Thank God for Charles Darwin

Comment by Dean on February 16, 2009 at 2:19am

Since you have an interest in the subject, I would recommend the movie "Expelled-No Intelligence Allowed". I really enjoyed it and learned a lot.

Comment by MichaelTh on February 16, 2009 at 9:30am

I have heard about the film. I have just reviewed the website. Now since I haven't viewed the film I can't say much about it at this point. But I do suspect a propaganda film considering the film was created by Ben Stein.

Ben, is a right wing republican with a clear agenda when it comes to issues such as these.

Again, it goes back to the public not really understanding what Evolution is even saying. We have this tendancy to over simplify concepts (and thus distorting them).

I love the quote "Beware the terrible simplifiers!"

I think if more people did some research they may not see the theory of evolution as this horribly threatening concept.

I also wish people would realize that no matter what your beliefs are or my beliefs are creationism will never be science. Religion and science are different subjects.

Comment by will on February 16, 2009 at 10:19am

Good post. I definitely do NOT recommend 'Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed' because it does not advocate evolution so much as it does push 'intelligent design', which is poor science and only seeks to soften the blow between science and faith, not bridge the gap.. INSTEAD, if you are truly interested in the subject, i HIGHLY recommend reading Francis Collins' 'The Language of God'. Collins is the former head of the Human Genome Project. An atheist turned Christian, who understands more than we could ever know about the subject, and for the most part, agrees with what you wrote above. He is also clear about being skeptical when using the word 'miracle' and the concept of 'intelligent design', among other issues.

Comment by JoshuaChayne on February 17, 2009 at 1:49pm

Evolution is both a fact and a theory. The scientific definition of "theory" is not the same as the everyday usage of the word, "theory". In science, theory, is one of the highest affirmations. Gravity is a theory. Gravity is also a fact.

Theory does not mean conjecture or hypothesis. Science rarely makes claims of absolute truth so theories can be amended with new evidence but theories are based on empirical evidence, hypothesis testing, and some facts.

One starts out with a hypothesis and then tests the hypothesis by gathering empirical evidence and/or conducting an experiment where they will then accept or reject the null hypothesis based on the evidence. If the findings are replicated over time then they go toward theory building. A theory will be accepted until it can be falsified. The more the theory can accurately predict and explain, the stronger it is. Theories can be expanded or modified as new evidence is found.

Evolution deals with changes in populations over time. The mechanisms of micro-evolution are natural selection (variation due to sexual reproduction), mutation (change in alleles), genetic drift, and gene flow.

If part of a population is isolated from the rest of their population then inbreeding within this group will cause genetic drift. Over time the isolated group will have less genetic diversity within their group but will have greater diversity and variation between themselves and the population that they were separated from.

Gene flow occurs when the two groups are a part but not isolated to where they can't interact and reproduce with each other. Gene flow increases the variation in each individual group but decreases the variation between the groups.

Even Creationists believe in Micro-evolution because we know these forces exists. We have controlled the micro-evolution of many animal species and plant species.

Evolution is a historical science in that it is studied by examining the fossil record, DNA, and comparative anatomy. Evolutions ability to predict and explain also makes it a powerful scientific theory. Evolution is the central paradigm to many fields such as biology, zoology, and anthropology.

Creationists and Intelligent Design advocates have a problem with macro-evolution. They know that micro-evolution exists.

The fossil record supports the fact that simple organisms came before complex organisms and that some species have changed over time. Transition fossils have been found (Ambulocetus, Tiktaalik, Archaeopteryx). Genetic analysis also allows us to examine the relationships between species. Comparative anatomy allows us to examine the relationship between form and purpose to analogous structures in different species.

Evolution allows biology to be explanatory and not just descriptive. We can explain how certain traits and behaviors are adaptive or non-adaptive (neutral or maladaptive).

Also supporting the common ancestry of all life is that in the early states of embryonic development-- most living beings look the same. Hox genes control the development of the body structure.

Evolutionary theory says that humans have a common ancestry with the apes going back to the Australopithecenes.

Humans are mammals and we are primates. We share thumbs, dental patterns, blood groups, and a large percentage of dna with some of the other ape species.

The fossil record and genetic analysis (studies of mutations on mitochondrial dna etc) confirm that human origins began in the mid rift valley in Africa.

Many creationists want to believe that the Adam and Eve story in Genesis is literal. Yet, we know that it isn't because Genesis includes two contradictory claims of how life was created. Genesis 1- 2:3 includes the first creation account where God creates plants then animals and then humans which interesting enough is kinda like an evolutionary sequence from simple to complex organisms. However, starting with Genesis 2:4 the creation is retold where God creates man and then plants and animals and then creates woman from man's rib.

These two creation accounts come from separate traditions; the Yawehist and the Elohist.

Creationist challenge evolution because it challenges their literal interpretation of scripture. However, not all Christians refuse to believe in evolution. Some Christians believe in theistic evolution-- that God created the evolutionary process. And of course not all Christians are literalists or fundamentalists.

The Bible is not a science textbook as it was written long before modern science. The point of Genesis is that God made reality and the natural processes.

Here are some good websites about evolution...

Mechanisms of mico-evolution.

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/IVBMechanisms.shtml

Mechanisms of macro-evolution.

http://courses.bio.psu.edu/fall2005/biol110/tutorials/tutorial13.htm

Comment by MichaelTh on February 17, 2009 at 8:12pm

Thanks Will for the recommendation.

Thanks Josh for talking science. Isn't it strange how often times when we talk about science (and especially evolution) we don't actually talk about science but end up talking about how politicians and lay people talk about science?

There is so much information out there and yet so many people seem so afraid of knowledge (because it might make them question their beliefs or what they've generally assumed to be true).

Comment by dlw on February 18, 2009 at 4:10am

I am a Christian/Follower of Christ. I believe in the variation of species across time and space, ie the facts of evolution. I also believe that there will someday be a paradigm-shift away from the prevalent Neo-Darwinian theory, as I believe Darwin's theory has been over-rated for less than scientific reasons.

I emph strongly w those who opposed and oppose Darwinian evolution as it has been and still is conflated with a social darwinism that is barely guised class warfare from the "fit" economic elites and has long been (mis)used as rhetoric against traditional Christianity in much of our world.

I believe that the Darwinian mechanism accounts for a significant amount of the variations in species alluded to above, but I also believe that folks got Isaac Newton envy and have treated Darwin's mechanism for evolution as of greater significance than it deserves. There were plenty of work supporting evolution before Darwin, his main contribution was the suggestion of a mechanism for evolution. This mechanism is part of the whole; there needs not be a Grand Unifying Theory of Evolution. The biblical meta-narrative of Creation-Fall-Redemption itself suggests that there won't be such. I also believe very strongly that the emergence of consciousness in humanity was a unique development, not wholly unlike God's incarnation, death and resurrection in the form of Human.

In the future more attention will be given to the Cambrian explosion when the number of species proliferated greatly in a relatively very short span of time and how then the number of species declined afterwards, rather than increased as would be expected if the variations were strictly a matter of pure chance adaptations. More attention will doubtlessly be also given to how evolution has been (mis)used to reify the status quo, not unlike the Paley-style deism that Darwin was principally arguing against in his famous book, "The Origin of Species".

We will also no doubt consider the import of the origins in Divine "special revelation" of the best of our cultural values and the most fruitful of the propositions that have guided our inquiry into the nature of our world.

dlw

Comment by Andre LaTondresse on March 3, 2009 at 8:39am

Scientific study in western civilization was founded in the desire to understand the remarkable complexity and order of God’s creation. But modern scientific method has defined any such creator out of the equation by declaring that this is a question of theology not science, “belief” not fact; and that science must limit itself to only material causes of material events and effects.

Today’s science rests on the proposition that there are no causal agents outside material reality that may be taken into consideration, i.e., there is no God or, if there is one, we can proceed with the assurance that he/she/it does nothing to affect the material world. Science asserts that it is unnecessary to prove that God does not act in space and time; we can simply take this as a fact.

This in turn leads to another inevitable conclusion: Since the universe and life and we ourselves exist, evolution must have taken place—there is no other “scientific” explanation. That we are here and were apparently preceded by life forms of lesser complexity is all the evidence needed to take evolution as a proven fact. The starting assumption, that no God is acting, has provided the conclusion: No God has acted.

The only question allowed is: How did evolution actually take place?” Science has not been successful in providing a coherent answer to this question, particularly in regard to macro-evolution. But since we know evolution is the only possible answer, lack of evidence is not a problem. We just haven’t found it yet.

Intelligent design already holds a respected place in science—as long as it strictly limits itself to the search for material intelligence. Radio telescopes search the universe for intentional patterns among the random radio signals with the confidence that finding these patterns will “prove” the existence of extraterrestrial intelligence. And amazingly, we have found exactly these patterns—not in deep space but in the DNA molecule. Yet we are not allowed to conclude that this demonstrates any intelligence behind its design.

Archaeologists continue to search for signs of early civilizations. They look for rocks having patterns of chips that demonstrate the stone was intentionally formed for a purpose and not the product of random natural forces. They are trained to isolate significant evidence and draw conclusions about the character and sophistication of those who created these artifacts. This is considered valid science. It is also common sense. In southern Minnesota and northern Iowa where our family roots are found, farmers would commonly find very finely crafted arrowheads and other artifacts washed out by rain and erosion. Looking at these finely crafted artifacts, no one would ask, what kind of marvelous natural phenomenon could have caused these to be formed. Intentionality (i.e. intelligent design and craftsmanship) was evident. (and there was no "scientific" taboo in place to deny that as a legitimate conclusion).

We are surrounded by artifacts that God created. Signs of intentionality and extraordinary intelligence are written into the world around us. Science began as an endeavor to read this evidence so we could grow in our appreciation of the character, sophistication and purposes of the one who created it all. But, since we now “know” that this can’t be the work of an intelligent creator, modern science dismisses the evidences and says, “What a remarkable thing!”

I have been a Christ follower for over 35 years. I actually came to my belief in the existence of God through my study of Physics. For the first dozen or so I believed in Darwinian evolution. Then I began to understand that Darwin nailed the micro-evolution mechanisms quite well in general. As Josh identifies accurately above, these do quite a good job of explaining changes withing populations. They do nothing to explain the existence of these populations. I stopped believing in macro-evolution as I began to realize the virtual nonexistence of supporting evidence. I had the privilege of living for four years in Akademgorodok, Russia (University of Novosibirsk-center for the Siberian branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences). During that time I had opportunity to speak openly with many scientist as well as spending time reading through parts of the Bible with a group of Russian nuclear and astrophysicists. It is interesting how many would acknowledge that Darwinian evolution could not explain the existence of either the physical universe or life within it. I don't know whether this is unique to physicists or not.

I would highly recommend the book "The Hidden Face of God," by Gerald L. Schroeder, to anyone (skeptic or believer alike) who would like to consider this issue openly and in depth. Schroeder is an MIT trained physicist. He is no evangelical—not even a Christ follower. He is a devout Jew who sees and vividly describes the evidence contained within the artifacts of creation from the cosmos to microbiology and asks, "If not evidence of intentional design, then what?"

Comment by dlw on March 3, 2009 at 10:23am

brief thoughts: just as Newtonian Physics likely may have wrongly inferred from the ubiquity of locality to its exhaustiveness, so did (Neo)Darwinian Evolution wrongly inferred from the ubiquity of selection to over-state its role as "meta-narrative" for accounting for the easy to verify variations in species across place and time.

But ID is not fairly described as a science, because it has too much plasticity to be falsifiable as we simply do not know how God has acted to sustain the course of what God first created. (More later, perhaps, after a response from Herr LaTondresse.)...

Comment by Andre LaTondresse on March 4, 2009 at 9:47am

As with so many other things, science is too often viewed as an end rather than a means. It is one means—a tool—toward the end of expanding our knowledge and understanding of what is, seen and unseen. The reality is that the half-life of what we (mankind) believe to be established fact is quite short.

