|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: Member Rating: 8.7 |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Creation vs. Evolution is not a valid opposition. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Jack Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: Member Rating: 8.7 |
More often that not, one sees creationists attacking evolution on the basis of abiogenesis. The evolutionists universally respond with "evolution doesn't include abiogenesis". Which is true; it doesn't.
And therein lies the problem: evolution isn't an alternative to creation; in fact it doesn't deal with creation at all. Only with the development of species after whatever brought the world and the first life into being.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Mike Holland Member (Idle past 483 days) Posts: 179 From: Sydney, NSW,Auistralia Joined: |
I agree, Mr Jack, but the issue is much bigger than that.
Creationists have set Evolution up as a 'straw dog' (is that the right term?) to present as the alternative to their views, so that they can persuade the ignorant with arguments like 'was your grandfather an ape?'. Presenting Creation as the only alternative to Evolution is part of this plot. But Creationism is against Geology, Astronomy, Cosmology, and every other branch of science. This is the real issue - 'Creationism versus Science'! Every time we accept the issue as 'Creationism versus Evolution', we have fallen into their trap, and they win. The very name of these forums supports the Creationist plot. But fortunately, the contents do not. Every branch of science has been presented here in opposition, and I can only take my hat off to the many contributors who have devoted hundreds of hours researching and posting to present the scientific stand. Mike.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IrishRockhound Member (Idle past 4436 days) Posts: 569 From: Ireland Joined: |
But creationism also includes the progression of life after Genesis (at least as I understand it). The bible does say stuff about how each species was created by god and then didn't change after that - so evolution, as an alternative view, is a valid opposition because it says that each species evolved and is evolving.
I think the reason that creationists attack abiogenesis rather than evolution is because scientists readily admit that they don't have a strong case for it, just a bare hypothesis. It is seen as the weakest part of the ToE, even though they are separate things, and therefore the part which can be easily overturned or refuted. Yeah, this is all just my wacky take on it. Enjoy. The Rock Hound
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Jack Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: Member Rating: 8.7 |
Yes, Evolution isn't compatible with literal biblical creation. But it isn't a direct alternative because it doesn't explain most of what is explained (however badly) by the Genesis account.
I think Mike summed it up best it should be Creationism vs. Science.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IrishRockhound Member (Idle past 4436 days) Posts: 569 From: Ireland Joined: |
Yeah, I think he's probably right. Creationists do seem to have it in for anything that goes against Genesis. But I still think evolution on its own is a valid opposition - simply because it says species evolve and Genesis says they don't. It's the spark that started this whole thing, that now includes many other disciplines.
*shrugs* I don't think Percy's going to rename the forum anytime soon, so I suppose it's a moot point. How many people here would start shouting if it was called the Creation vs. Science Forum? Talk about a kick in the teeth for "creation scientists"... The Rock Hound
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Mike Holland Member (Idle past 483 days) Posts: 179 From: Sydney, NSW,Auistralia Joined: |
But you are falling into their trap, Rock Hound!. One can just as easily say that Geology versus Genesis is a natural opposition, because Genesis says the world was created in six days. Similarly with Astronomy, or any other science that deals with ages of past time. Or Genetics, which has some of the strongest evidence supporting Evolution.
But can you imagine a fundamentalist minister standing in his pulpit and denouncing Einstein and Relativity, because they hold that light took millions of years to reach us from distant galaxies? How receptive would his congregation be? Or denouncing Hutton and Lyell for their views on the age of Earth? Darwin is their whipping dog simply because they can twist it into a moral issue, about original sin. Mike
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rei Member (Idle past 7013 days) Posts: 1546 From: Iowa City, IA Joined: |
quote: Not all creationists understand that point For, lest we all forget...
