Evolution is NOT science: A challenge

So how you handle Dawkins' selfish gene theory then? According to Dawkins, this theory supposedly informs us about our loving, greed, genorisity and whatnot. This theory does not violate the tenets of your religion, does it not dominate your personal views?Similar things can be said of Konrad Lorenz's book "On aggression" / "The socalled evil", or Darwin's "Descent of Man".Do you think methodological naturalism, (dialectic)materialsim, monism etc. is the only valid way to do science?Besides that, do you perhaps deny God someplace on account of evolution, like affirm God as having started it all, but deny God having anything to do with evolution, or how evolution happened?How do you view nature, do you view it much as a sphere of ruthless struggle of all against all, or do you more perceive an intricate purposeful design?Lastly what is your view on creation? Do you regard with some reverence creation events, wherein God created nature?regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

That is because of the atheism, materialism, social darwinism associated to the theory, that many creationists view evolution theory more as a belief system. And for many influential evolutionists this is true, that it was / is more like a belief system then a science, Galton, Lorenz, Haeckel, Darwin, Dawkins, Huxley etc. We can't say of Darwin for instance, that he had some set of beliefs much independent from evolution, in stead he had personal beliefs drenched in Darwinism, more so as he grew older. If you would for the most part accept what these authors have written about evolution, then in all likelyhood your religion would be displaced, or rendered meaningless.I'm a bit surprised you would consider materialism sufficient for biology, but not for astronomy. What about information conceptions of organisms? That doesn't seem very materialist to me (although undoubtedly the meaning of the word material will be stretched to include information as being material).regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

Well if you ignore all the ideology in evolutionist discourse, and ignore the problematic mechanisms of evolution, you could acknowledge evolution as a fact, and not have it displace your religion. But since you also acknowledge creation by God, ignoring like that would make you a creationist in the social context of the creation vs evolution controversy, and not an evolutionist.Also, literalism is a legitimate religious discipline. Research into Genesis using the knowledge of modern science, shows it to be basically consistent with modern science, as an account of creation. The way this research is done is to trace back to the point where it became a relative certainty that for instance plants came to be later on. The origin of plants being considered different then the appearance of plants. The origin being the event which made it a relative certainty that plants would be later on, where before this creation event it wasn't certain at all. Origins conceived this way seems a simple enough proposition to investigate, with overwhelming scientific interest.Why is there no such scientific discipline investigating origins that way? Because of evolutionists doing their highly ideologized and rather meaningless science. This organism evolved from that organism, and then came the other organism. So what? I don't see much meaningful knowledge in evolution.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

I'm sorry I lost the reference for how genesis is compatible with modern science, it was discussed on this website. Due to relativity time can seem different from different points of view, hence 15 billion years can be seen as 6 days, making a literal reading of genesis consistent with current science finding of the age of the universe.William Jennings Bryan, arguably the main originator of the modern creationist movement also didn't believe in a young earth. So I don't see it as a requirement to believe in a young earth to be identified as a creationist.Now please explain yourself why you side with evolutionists. Creation is a fact also, a fact which most influential evolution scientists appear to deny, or do actually explicitly deny.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

No 15 billion years only translates to 6 days at the start of the universe (or something), not 7 or 8, or 2 seconds. Anyway without the reference I can only make a broad point that you can't be too sure that genesis is not literally true.But you could also say, creation is a fact, therefore I side with creation. Since you consider both creation and evolution basically true, it makes me wonder why you chose the evolutionist side in the controversy.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

I found it now:http://www.filostofie.nl/page.php?id=40(Gerard Schroeder,Relativity and the Bible: the age of the universe)
"The first of the Biblical days lasted 24 hours, viewed from the "beginning of time perspective." But the duration from our perspective was 8 billion years.
The second day, from the Bible's perspective lasted 24 hours. From our perspective it lasted half of the previous day, 4 billion years.
The third day also lasted half of the previous day, 2 billion years.
The fourth day - one billion years.
The fifth day - one-half billion years.
The sixth day - one-quarter billion years.
When you add up the Six Days, you get the age of the universe at 15 and 3/4 billion years. The same as modern cosmology."But evolution theory does not equal creation theory, they are different concepts. To describe the same thing in evolutionary terms, and creationist terms, would make for different descriptions of the same thing. So aren't you in fact implying that you prefer evolutionist discourse about origins, in stead of creationist discourse about origins, by saying "evolutionist" science describes origins? Or perhaps you don't see the distinction between creationism and evolutionism as sciences.regards,
Mohammad Nor SyamsuThis message has been edited by Syamsu, 07-16-2004 08:34 AM

As before, in general creationism investigates events where it becomes a relative certainty that something will appear later on. In evolutionary theory these events are dismissed as randomness of mutations or environment, or "randomness" at the beginning of the universe. The creation events set the laws yes, they make the causes from which the effects propagate in a more or less neccessary way.I don't believe one variant of an organism producing more then another variant is a law, it is a comparison. So I don't think there is a natural law of evolution in current science.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

Well I already explained to you how creation science works. If you have an event somewhere at the start of the universe, which makes it a 99 percent certainty that humans will appear some years later, then that event is the creation event of human beings, where in stead evolutionists would note the appearance of human beings, or it's ancestor, as the origin of human beings.So what do you mean to say? There is no such single creation event that made the likelyhood of humans coming to be a relative certainty? You have not investigated it, and you support a science in a controversy which largely blocks the investigation of the hypothesis. A hypothesis which it seems to me coincides to a large extent with your religious beliefs, while the materialst / atheist / social darwinist beliefs on the other side seem to be in opposition to your beliefs. It makes no sense.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