You say, "ID is not fairly described as a science, because it has too much plasticity to be falsifiable." however this can be said of a much of what the scientific community holds as fact (we would say holds to be true). How would you falsify the belief that all complex life has evolved from single cell life forms? In reality what is considered 'scientic fact" is simply beliefs and opinions held by "scientists." Falsifiability is not possible for much of what constitutes today's scientific dogma. And interestingly, ability to falsify may be taken as sufficient basis to consider something to be scientific "fact" simply because it has not yet ben falsified. However the fact that a theory has not YET been falsified does not in any way prove the theory.

This really brings us to the very issue of knowledge at its core. Knowledge is simply what we have come to believe (yes, what we have FAITH) to be true at this moment in time. Time and experimentation can provide additional evidence which either affirms or denies (falsifies) earlier conclusions. The fact that a theory has not yet been falsified by a controlled experiment in no way proves the theory.

For example, there is sufficient evidence that one side of the moon always faces the earth (or our instruments and investigations have not yet been of sufficient refinement to falsify this conclusion-i.e. is the side facing us ever so gradually rotating away). Currently occurring phenomena lend themselves to falsifiability. What happened only in the past can only be understood by examination of evidence.

Rules of evidence (generally found in the legal realm) are another tool for expanding what we believe (to be true). They are the only tool for expanding understanding of past events. The question of the flood, for example does not lend itself to falsifiability. We can't demonstrate it never happened by constructing an experiment in which it fails to happen. Nor can we when it comes to the question of the origin of life. At best we can undertake careful search for evidence, draw conclusions and construct theories from that evidence. Yes, we can possibly construct experiments that would be capable of falsifying those theories, by failure to falsify proves nothing.

Most of what we know is base on faith (belife/trust). I believe that Tokyo is the Capitol of Japan and that both Tokyo and Japan exist. I take it as a known fact. Yes it is a falsifiable conclusion, but I have not found it necessary to personally attempt to falsify it by going there. I would be unpleasantly surprised if I were one day to purchase a ticket to Tokyo and fly to that location only to be told that we could not land because there is nothing there or to land in a totally different city that actually occupies that point in space-time. I'm not worried about this because it's not an issue that impacts me directly and I believe I have sufficient evidence to take it as fact.

The truth is that most of what we know we believe, not because we have proven (or failed to falsify) it ourselves but because we have sufficient evidence and faith in that evidence to take it as fact—at least until such time that additional evidence would call it into question. Often we have had to modify what we "know" because we find that our faith in the source of that information (whether historical/evidential or scientific) was not trustworthy.

Bottom line—what we "know," we know at least 99% by faith. (Ever been unable to believe your own eyes?)

Comment by dlw on March 4, 2009 at 1:48pm

a couple follow-up thoughts...

From a Biblical perspective, ID isn't a huge priority, as a belief in the existence of a creator God wasn't by any means distinct to the ancient Hebrews in the Near East. What set them apart was their belief that the creator God was also a covenantal God committed to the Redemption of Humanity. So this is yet another reason I find it folly to try to raise the status of ID in the scientific community.

However, I do find ID lines of reasoning persuasive in pointing out how evolutionary theories have by no means exorcised the concept of design from their paradigm. This paradox is best illustrated with Richard Dawkin's type-writer that is set up to type out Romeo and Juliet eventually as a monkey randomly pushes its keys. So there's nothing mutually exclusive about evolution and design or creation, but it's generally not wise to be monistic on these matters.

I also support the idea in Meyer and Campbell's "Darwin, Design and Public Education" that one should teach the debate inherent in Darwin's "Origins of Species" book between Evolution and an early form of Design(more due to Deism than Biblical Christianity but commonly associated with the latter by many Evangelical Christians.). If we taught the debate, it would make it clear that the root disagreement is not over whether ID is a science or not, something more or less predestined to be won by the scientific establishment for the foreseable future, but rather a pedagogical one. Are our high school science classes meant to teach its students, most of whom are not going to become professional scientists, as much bonified science as feasible or can they teach about scientific inquiry via an even-handed treatment of its historical controversies and why somethings are considered science and others are not.

Methinks, the history/sociology/philosophy of Science for non-professionals ought to be fair ground and would have the added effect of subverting the a-prior ism that has many USAmericans not believing in evolution.

dlw

Comment

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page