Evolution, Religion, and pre-meds

[tugbug]

In a histology class my senior year I was telling my three lab partners about a wild discussion I had just finished in a humanities class where I was the only person willing to defend evolution... which I thought was incredible. I was really surprised to hear that none of them subscribed to the theory either. These three guys were all senior Biology majors, premeds... people I respect and think are pretty smart etc...

Anyway, a pretty eye opening day. I tend to assume that at least the Biology majors among us would be "evolutionarily minded", but that experience and others make me wonder about my assumptions.

Anybody care to share on this one?

I'm pretty a-religious (12 yrs of catholic schools pretty well cured me of anything there) and definitely think in terms of evolutionary theory.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[DrBodacious]

I am also mystified as to where people seem to find their faith. I would also think that knowledge and having a scientifically based mind would raise considerable doubt about religion.

On the other hand, geologists and anthropologists are much more a-religious, on the whole, as compared to biologists. I suppose examining the complexities of human body is accompanied with much wonder and awe, and biologists don't study the fossil records that are a huge basis for evolution.

 

[Gleevec]

Religion has a huge advantage over Science in convincing people to believe their viewpoint.

Religion states that there is one truth from God, that it is known to the church, and that this is a fact. So when creationists say God created the Earth, this is a fact since it is a divine truth.

Scientists cannot prove anything, we can only disprove hypotheses. That is why its still called Darwin's Theory of Evolution. Then again, Newton's Theory of Gravity explains gravitation, and we're all still walking around (so theories can become de facto facts in science).

I remember seeing a list of arguments somewhere of how Darwinists are wrong. I would like to find it again, but in effect, creationists take the mysteries that science has yet to solve and purports that the inability of science to explain these few exceptions means the whole theory is incorrect. What they dont say is that there is not evidence either way for many of these fossils, its just that no one really understands their significance at all.

But ultimately creationists will always win, because they can falsely purport divine knowledge to counter anything a scientist says. Unfortuntely, good scientists will simply have to say that they can't prove evolution (you can only infer it from the fossil record). And in the minds of lay people, the creationist version is much more appealing, because of its certainty and the inherent weirdness of being related to apes and bacteria.

Keep fighting the good fight though.

 

[ATPase]

I'm a Christian and have no problem with evolution. The people who wrote the Bible didn't exactly have an abundance of scientific knowledge. I don't think a belief in God and a belief in evolution are mutually exclusive. I believe in God as creator, and I certainly don't limit his abilities to an allegorical 7-day creation story. Why is it difficult to conceive of his creating life in a manner consistent with evolutionary principles?

I'm sure this thread is going to get nasty as people weigh in and start debating, but anyway, this is my two cents on the topic.

 

[rgporter]

I majored in Biology. I believe in evolution, I also believe in creation. This is my own speculation on the subject, and It's not endorsed by my religion, atleast I don't think it is.
I don't think God created the world from nothing. I believe he organized it from existing matter. With that said, I believe evolution was how he organized living organisms.
The exact details of the theory don't really matter to me though. My religion gives me an outline to make my life more meaningful, it is not necessary to quantitate it exactly with sciencific method.

 

[tugbug]

Originally posted by Gleevec
Religion has a huge advantage over Science in convincing people to believe their viewpoint.

But ultimately creationists will always win, because they can falsely purport divine knowledge to counter anything a scientist says. Unfortuntely, good scientists will simply have to say that they can't prove evolution (you can only infer it from the fossil record). And in the minds of lay people, the creationist version is much more appealing, because of its certainty and the inherent weirdness of being related to apes and bacteria.

I actually think evolution is continually becoming more widely understood/believed and influential... so I dont agree that creationists will really "win", although Im sure there will always be groups that doubt the idea. I certainly didnt expect to find many biology majors thinking that way tho.

Ive read quite a few of the creationist web site arguments and most are not (like you said) very interesting. Some seem to be real attempts to discuss questions... but not many.

