Evolution Isn't Even Logical

oh my - it took me far too long to find the controls to shut that off. holy crap that was some bad music.

My God, teh stupid... it sears my soul.

In all fairness, its hard to pin down exactly what Evolution claims. I've read many different articles and forums on the subject and the opinions vary widely. Even within the same discussion I've seen several different interpretation of what evolution entails. I also have seen textbooks and talked to students that have said that the big bang is taught in the classroom. So at least some of the time, evolution does claim this concept.

The Big Bang has nothing whatsoever to do with Evolution. Evolution is an explanation for the diversity of life. It makes no claims regarding the origin of life itself. The Big Bang doesn't deal with life at all. It is an explanation for the "beginning" of the universe as we know it.

The "Big Bang" is thought to have occurred roughly 15b years ago. Life on this planet is thought to have arisen roughly 4b years ago.

What varies widely in you readings? I'm interested to know.

Evolution by Natural Selection is the non-random survival of randomly varying replicators (to partially quote Richard Dawkins).

Thank you Ryan for pointing this out (and dungbeatle). While evolution and the big bang theory are compatible, that doesn't make them the same (any more than the theory of gravity and theory of friction being compatible but not the same).

I also disliked the "geometric growth" thing, since it's based on bad science. For many thousands (and maybe millions of years) there have not been population explosions because if there were, they would have starved to death. Geometric growth of humanity has only happened once we had civilizations that could provide the necessary food.

Not that, at times as a scientist when I have problem with the theory of evolution (and, to be fair, Einstein had problems with quantum theory too, so it's possible for scientists to have problems with scientific conclusions). This just isn't the way to go about it.

And yes, I did just compare myself to Einstein. wOOt!

I'm not sure it's worth reading past this ...

The opening of the article is a quote from the Bible (1 Timothy). I was sure it wasn't worth reading right then.

In all fairness, its hard to pin down exactly what Evolution claims. I've read many different articles and forums on the subject and the opinions vary widely. Even within the same discussion I've seen several different interpretation of what evolution entails. I also have seen textbooks and talked to students that have said that the big bang is taught in the classroom. So at least some of the time, evolution does claim this concept.

Just because the Big Bang is taught does not mean that it is taught as evolution, any more than it is taught as Physical Education.

The single word evolution can be described as the process of change with time. That's pretty much it, which is why you get things like the evolution of the universe, the evolution of music, the evolution of glass making techniques etc. No one claims Darwinian evolution by natural selection can be used to explain the evolution of glass making techniques, but you often find creationists claiming that Darwinian evolution seeks to explain the evolution of the universe, which is simply a term meaning that the universe changes with time.

It is only evolution by natural selection which should enter these discussions, since that is what is in dispute in most cases.

Interesting debate...

The "evolution" of the universe, from what I understand and how I interpret what I have read seems pretty random. Quite different from how I understand the evolution of life on this planet.

I am sure some day we will find that the Universe is just as "organized" as life on this planet. We just need to learn more.

When this starry circle reached a critical point, it suddenly exploded and 30 minutes later, the known universe had begun, life began, and the first cell was found.

Wow, who knew that the first cell had formed a half hour after the Big Bang? That's remarkable, because if there was any solid matter yet, it was just hydrogen atoms.

I guess they were too busy reading their bibles when the Big Bang was being discussed in class... (or were they the kids in the back of the room with their fingers in their ears, saying "La-la-la-la-la-la"?)

If that's what science is (and I agree that that's all it is), then it's incapable as a language to describe the origins of life and the universe with absolute certainty. (Creationism isn't science, either, by the way, nor should it claim to be.)

But point is, the scientific method is incapable of describing lots of things that we know to be true, like for me, the fact that I love my wife. You can't prove it or disprove it no matter how many double-blind repeatable experiments you try... you'll only observe my behavior and maybe some chemical responses, but you'll never really know my motives for what I do or how I feel.

So, isn't it okay that there's some things that science can't completely explain or contain? If science tried to overstep its bounds, it wouldn't be science any more.