I'm not sure what you are talking about. Things also get created here and now, creation is a generally applicable principle, and not confined to biblehistory.The question is from which event on is it a certainty that people would exist. What event caused the existence of human beings, as an effect of that event. I have no clue what multiple or infinite universes have to do with answering that question.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

But it is on topic, because if you recognize both creation and evolution as facts, then evolution vs creation is more about politics/religion, the values associated to the facts, then about opposing factual claims. Therefore the assertion that evolution is a religion, is correct within the context of the controversy of evolution vs creation, if we assume that both creation and evolution are factually correct. Since the facts do not conflict, the conflict must be basicly political.Now don't go pointing at factual errors in creationism, because I can equally point at errors in evolutionism. That there are some errors does not deny that creation is basically true to fact.But you do not recognize creation as fact it seems. You recognize it as some kind of religious truth wholy beyond factual claims, or what?
You have not tried to find out what event caused human beings to exist, you have merely learned an evolutionist lineage sequence. It's still perfectly possible that all evolutionist history of man is predetermined by a single event somewhere in the earlier universe.Your disinterest in creation, in tracing back events like the appearnce of mankind to their root cause, is merely political isn't it?regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

Well that's a nice rhyme, but it's just a restatement of preconceived opinions and not argument.First you say that creation is not a scientific fact now, then you say that it might become to be acknowledged as scientific fact. I somehow fail to have any confidence whatsoever that current science will investigate origins using creationist principles rather then evolutionist principles of description. It can't possibly become a scientific fact, regardless if it's true or not, if too many people support evolution in the evolution vs creation controversy, because it simply will not be investigated. Evolutionists will just note the previous ancestor in the lineage and that settles origins for them. They never try to trace back origins to a root cause, or causes of which the appearance of the organism was an effect.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

Where are those other scientists then, except for fundamentalist creationist scientist, who trace back origins to the events that caused their appearance, in stead of just tracing back lineage? Why would this have to come from outside of biology? It is biologists task to investigate it ofcourse, and their failure to so is suspect. What do you think the effect of the atheism, materialism and social darwinism is that is associated to the fact of evolution, in respect to this issue? It is to block investigation into creation of course.It would be no use to point out some Christian who believes in evolution, because it is a fact that the way things are, atheism, materialism and social darwinism are the main things associated to evolution, and not Christianity. That it is a mater of choice what to associate to evolution theory, doesn't deny that atheism etc. are in fact the main things associated to it.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

Gee, my impression of intellectual climate of opinion surrounding evolution science is not of Christian or likewise belief, I don't see how you can get any other impression except by willing yourself to the impression convenient for your argument. That most people who study evolution are christian or likewise, doesn't mean that they all associate christianty to evolution theory. I'm pretty sure most christians view it as problematical to have for instance a Darwinist view of nature red in tooth and claw, in relation to their Christianity, which generally emphasizes the harmony and order in nature.There are some statistics which say that scientists in general are much atheist, and very atheist for the most influential scientists, and especially atheist in biology, and mathematics the least atheist. Something like more then 10 percent more atheists in biology then in science in general. I find this rather surprising, because I would have expected that there would be more theists in biology, because of being overawed by studying organisms, and the need to give thanks for it.It is appropiate for biology because biology is much linked to complexity and information, and creation is also much linked to that. Anyway, it's a bit absurd to say that for instance the question what event or events caused the existence of plants is not appropiate to biology. We do this every day in our every day lives, try to trace back the origin of something to it's root cause. Please don't make it out as if this is somehow only appropiate for super-expert scientists, although of course things can get very complicated...I wish the atheists / materialists / social darwinists were secret about it, that they didn't mix their ideology into their books, or at least provide formalized and abstract versions of their theories apart from their many times prosaic and ideological accounts.I don't think you have noted the distinction between evolutionist and creationist accounts of origins, so you are essentially arguing a strawman. In evolution the origin is the ancestor, in creation the events which caused it to exist is the origin. The point where evolution theory and creation theory tend to connect is randomness, because randomness is not an effect of a cause, and neither can a root cause be an effect of a cause.Maybe I not explain it so well here, but it is difficult to explain concepts of creation, choice, something not being an effect of what was before, to evolutionists, because they never much think about it for themselves.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

You are confused that many Christians who accept evolution do not have problems with evolution theory in respect to their beliefs on some points, with your opinion that they should not have any problems.Nature red in tooth and claw is a generally accepted metaphor within the scientific community as well. Your opinion that this should not be accepted is besides the point of the facts of the matter.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

It means that many people who accept evolution theory, still have problems with it in regards to their Christianity, regardless if you think they should have problems with it or not. I think you are simply failing to understand because you don't like to hear it, rather then that I'm being that unclear.As before the method of creationism is to trace back to the root cause, as the creation event, which had the effect of making the thing appear. It applies to anything, and is not just confined to what is in biblehistory. It is strange that you question a way of investigaiton which you probably practice every day.The reason is it on topic is because the denial of evolutionists of creation is political / religious, which makes evolution a religion rather then a science in the context of the creation vs evolution controversy.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu