What is evolution?

The title "What is Evolution" appealed to me, so I was thinking of posting on this thread, however I was afraid that I would immediately be off topic. I think I will try anyway. If I am leading this astray, then tell me and I will disappear.The definition that I have come to understand for the theory of biological evolution is:There are changes occurring in populations of life over time and these changes are sufficient to explain the diversity in life we see on the planet today.However, what I am hearing preached about biological evolution is much different. It may be that what I am hearing is not what people on this forum are intending to say.The message that I am hearing preached is that life began as a one cell organism, and over billions of years has made tiny, tiny steps that accounts for all the big, big changes and this is possible because we have lots and lots of time. It is compared to walking from New York to Paris or something.Two recent comments that were made may clarify my confusion, and possibly the confusion of others, related to this subject. It does not seem that the creation/evolution debate is limited to the theory of evolution introduced by Darwin. Even in your recent post 37, I get that impression. Here you bring up billions of years. Does the theory of evolution need billions of years? Not in my understanding if it is in operation today. It only needs billions of years if you are trying to explain the change from a one cell organism to the complex life we have today. That would only seem important if you are attempting to pinpoint the origin of life rather than only looking at changes in existing life. Therefore, it seems that scientists are merging geological, and origin of life theories with the Theory of Evolution. When I listen to what is being preached it is a combination of all of these theories.When we discuss the Creation/Evolution debate, no offense intended to biologists, but biological evolution is only a small part of that debate in my mind. Cosmological origins, Abiogensis, and Geological Dating Methods play a more significant role in the debate in my mind than the Biological Theory of Evolution. Everything could have been fully created 10,000 years ago, and the Biological Theory of Evolution could have been operating exactly as theorized by scientists from that time until today, and I would have no problem with that theory whatsoever. However, scientists do not say that. They conclude that evolution has been going on for billions of years, and that life started as a one cell organism from non-life. This may not be part of the theory, however it is preached as part of the theory, and these conclusions about the age of the earth and the origin of life come from other areas of science.So, what I hear preached about evolution is that everything you see today, living and non-living, came about through natural changes over billions of years. That may not be what scientists want to preach, but that is what I hear. And, that is what I consider to be the basis of the Creation/Evolution debate.I have one additional observation about cross-cultural communication. Over the years, it has been my experience that when different cultures attempt to communicate it can be very difficult for them to exchange complex ideas even if they share a common language. I deal with this on a day to day basis, and many times I find that what I thought I said is not what they thought they heard. I see this as part of the problem here. The scientific (sometimes atheistic) culture seems so much different from the layman religious culture that it could be very difficult for them to communicate with each other at times. It may be something to consider.

---

"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

It is statements like these where I see the communication problem between scientists and ordinary folks such as myself.If you had said something like:Based upon observations and scientific methods, scientists theorize that life became cellular 3.5 billion years ago, later became multicelluar, and then broadly diversifying some 500 million years ago.Then, I would think scientists had given a good try at trying to figure things out, and they were telling me what they thought had happened based upon their view of the evidence. Communication would take place. I may not agree with their conclusions, but I could accept the explanation.However, when you say these statements are the facts, that makes me skeptical about anything that scientists claim to be factual. I do not know if it is because we have different mental images of the words that are being used, or we do understand each other and are not in agreement on the capability of modern science to make these factual claims about events that supposedly happened millions and billions of years ago.Scientists can't even seem to predict what the weather is going to be next week. It is always a 50% chance of this or that. How can scientists possibly claim something as factual that they say happened billions of years ago?

---

"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

What makes a person qualified to determine whether a conclusion is good or bad. We are talking about conclusions that scientists make based upon their observation of evidence. These conclusions could be correct or incorrect depending upon how they interpret the evidence. In my opinion, some of their conclusions contradict what I consider to be the inspired word of God. I respect the inspired word of God more than I respect the uninspired word of man. Therefore, I made the statement, "I may not agree with their conclusions." I understand this. However, my definition of fact and your definition of fact is different. It is a fact when you find a fossil. It is an interpretation of that fact when you calculate how old you believe that fossil to be. To state that you have observed a fossil is a fact. To state that you have observed a fossil that is 3.5 billion years old is not a fact. That is an opinion based upon many variables and calculations. If you state that it is a fact that life became cellular 3.5 billion years ago based upon your interpretation of that fossil evidence, I would disagree in your use of terminology.It seems that scientists made a hypothesis that life evolved, then they found a fossil that they determined was part of this evolutionary chain, then somehow (which I still have a lot of work to do to figure out) they calculated that this fossil was 3.5 billion years old, then they say it is a fact based upon our observation of the evidence that life evolved from this little old fossil 3.5 billion years ago. Can you not see it takes more faith for me to believe in that conclusion than it does for me to believe in what God said He did? Therefore, I will continue to be skeptical about what scientists say are facts until I come to a much better understanding of how they are interpreting the evidence. I would trust the common sense judgment of many of these non-scientific people over the blind faith that I am seeing taking place in much of the scientific world. These ordinary folk may not exercise scientific methods for gathering facts, but if they see an old chewed up cow bone in the pasture, they do not need a lab to figure out what chewed it up and when. And, they are surely not going to try to piece it together into some sort of prehistoric dinosaur.