From a purely scientific standpoint (one where you take your own prejudice out of the equasion), evolution and creationism have the exact same plausibility, because we have examples in nature of both scentient beings puposefully setting things in order (a beaver making a dam or a waitress setting plates on a table), and genetic mutations on a cellular level (viruses and stuff like that... don't ask me, I'm not a scientist, but I've been told that stuff like that has been observed).

Are you willing to stop the name calling long enough to consider this? The language of 95% of the newsvine responders is very hateful toward people of faith. You should be embarrassed. I fail to see how that is more enlightened. I fail to see how some of you are better people than they because you refused to read any further once you saw references to the Bible. That's like saying I get to turn my brain off at the first reference to the New York Times or the color blue. That's not scientific, that's just willful ignorance.

Nathan,

I may not be qualified to answer all of your points - I'm not a scientist and my education in science goes no further than high-school. But...

Evolution does not claim or try to describe the origins of life or the universe.

I would guess that science actually could tell or "prove" that you love your wife by measuring the chemical reactions in your brain at a given moment. However, science can not prove that you will still love your wife tomorrow. Just as it can't prove that gravity will work tomorrow.

So, isn't it okay that there's some things that science can't completely explain or contain?

Absolutely! But that doesn't mean that we should stop searching for explanations. Saying "oh well, we don't know. God must have done it" isn't good enough.

evolution and creationism have the exact same plausibility

Wrong. Evolution has an immense amount of evidence and research. Creationism has a book.

I don't understand your examples of the beaver, waitress and genetic mutations or how they give evidence of creationism. They would all seem to be evidence of evolution to me.

Are you willing to stop the name calling long enough to consider this? The language of 95% of the newsvine responders is very hateful toward people of faith

I don't think it's about being hateful toward people of faith as much as it is despising a person like the one who wrote this blog who tries to disprove science by quoting passages from a book and by twisting and misrepresenting facts and ignoring scientific evidence because it disagrees (disproves) his version of faith.

The language of 95% of the newsvine responders is very hateful toward people of faith.

Firstly, it's not hateful towards people of faith, it is usually the faith itself which is hated (of course there are exceptions). If I say I hate country music, that doesn't mean I therefore hate people who like it - everyone makes mistakes ;o)

And even if some can be harsh in their arguments - have a sense of proportion; take a look at any play or film review section of a paper and you'll see much harsher criticism of individuals and their efforts than the balanced appeals to reason usually espoused against the religious here. I think many are just fed up with having to treat religion with some kind of special reverence it has done nothing to deserve.

don't forget to read the comments on that blog,

i almost had a heart attack laughing so hard.

Cindy said...

This is a fantastic post!!! It just blow my mind how people can believe in anything but God being the creator!!!

well said, Cindy.

Hey, she won me over.

I agree.... you would think God would be smart enough to set up a system that will dynamically generate all the forms of life that we see in the universe, "each according to its kind," rather than sitting down and hand-crafting each and every one.

I'm not really sure how natural selection necessarily undercuts belief in God, unless your belief is so narrow that it can only admit a literal interpretation of the Bible.

Literal interpretation...

I always love that line.

There are no "facts" to support the argument that it was meant to be taken literally... But logic would have me believe it was meant to be taken that way. Just because of the time period it was written in.

Taking the bible and bending it is a new wave way of thinking. Science after all smashes the bibles stories. Over time they must bend to fit the status quo.

"rather than sitting down and hand-crafting each and every one."

Next time I'm handcrafted, I want to be immune to all human diseases and maybe look more like Matt Damon...

Apparently, that wouldn't be "intelligent"...

Probability-that-I-will-take-you-or-anyone-else-seriously-while-name-calling = zero.

That seems logical to me.

And yet they feel qualified to give advice on child-rearing

Talk about child abuse!

Yeah, if our measure of logic is understanding, then the whole basis of Christian faith--that God is unfathomable--is practically slapstick.

newsvine needs an edit feature:
too*
and only a basic understanding of genetics is necessary to see why evolution makes sense (so long as you aren't heavily indoctrinated in other matters).

Evolution is about genetic survival. It makes even more sense what you view it from that perspective. In my opinion.

I recommend The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins, as a good way to get your head around what I mean.