Wise writes: To the evilutionists I pose this question.. "How did "light" evolve? This IS a question that you MUST answer BEFORE you can attempt to validate any evolutionary theory you may have. Light MUST have existed before ANY lifeforms of any type can even begin to develop. Keep in mind that some light cannot be seen! The Bible places "light" as Gods FIRST creation and you evilutionists will find yourselves agreeing with the Bible whether you like it or not. Now again, to the evolutionist: How did light evolve? Please be specific. Wise
"Illuminant light, illuminate me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
MrHambre Member (Idle past 1393 days) Posts: 1495 From: Framingham, MA, USA Joined: |
I wouldn't say that evolution doesn't deal with creation at all. Sure, the party line is that abiogenesis is not part of Darwin's theory, and strictly speaking I agree. However, let's not pretend that what we know about evolution by natural selection doesn't tell us anything about the origin of life.
Neo-Darwinism postulates mindless, purposeless processes that range from the random (DNA recombination) to the deterministic (natural selection) which have operated on ancestral systems to form the ones we see today. Contemporary species derive from ancient ones via mechanical processes, not purposeful design. The biological structures in organisms today derive from those in their ancestors. When it comes down to it, we can't separate the process whereby species have evolved from the very concept of life itself. Isn't the success of Darwin's theory in postulating these processes reason enough to believe it could tell us about the origin of the processes themselves? Certainly the notion of self-organization, though ostensibly non-Darwinian, follows the logic of mindless processes giving rise to complexity. Success in selective struggles could indeed explain the origin of the replication devices that predate our complex DNA systems. Any material mechanism is superior to the sort of speculation about 'purpose' and 'intelligence' that has never yet proven useful in the biological arena. Evolutionary speculation concerning origins truly has a long way to go. However, let's not underestimate the worth of Darwin's theory in the search. This is inherent in Darwinism itself: distinctions like 'origin' are matters of degree, whether for species, biological structures, or life itself. The dark nursery of evolution is very dark indeed. Brad McFall
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Adminnemooseus Administrator Posts: 3974 Joined: |
Deleted - Posted in admin mode.
[This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 01-06-2004]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Minnemooseus Member Posts: 3941 From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior) Joined: Member Rating: 10.0 |
quote: The biologist have taken over the term "evolution" to be synonomous with "biological evolution". Then various people get cranky when the term "evolution" is used to refer to a non-biological process. Actually, "evolution" is all, or at least all but all encompassing. In the beginning things got started (big bang?), and then everything evolved to where we are today. See my little quote, in my seldom posted "signature". Moose Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U Evolution - Changes in the environment, caused by the interactions of the components of the environment. My big page of Creation/Evolution Links
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
MrHambre Member (Idle past 1393 days) Posts: 1495 From: Framingham, MA, USA Joined: |
Amen, Moose.
The problem lies in the fact that creationists are allowed the luxury of demanding proof that the Big Bang happened before they admit that species evolve. I agree with MrJack that the incontrovertible fact of species evolution doesn't depend on the notion of origins. However, too many crypto-creationists are willing to accept species evolution as long as they can retain their belief in the 'intelligent design' of the original biomolecules, the candylike succulence of DNA's information, the laws of physics, or some such nonsense. This is where the fine distinction 'twixt evolution and abiogenesis becomes intolerable for me. The uncomfortable fact of Darwinism boils down to this: you either subscribe to the notion of design-with-no-designer or you don't. If undirected processes are sufficient to explain the diversity and complexity of life on Earth, I feel they're relevant in the explanation of life itself. It's beyond me how people can agree that material mechanisms are responsible for biological wonders, but that for the ultimate origin of life itself we must evoke a 'purpose' or 'intelligence' that has never heretofore added anything to the discussion of biology. The dark nursery of evolution is very dark indeed. Brad McFall
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Mammuthus Member (Idle past 6475 days) Posts: 3085 From: Munich, Germany Joined: |