---

"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 really do not mean to bore you with my lack of understanding. Maybe if someone could explain what is meant by the word "fact" in very simple terms (because I understand things better that way) it could help me to communicate with scientists in the future.I looked up this definition on the internet.Fact - Wikipedia

quote:

---

In the most basic sense, a scientific fact is an objective and verifiable observation; in contrast with a hypothesis or theory, which is intended to explain or interpret facts.

---

I also noted these two little tidbits of information regarding scientific fact.

quote:

---

Scientific facts are generally believed to be independent from the observer in that no matter which scientist observes a phenomenon, all will reach the same necessary conclusion.

---

quote:

---

Fact does not always mean the same thing as truth. Fact is a generally agreed-upon and seemingly obvious observation. It is a fact that things stick to the earth, without regard to why that happens. It was once a fact that the planets changed direction from time to time, and that the sun, planets and stars circled the earth once daily. This seemed obvious, and was generally agreed to be the case.

​

In time, the fact was changed, and it was then said that the earth circles the sun, and the planets only appear to change direction as they are passed by the earth in their orbits, or vice versa.

---

If I understand this correctly then a fact is something that scientists observe. The definition makes a contrast between a theory and a fact. Therefore, I would conclude that a fact is not a theory, and a theory is not a fact.It also says that all scientists making an observation of a phenomenon would reach the same necessary conclusion. An example would be the sun circling the earth. All the scientists agreed that the sun was circling the earth so that made it an observed fact. Later the scientists changed their minds and all agreed that the earth was circling the sun so that made it an observed fact. So it seems that what is a scientific fact can change over time depending upon what everyone agrees upon.I don't know how this ties into the evolutionary theory regarding events that took place millions and billions of years ago. No one observed it, and it cannot be repeated so how can something that took place that long ago be an observable scientific fact? Is it possible that the Theory of Evolution as it is being used to explain all of these unobservable past events is not even science?I also thought it was interesting that in the scientific world it appears that fact does not equal truth. That seems a contradiction to me. If you state something is a fact, and learn later that it is not true, then in my opinion, it was never a fact in the first place. It was a lie (a statement that deviates from the truth) whether it was believed to be true by the scientists or not.If I understand what is being said on this forum, people are trying to tell me that interpretations and theories regarding observations at the present time which are applied to the past are facts. It seems they are also trying to say that these facts are true. And these all relate to events that could never have been observed by anyone because they took place millions and billions of years ago. Then everything is topped off with the impression that only the scientific world can understand these facts, and observations, and theories, and truths, and untruths. This is confusing Wumpini's little old brain.

---

"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

This definition would indicate to me that many times the terminology being used on this forum is not correct. Many interpretations and theories are being called facts when they are not. According to this definition, the observed evidence is a fact. What scientists conclude about that evidence is not a fact.

---

"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

Hi Bluejay, I assure you that it is not only the science types who are baffled. I would think that most creationists believe that evolution occurs from a micro point of view. Therefore, I don't believe that "anti-evo" would be a proper term for creationists in general. Maybe you could call them "anti-macro-evos." You act as though this is the creationist's fault. I have heard many times in the past couple of weeks that most of the world is ignorant about evolution. We are not stupid. We are not uneducated in other areas. When we first come to this website, I am sure that many of us have no idea what you have in mind when you use the term "evolution."Here is a quote from a publication from the National Academy of Science regarding origins.The Origin of the Universe, Earth, and Life | Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences, Second Edition |The National Academies Press

quote:

---

The term "evolution" usually refers to biological evolution of living things. But the processes by which planets, stars, galaxies and the universe form and change over time are also types of "evolution." In all of these cases there is change over time, although the processes involved are quite different.

---

So you see, the little that us ignorant people have learned about evolution out in the real world has led us to believe that it includes the formation of the universe, and the origin of life. In the OP, subbie asks for a definition of evolution, and refers to the Theory of Evolution. No where in the OP does it ask for a definition of Biological Evolution.In addition, we could be misled from the beginning. This website is titled Creation vs Evolution. When a creationist thinks about creation, they think of the creation of the heavens, earth, and all living things, including abiogenesis. When we are first introduced to the topics on this website, it includes threads for the Big Bang, Origin of Life, and Evolution. There is no reason that we would separate all of these theories or hypothesis into different categories in our minds. Creation is Creation. It includes everything. From your background, this should seem logical to you. The creationist feels he is dealing with someone who is arguing that everything can be explained (and many times it seems must be explained) through naturalistic means. If the creationist can successfully argue that something in the area of origins required supernatural intervention, then in his mind he has defeated the argument that everything can be or must be explained naturally. Remember the creationist's mindset. Many times they lump all of these things together. Therefore, if a supernatural force was involved in one area of creation, it can easily be involved in all areas of creation. I don't think most creationists are interested in negating all of the scientific mumbo-jumbo. They only want scientists to acknowledge that a supernatural explanation is possible (even if it is not science). Maybe the answer is to organize some definitions that newbies must read before they can register. Common terms like fact, theory, evolution, etc. I don't think it will make much difference though. If you tell a creationist that it is a "fact" that they are cousins to a monkey, I really don't think they will care what definition is being used. They will probably disagree.Edited by Wumpini, : Added link

---

"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