Dr. Bodacious, I would actually think that Biol majors would be more likely... or at least as likely... to think in terms of evolution since so much of the science makes little sense except in evolutionary terms. Thats not the case for Anthrop or Geol.s

 

[tugbug]

Originally posted by ATPase
I'm a Christian and have no problem with evolution. The people who wrote the Bible didn't exactly have an abundance of scientific knowledge. I don't think a belief in God and a belief in evolution are mutually exclusive. I believe in God as creator, and I certainly don't limit his abilities to an allegorical 7-day creation story. Why is it difficult to conceive of his creating life in a manner consistent with evolutionary principles?

I'm sure this thread is going to get nasty as people weigh in and start debating, but anyway, this is my two cents on the topic.

I dont see any reason why a person couldnt believe in both. If God created everything... he had to do it somehow.

I also dont see any reason why these debates need to be nasty

 

[goobernaculum]

I was a bio major (now med student), and I don't necessarily buy into all that evolution has to offer. Of course microevolution is a fact, but macroevolution and the origins of life are still wrought with problems, and I just don't buy it quite yet.

I had already responded to a similar issue. I feel like our educators don't really teach evolution/intelligent design. Rather, they shamelessly spread ideology as if it were their version of proselytizing. The outcome is horrendous. I go to a top 5 med school - supposedly America's elite - and many of my peers are closed-minded to discussion regarding intelligent design. In fact, evolution goes unquestioned as if it were simple truth with no flaws, just undiscovered truths to be disclosed in the future.

Just one comment on intelligent design. Most people outright dismiss this theory because it necessarily implies an intelligent designer. Many of these people have already decided that they would or would not be involved in any sort of organized, religious belief system. In the case of not adhering to such a system, many have become inexorably intolerant to any mention or implication of an intelligent designer. Though understandable (though my opinion is that that is not a very prudent way of doing things), one thing should be noted by these people. Those who have a proclivity towards intelligent design are not simply doing so because they have a belief in a deity. They do so because it is moreso compatible with their every day activities and cognitive assumptions about common phenomena. Probability and complex specificity are among the things everyone uses to understand certain phenomena. If we knew nothing of Shakespeare and discovered a Shakesperean sonnet, we would be compelled to think that such complexity and specific, intricate manipulations would be from some designer. Probability is that random shuffling of words on paper with ink (provided that the paper and ink were previously created) would not have been able to do this on its own. Probability says that someone made this. thus, creationists are not merely being religious. They are adhering to a way of cognition that is compatible with everyday living. To them, there is something seriously flawed with a naturalistic origins of life. It isn't enough to say that "it just happened" because it is literally impossible by any other standard we use today (or ever had or ever will in the future).

You must remember that intelligent design DOES explain the origins of life and even macroevolution to some extent. Neither darwinism and intelligent design can or, perhaps, will ever be proven. Though the original poster didn't ask this, I wonder if instead of asking why people belive in intelligent design, we should ask why trust Darwin? Both can adequately explain what we inquire. Both are adequately empirical. Though evolution has received more empirical attention and thus more empirical evidence, does more mean better? Even among all this evidence, did evolution disprove intelligent design? Hardly. No one will definitively win this battle.

 

[DocWannaBe85]

This is a common thing I get when I encounter people who do not believe in Evolution. This was said on another board.....

Evolution
Basically I'm gonna start with the question I ask every person who spouts evolutionary nonsense and that is this, Have you ever actually read Darwin's "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life "? If you had then you would know that Darwin himself doesnt even believe in the Theory of Evolution. He is merely throwing it out as an idea, however he doesnt even believe that this is true. His whole Theory is based on this is how things might have happened if this were true and that were true etc etc. Any of you know what the Theory of Evolution's explanation for the whale is? Its explanation is that a donkey wandered into the ocean and because of its environment eventually grew to be able to breathe in the water. Over many generations this evolved into what we now know as whales. no that isnt a joke. Still believe in evolution? Well heres more for you. According to the Theory of evolution we are supposed to be continuously evolving into more advanced and stronger species. If this is true and we are to assume that we evolved in some form from chimps or apes then please explain to me why we are not covered in a thick warm layer of hair. Why would we evolve into a species that needs clothing to survive in the cold. Gee that hair sure would've helped in the ice age. Look at the theory, read the book and you'll realize its ridiculous.

