The Truth About Evolution and Religion

The so-called "debate or 'controversy' about evolution" is indeed pseudo-science.It is brought to us by creation "scientists" who are religious apologists, but not scientists.Within science there is no such controversy. Science relies on empirical evidence, not religious belief. Science relies on that which can be observed and replicated, not the dogma, scripture, and "divine" revelation that stands behind creation "science."The controversy you speak of is entirely drummed up by religious apologists to counter the unfortunate fact (for them) that their religious beliefs are not supported by empirical evidence.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Your response did not deal at all with what I posted.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

There are two different ways of approaching this. You have chosen the mathematical one, uninformed by the way biology actually works.Here is an example of the two methods:Goal: throw 25 dice and get all sixes.Method 1: Throw all 25 until you finally get 25 sixes all at once. (That's the mathematical approach.) You'll be there close to forever.Method 2: Throw all 25, then throw a second time using those dice that were not sixes. Repeat. (That's the biological approach.) You'll be done in minutes.Perhaps the mathematicians should keep their noses out of things they don't understand, eh?

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

The second one more accurately simulates mutation and natural selection, and other factors as well.Here is a good online lecture that might help:

Making Genetic Networks Operate Robustly: Unintelligent Non-design Suffices

​

Online lecture by Professor Garrett Odell

​

Researchchannel.org

​

Description: Mathematical computer models of two ancient and famous genetic networks act early in embryos of many different species to determine the body plan. Models revealed these networks to be astonishingly robust, despite their 'unintelligent design.' This examines the use of mathematical models to shed light on how biological, pattern-forming gene networks operate and how thoughtless, haphazard, non-design produces networks whose robustness seems inspired, begging the question what else unintelligent non-design might be capable of.

​

What this shows is that the straight mathematical calculations of odds are woefully inadequate when dealing with biological processes.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

How about mutation and natural selection, along with other factors such as genetic drift, founder's effect, isolation, etc.?

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

See post #61. That shows how wrong you are.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

What that video does is show that genetic networks are easily assembled, and in many different ways.This shows that those huge numbers that creationists like to bandy about are meaningless, as that is not the way biological processes work! There's the key, eh? Good thing that with natural selection things aren't just "left to chance."Really, before you go citing those 20¹²⁷ numbers, you should understand what the video is saying.Lest you be like a creationist on another board who insisted that the odds against evolution were 1⁷²⁰.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

What then is your explanation for increased complexity?

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Then perhaps you could just shut up and let biologists who study the issue, and who know a lot about the subject, do their work?

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Given how many times you have been corrected on this, we don't believe anything you say now.Why can't you understand and accept empirical evidence? Is your mind so closed by belief that you no longer listen to, or accept evidence to the contrary, no matter how well documented?As Heinlein wrote years ago,

Belief gets in the way of learning.

I'm afraid you are showing yourself to be the poster child for this bit of wisdom.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

And in the hour-long lecture by a professor of biology/mathematics at U. of Washington, that I referred you to back about post #61 or something, it is shown that you are entirely wrong.In case you missed it, here it is again:

Making Genetic Networks Operate Robustly: Unintelligent Non-design Suffices

​

Online lecture by Professor Garrett Odell

​

Researchchannel.org

​

Description: Mathematical computer models of two ancient and famous genetic networks act early in embryos of many different species to determine the body plan. Models revealed these networks to be astonishingly robust, despite their 'unintelligent design.' This examines the use of mathematical models to shed light on how biological, pattern-forming gene networks operate and how thoughtless, haphazard, non-design produces networks whose robustness seems inspired, begging the question what else unintelligent non-design might be capable of.

​

Tell us what you say, don't send us out to some silly link.(Against forum rules to argue with bare links anyway, eh?)

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

What is it with creationists and the 2nd law?Can't you see the massive evidence that shows there was no violation of the 2nd law?Things like genetics, the fossil record, etc.?Or are you going to claim that those are flawed also?

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

A classic example of creationist quote mining.Is it any wonder that we have to check on every quote they use?And why is it that so many are deliberate attempts, on someone's part, to deceive the reader?My thought is that they don't have any empirical evidence or data that they can use. They have to misrepresent and distort what real scientists say in order to pretend that they have a scientific case for their religious beliefs.But what is amazing is that they are so transparent in their attempts! It takes very little effort to find them out. And scientists are the exact types who will check the original quote to see whether they have manipulated it in some way.But I guess creationists who are their normal audience are the exact types who will not check the quotes, but will accept whatever the authority figure says scientists said as long as it confirms their a priori beliefs.This seems to illustrate the difference between science and apologetics (aka creation "science")?

quote:

---

Save us, dear Lord, from those who would save us.

​

Art Hoppe, On the Death of Robert Kennedy

​

San Francisco Chronicle, 1968

---

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Not necessarily.The track record of religious belief and apologetics suggests that scientific evidence is not used in differentiating between claims and beliefs.Otherwise there wouldn't be an estimated 40,000 different sects, denominations, and flavors of Christianity alone.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.