been on this site, I have at least learned that. (I think some others hope I have learned more than that!) That is where all of the propaganda comes into the picture. Both sides want to gain supporters for their position. It is like a war.Correct me if I am wrong, but scientists do not like anyone messing with their theories or the scientific method especially in the science classroom. The same is true of creationists. They do not want anyone messing with their religious beliefs (and especially those of their children). And, they feel that is happening in the science classroom. This war is not taking place on this forum. It is taking place in science classrooms of our public schools across the nation.That is what is causing this entire problem in my opinion. It is not that scientists hate God. If they don’t believe in Him he is non-existent. How can you hate something that doesn’t exist? And creationists do not hate science. They appreciate the fact that the law of gravity keeps them attached to the earth, and that all those neutrons, electrons, and protons are keeping their bodies from falling apart.In my opinion, since most of the people in America believe in God, there is no easy answer to this problem. A 1991 Gallup Poll of Americans showed - 47% believe in creation in the last 10,000 years, and only 9% believe in evolution without God. That is 91% of respondents that believe in God. Without some kind of solution, there will continue to be a migration of students from the public schools to private schools and home schooling.It is possible that those on this forum could help to come up with a solution.This thread was started with a suggestion of how evolution could be taught in a Theistic (originally it was Christian - I changed the word) friendly manner. It is my opinion that without any theism in the science classroom, it is not possible. (Please don't attack me for saying that. It is not a solution, only an opinion.)Does anyone have any suggestions as to how evolution could be taught in our public schools in a manner that does not offend almost half of the population that believes in literal creation, and over 90% of the population that believes in God?

---

"There is one thing even more vital to science than intelligent methods; and that is, the sincere desire to find out the truth, whatever it may be." - Charles Sanders Pierce

teen4christ says: I really do not understand your view of God. Your name is teen4christ, so that would give me the impression that you profess to be a Christian. If that is so, what part of God's word do you believe?If you believe any of God's word then you will understand that He has been involved in his creation since the beginning of time. Even if you discard the creation event as myth, and the flood as myth, sooner or later, if you believe in God, you have to believe in something that He has revealed to us.Did God take on human form, die on a cross, and then rise from the dead? There has been no greater intervention in God's creation then that event. And if you do not believe in that event then any faith that you have is in vain. Read 1 Cor 15. Whose opinion is that? Yours or God's? Are the natural laws sufficient to explain all the miracles of the Bible, or do you deny all the miracles of the Bible including the resurrection of Jesus Christ? God is perfect! We are not perfect, and we are not God. So, if He decides to get involved in anything who are we to judge Him.You have to understand that what we are discussing is why this whole controversy exists. That is why this forum exists. Because those who believe in God, and believe He has done what is revealed in His word, know that all the times that God has exhibited his power cannot be explained through the natural laws that are in existence today. And, I am not talking only about the creation event, and the flood. There are many, many, many supernatural events described in the Bible that cannot be explained in a science classroom.

---

"There is one thing even more vital to science than intelligent methods; and that is, the sincere desire to find out the truth, whatever it may be." - Charles Sanders Pierce

CS says: I think you know I am not going to change the Bible.As for the evidence related to the ToE, I am not sure I have a good understanding of exactly what that involves. I am trying to study some on it. I assume your talking about age of the earth, fossils, vestigal organs, transitional forms, to name a few. Obviously, we cannot change the evidence, but we can analyze and consider whether it actually supports the theory that is being tested.I have some ideas that I am working around in my mind, but until I get a better handle on it, I think I will keep quiet. Otherwise, it will take forever to respond to the posts.

---

"There is one thing even more vital to science than intelligent methods; and that is, the sincere desire to find out the truth, whatever it may be." - Charles Sanders Pierce