A lot of times I see it as a lack of understanding and more appropriately a lack of willingness to understand. Even in my AP Biology class in High School many people didn't believe in evolution. I think they hear a lot of misconceptions and/or read blog writted by anti-evolutioners with an agenda to get across.

EDIT: As the post above me states, s/he doesn't believe in macroevolution, which is perfectly understandable.

 

[Cranius]

I took a very good class last term that was tailored to this topic exactly. The professor was an evangelical christian who had dual doctorates in divinity/theology and evolutionary biology. He was also a DDS. The class was an interesting mix of everything from young-earth creationists to dysteleological evolutionists. Needless to say there were some great debates

The prof started out by saying that evolutionary theory is essentially rock solid. His research as well as many others leaves no other conclusion. His main point in relation to this is that there is nothing inherently conflicting between religions and scientific (evolutionary) thought. I won't go into details here about the various arguments, but the basic ideas are that evolution says absolutely nothing about the existence or nonexistence of God, and that the Bible is meant to deliver a message, not to be read as a literal scientific document.

Unfortunately, popular and inaccurate ideas about both Darwin's theory and religious scripture lead people to believe that the two are fundamentally irreconcilable. This then turns people into either fundamentalists or flaming athiests depending on which concept they choose to embrace. Not helping this is the pseudoscience put forth by "scientific" creationists that is really nothing more than severely flawed hate speech against evolution and it's proponents (ie. evolution is just a theory. well so is gravity). This gives religious people who are understandably but unneccesarily worried about losing their faith to evolutionary theory a way to dismiss it, while in some cases still working in fields such as biology.

That's how I see it anyway, tell me if you agree
Cheers

 

[ATPase]

Originally posted by tugbug
I dont see any reason why a person couldnt believe in both. If God created everything... he had to do it somehow.

Exactly! I agree.

 

[goobernaculum]

I dont see any reason why a person couldnt believe in both. If God created everything... he had to do it somehow

this is called theistic evolution, and it has serious flaws. in other words, it is a belief that can't really work. though microevolution could have been a part of "the divine plan", macro cannot. i'd love to explain, but i gotta jump into bed. g'nite all!

btw...great post. let's keep up the humane dialogue.

 

[tugbug]

Originally posted by Cranius

That's how I see it anyway, tell me if you agree
Cheers

I agree. Im sure that was a great class. I think most of the fiery debate is fueled by people fearing that evolution (for some even the big-bang, etc. and science in general) will be used in attempts to disprove/argue against religion... and no doubt some people use it that way. But I dont think that is the necessary result.

 

[tugbug]

Originally posted by DocWannaBe85
This is a common thing I get when I encounter people who do not believe in Evolution. This was said on another board.....


A lot of times I see it as a lack of understanding and more appropriately a lack of willingness to understand. Even in my AP Biology class in High School many people didn't believe in evolution. I think they hear a lot of misconceptions and/or read blog writted by anti-evolutioners with an agenda to get across.

EDIT: As the post above me states, s/he doesn't believe in macroevolution, which is perfectly understandable.

Wow. Hard to believe that was a serious post but Ive heard statements/questions like this too. Two that I think are asked seriously that are big mis-understandings are:

If we evolved from apes... why are there still apes?

When the first cell evolved... what would it mate with?

So, yeah, a big part of the debate is just that some of the ideas involved are not well understood.

 

[tugbug]

Originally posted by goobernaculum
this is called theistic evolution, and it has serious flaws. in other words, it is a belief that can't really work. though microevolution could have been a part of "the divine plan", macro cannot. i'd love to explain, but i gotta jump into bed. g'nite all!

btw...great post. let's keep up the humane dialogue.