quote: A new year and a new round of debates At the risk of angering some Admin's by adding to the babble I will wade back in. While I agree with your post for the most part, I think the distinction one could make regarding abiogenesis and evolution is that the unguided processes of evolution are both more accessible and better characterized than those of abiogenesis. That creationists conflate the two is a reflection of the extremely shallow knowledge base of virtually all them regarding the biological sciences. Without any appeal to design, intelligent or otherwise, pink unicorns etc., I still do not necessarily think one could apply evolutionary principles of undirected process in generating biodiversity to abiogenesis. While evolution relies on undirected processes, due to the constraints of using DNA, RNA, and proteins, and modifications of all of the above, not all mutation events are equiprobable. Selection also restricts the potential variation. However, with abiogenesis, all one needs is to generate a self replicating molecule by chance from non-self replicating molecules. This process may not operate under the same mechanisms nor the same constraints as the subsequent evolution of novel replicators. There could have been multiple independent abiogenesis events all rather different from one another which subsequent evolution has erased via selection. Each of the false starts would still be successful abiogenesis events even if their fitness was 0 and they became extinct after a single round of replication. If one could actually get abiogenesis to work in the lab, it may not represent the abiogenesis that occurred billions of years ago. I think the parameters could be quite different (and much more difficult to characterize) than those of evolution. However, as you point out, neither require postulating any guiding process or intelligence anymore than one needs to postulate intelligence for the formation of salt from Na and Cl...or something even less guided and intelligent..getting a degree from Patriot University cheers,M
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Loudmouth Inactive Member |
quote: This is the major problem found when peering into the past of biochemical life, molecules do not leave fossils. Even if we could create replicators from chemicals, we still can't claim that is how life started here on Earth. However, the fact that living animals left fossils puts evolution on much firmer footing, both as a theory and as fact (organisms have changed over time). Maybe pushing abiogenesis to the forefront is a tactic to show science's lack of knowledge in order to insert a diety, even if it is somewhat unrelated to the science in question (ie evolution). The fact that scientists say "we don't know with certainty how life started" speaks loudly of their integrity, unlike those who fall on blind faith and state with certainty things which are not founded in evidence.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Mammuthus Member (Idle past 6475 days) Posts: 3085 From: Munich, Germany Joined: |
I absolutely agree with you. Equating abiogenesis with evolution is a pure debate tactic used by those who understand the science behind niether of the two. A similar line of argument goes that if you cannot explain the big bang in detail, then evolution is false. Creationists also equate the tentativity of science with a complete lack of knowledge and therefore claim that their opinions based on ignorance carry the same weight as those of the cumulative knowledge of professionals that have worked in the relevant sciences for decades. It is this profound misunderstanding of science and the scientific method that Mr. Hambre has been driving at in several threads most notably, his thread on methodological naturalism. Personally, I find it astounding that there are so many people who remain so pathetically and willfully ignorant about topics such as evolution (though they claim to be committed anti-evolutionists) at a time when the internet, publishers, and television and radio documentaries make access to difficult scientific concepts more generally accessible. It must take a lot of effort to avoid learning anything.
All in all though, it is very irritating to continuously be told that abiogenesis and evolution are the same thing by people who have absolutely no clue what they are talking about.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
MrHambre Member (Idle past 1393 days) Posts: 1495 From: Framingham, MA, USA Joined: |
Welcome back, Mammuthus, feliz ao nuevo to you & yours.
As usual, you're right. The way creationists demand eyewitness evidence of life emerging from inorganic chemicals before they'll subscribe to the notion of common ancestry continues to be a canard of the first order. I merely wanted to point out that I'm similarly irritated by folks (influenced by Behe, no doubt) who magnanimously declare themselves convinced by the evidence for common ancestry, but insist that the first biomolecules (or the information in DNA, or whatever) had to be the product of Intelligent Intervention. That way they can pretend to be following the evidence wherever it leads, when they're only subscribing to a creationism that dares not speak its name. The dark nursery of evolution is very dark indeed. Brad McFall
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024