The Whys of Evolution

I have copied the following from the article on this site under the title of "Modern Synthesis of Genetics and Evolution".>>>This description would be incomprehensible to Darwin since he was unaware of genes and genetic drift. The modern theory of the mechanism of evolution differs from Darwinism in three important respects:
It recognizes several mechanisms of evolution in addition to natural selection. One of these, random genetic drift, may be as important as natural selection.
It recognizes that characteristics are inherited as discrete entities called genes. Variation within a population is due to the presence of multiple alleles of a gene.
It postulates that speciation is (usually) due to the gradual accumulation of small genetic changes. This is equivalent to saying that macroevolution is simply a lot of microevolution.<<<This is an outline on current thinking of HOW evolution occured. It does not address the question of WHY it occured. I suggest that it leaves open three possibilities as to why.1. Through some random process that required no stimultion or design life has evolved to its current form. (Atheism)
2. An intelligent designer set the process in motion and then abscented him/herself from the process. (Deism)
3. There is an intelligent designer manipulting the process in order to achieve a particular outcome. This choice also raises the question of whether there is constant or occasional manipulation.(Theism)Any of these three WHY's requires an act of faith. I can't see where science can make that choice for us. It does appear to me that when evolution is taught that option 1. is either taught or implied.I contend that in the teaching of evolution, part of the teaching should be that this is HOW we believe that evolution happened, but that we don't know WHY evolution happened. The WHY should then be part of a class on philosophy or religion, with all points of view being discussed.

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

I don't know who taught you high school biology, but my HS biology teacher was very clear that science doesn't care about the so-called "why" of the matter. She made it very clear to us that the theory of evolution explains what we see happening in the natural world and that you can believe whatever you want as to the force behind it (if any). If you are a science student, one of the most recurring theme is the "we don't know" or "I don't know" answer.

1) Evolution is NOT 100% random! The random mutations go through the non-random filter of natural selection!
2) No evidence for believing this - doesn't belong in science classes.
3) See above.How does it require more "faith" to accept that evolution happened naturally than happening under the supervision of a deity? :S

Generally, we get into trouble around here when we all use the same word but put different meanings to it.How do you define an "act of faith"?The general view seems to be something like believing something without any evidence for it. Is that yours?

I am curious to hear exactly how Atheism requires an act of faith. This is a common argument one hears from theists that simply isn't so. Perhaps you have a new take on it. As Ned asked, it would likely be best to define "faith" as you are using it.

The best answer that I can think of is to say that an "act of faith" is believing something that cannot proven. There may or not be evidence to cause one to come to a decision, but the evidence wouldn't be conclusive.In this particular instance I would contend that an argument can be maintained for any of the three options as none of them can be conclusively proven, thus the acceptance as truth of any of the three options requires an act of faith.It has been pointed out to me that the scientific terminology in option one is not correct, and I accept that. I believe however, that the point I'm trying to make is clear.

quote:

---

1. Through some random process that required no stimultion or design life has evolved to its current form. (Atheism)
2. An intelligent designer set the process in motion and then abscented him/herself from the process. (Deism)
3. There is an intelligent designer manipulting the process in order to achieve a particular outcome. This choice also raises the question of whether there is constant or occasional manipulation.(Theism)

---

These seem to cover all the bases. I believe that not all microevolutionary processes are undirected. There is growing evidence that some processes are the result of mechanisms instead of pure chance-mutations, natural selection and some other processes. So I'm all for #3, and yes there is an element of faith in that choice.Atheists shun the concept of faith, so you will have a hard time getting proponents of #1 to admit an element of faith. You would probably have more luck pulling a camel through the eye of a needle.

You've reached the limit of my patience.There is growing evidence that christianity is evil and that all christians are pedophiles. Hey, if you don't feel like providing the actually evidence then I don't see why I should provide the actual evidence for my claim. Funny how you said this considering the fact that #1 is a strawman statement. If you're going to criticize someting, at least do it right.Not including the statement above, have you seen me ever made a claim that christianity is all about cannibalism?

I am brand new to this forum so I don't know what all has been discussed before and frankly I doubt I have the wisdom to add anything new. I'm neither a scientist nor a theologian so my thoughts on this will probably seem simplistic to most.In the reading that I have done it appears to me that there are those on both sides of the Intelligent Design debate that claim they have irrefutable scientific evidence to support their position. Most however, either don't seem to come to any conclusion, or find that the evidence causes them to lean one way or the other.I stand by the statement that science only tells us how, it does not tell us why.I contend that there is no scientic proof for the non-existance of ID, therefore it becomes an "act of faith" to declare the non-existance of ID.This message has been edited by GDR, 05-23-2005 01:25 PMThis message has been edited by GDR, 05-23-2005 01:27 PM

Gee, sorry. I think your attitude is a little uncalled for. Here you go:http://www.sciencedaily.com/print.php?url=/releases/2005/...

There is no such thing as evidence of non-existence. Evidence doesn't work that way. There can only be evidence for positive assertions. The quick way of phrasing this, which you may have heard before, is "You can't prove a negative".A positive assertion would be "Life is Intelligently Designed by some unknown agent." Now it would be the duty of the person making that assertion to give evidence for it if he wanted it to be accepted as fact. Every ID "theorist" has failed to present such evidence. So, it is not an act of faith to not believe in it. There is simply no reason to do so.Conversely, by your own definition, it does in fact take an act of faith to believe it. You are correct in this. The great metaphysical "why?" is simply not the concern of science. Science is not designed for answering such questions and is incapable of doing so. It is designed to find explanations for how the natural world works, which it excels at.

First, you can't "prove" the non-existence of anything. (People have an annoying habit of finding something the day after you "proved" it didn't exist.)ID can not be accepted until somebody produces evidence that it does exist. There is no "act of faith" required to not believe in something.Second, read your Bible: Faith is the evidence of things not seen. Science depends on the evidence of things that are seen. Science does not depend on faith. It doesn't even allow faith.

---

People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.

GDR,Suppose I were to declare the non-existence of chess-playing flying pigs, would that be an act of faith?The problem with your statement (quoted above) is that it is logically impossible to have proof of the non-existence of something. That makes your conclusion ("therefore it becomes an 'act of faith' ...") unwarranted.Furthermore, proponents of the naturalist explanation of evolution do not rule out the existence of an intelligent designer. They only point out that there is no real evidence for such, so that they see no reason to assume its existence. What they perform is what you might call "an act of non-faith"Only when someone assumes the existence of something without any evidence to support that assumption, can one say that an act of faith is involved.

---

We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further. - Richard Dawkins

I would hardly say it was uncalled for. How would you like it if you consistently hear people say that christians are cannibals?I believe you said the following:

quote:

---

These seem to cover all the bases. I believe that not all microevolutionary processes are undirected. There is growing evidence that some processes are the result of mechanisms instead of pure chance-mutations, natural selection and some other processes. So I'm all for #3, and yes there is an element of faith in that choice.

---

First of all, except for creos, who in the world ever said that "microevolutionary processes" are undirected? There's the first strawman.The article you pointed to said, and I believe you were referring to,:

quote:

---

Some cells, like bacteria subjected to antibiotics, seem to acquire mutations at a much higher rate. Romesberg reasons that these rapid mutations may sometimes be part of a mechanism organisms have to rapidly evolve when they need to.

---

Combined with the first strawman, take this statement out of context, and you implied a second strawman.This is like saying, "since christians are cannibals, and that some christians like to drink the blood of christ, it is probable that christians are bloodthirsty cannibals."