Why couldnt it work? Its not what I believe but I dont see why others couldnt use it if they wanted.

 

[Cranius]

this is called theistic evolution, and it has serious flaws. in other words, it is a belief that can't really work. though microevolution could have been a part of "the divine plan", macro cannot.

I'm curious, why do you say that? I see no fundamental problems with theistic evolution, other than that you can't really prove it. What aspects do you believe don't work?

And I should point out that I'm a commited agnostic (an oxymoron? ) so I have no great investment in any particular viewpoint. I'd just like to know what your reasons are.

 

[rgporter]

Originally posted by goobernaculum
this is called theistic evolution, and it has serious flaws. in other words, it is a belief that can't really work. though microevolution could have been a part of "the divine plan", macro cannot. i'd love to explain, but i gotta jump into bed. g'nite all!

btw...great post. let's keep up the humane dialogue.

Your logic on this astounds me. I am convinced, you must be right. I am sure that if you didn't have to go to bed you would deliver a brilliant proof on the flaws of "theistic evolution".

 

[Nemo]

http://forums.studentdoctor.net/showthread.php?s=&threadid=97511&perpage=20&pagenumber=3

 

[exilio]

I roll my eyes when people try to push evolution or religion down others throats in college...but I don't speak up because there is no agreeing on the subject...but I have always found this point interesting:

Stanley Miller conducted an experiment in 1953 to show evidence of spontaneous generation. He took hydrogen, ammonia, methane, and water vapor (assuming that this had been the primitive atmosphere), sealed these in a flask with boiling water at the bottom (to represent the ocean), and zapped electric sparks (like lightning) through the vapors. Within a week, there were traces of red goo, which he analyzed and found to be rich in amino acids.

But what I really find interesting is this:

If the gas mixture represented the atmosphere, the electric spark mimics lightning, and boiling water stands for the sea ... what or who does the scientist arranging and carrying out of the experiment represent?

Surely an interesting thought.

I think most scientist and those that feel they are educated people are compelled to believe in evolution and not creation. They are uncomfortable with the idea of there actually being an object you can't verify in a test tube or with mathematics. And that's fine, but it is not fact.

Scientist have little time for faith, but they would have you believe all of life happened by chance...now that is what I call a serious leap of faith.

Monod said that: "Pure chance, absolutely free but blind, is at the very root of the stupendous edifice of evolution." He does what others do by elevating chance to a creative principle. Chance is offered as the means by which life came to be on earth.

Personally, I base my beliefs on evidence, and I see more evidence that supports creation than evolution.

 

[lessismoe]

Goober, please list some of the problems with evolution. Thus far, I've only encountered problems with intelligent design theory, including:

--stratification, and a fossil record that corresponds to stratified layers that evolution would predict
--similar major gene groups among ALL multicellular organisms, implying a common ancestor (HOX genes, occular/light-sensing genes)
--transitionary fossils (amphibian-like fish, fish-like amphibians, mammal-like lizards, etc.)

I was under the impression that evolution was fairly solid in terms of evidence, so please educate me about what it does not explain.

 

[tugbug]

Originally posted by exilio

Scientist have little time for faith, but they would have you believe all of life happened by chance...now that is what I call a serious leap of faith.

Monod said that: "Pure chance, absolutely free but blind, is at the very root of the stupendous edifice of evolution." He does what others do by elevating chance to a creative principle. Chance is offered as the means by which life came to be on earth.

Personally, I base my beliefs on evidence, and I see more evidence that supports creation than evolution.

I never try to force my thoughts on evolution on others. In the right situation it is interesting to hear and discuss different viewpoints, as long as noone gets too worked up.

To your post I would say that, in theory, a scientist should allow NO time for faith. If the scientists belief in evolution ever rose above doubt and became faith... Then he is no longer being a scientist. In my mind, evolution of some sort is what the evidence point to... If an explanation is proposed that better fits the "evidence" then it must be accepted. You believe the evidence supports creation... would you elaborate?

 

[lessismoe]

Exilio, you make a great point, but evolution actually says nothing about how life began-- it just described the process of the struggle to exist that resulted thereafter.

 

[tugbug]

Originally posted by exilio
Stanley Miller conducted an experiment in 1953 to show evidence of spontaneous generation. He took hydrogen, ammonia, methane, and water vapor (assuming that this had been the primitive atmosphere), sealed these in a flask with boiling water at the bottom (to represent the ocean), and zapped electric sparks (like lightning) through the vapors. Within a week, there were traces of red goo, which he analyzed and found to be rich in amino acids.

But what I really find interesting is this:

If the gas mixture represented the atmosphere, the electric spark mimics lightning, and boiling water stands for the sea ... what or who does the scientist arranging and carrying out of the experiment represent?

I would guess the answer from scientists would be that the guy arranging the experiment represents whatever natural forces... atmospheric, geological, chemical, etc... that allowed/led to the environment at the time. Although, Im sure many of these same scientists would believe that God is the cause of these forces.

 

[lessismoe]

You know, that reminds me of another common misconception about science and what it does or does not tell us.

Science attempts to explain the world around us by coupling what we definitely know is NOT true (through the process of elimination) with verifiable and reproducible observations to reach logical and reasonably deducible conclusions. Thus, complex ideas that cannot be directly observed are organized into Theories, and evidence can either support or disprove theories but never prove them-- simply because the theories are, by nature, too complex for one piece of observable evidence to definitively prove.

So what are Evolution and Creationism? Two theories, neither of which have been satisfactorily disproven to all parties.

Why is Evolution the theory of choice for most scientists? It seems to be supported by more of the evidence than Creationism (and as far as I know, there isn't anything that disproves it-- see my earlier post). Creationism doesn't leave much room for dinosaurs and neanderthals. Now, neither is totally disproven, but evolution seems to be a "better fit" with the evidence.

Bottom line is, we're not SURE about anything, but if you were a bookie in Vegas looking at this situation, where would you put the odds? Your money, your decision.

So, back to my original train of thought, what doesn't science tell us? Well, what the heck is energy, anyhow? And how does it become matter (string theory)? And why did the big bang "boom"? And if it "boomed" what existed around the universe? What is existance? And for that matter, what are space and time, if they can be affected by gravity?

There's plenty of room left for God in the world of speculation. Personally, though, I'd prefer to think of God as an intelligent being working through ordered processes that follow all the rules of physics rather than one who molds our reality whimsically.

 

[redgrover]

It's nice to see a civil conversation on the topic. I think the evidence leans rather strongly towards evolution here. I also believe in God as Creator and Sustainer.

Suppose for a moment that the theory of evolution had been presented in the Bible. Do we really think 5th-century BC man would have understood it? We so often take for granted the fac that our scientific understanding of the world has come so far. When someone talks to us about the laws of energy, about genetics, about the survival of a species, or even the reproduction of a species, our scientific understanding is the result of centuries of investigation. At a rudimentary level, certain things are obvious. We can immediately glean a hint of the essence of an idea, but we cannot fully grasp that concept without external input. Such is the case with early Biblical man, and I think it's only logical that God would only speak to man so far as man was capable of understanding.

It seems some become so absorbed in certain minute facts (which may simply constitute analogies) that they miss the big picture (that motivates them in the first place): that "in the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth."

 

[jlee9531]

Originally posted by ATPase
I'm a Christian and have no problem with evolution. The people who wrote the Bible didn't exactly have an abundance of scientific knowledge. I don't think a belief in God and a belief in evolution are mutually exclusive. I believe in God as creator, and I certainly don't limit his abilities to an allegorical 7-day creation story. Why is it difficult to conceive of his creating life in a manner consistent with evolutionary principles?

I'm sure this thread is going to get nasty as people weigh in and start debating, but anyway, this is my two cents on the topic.

atpase....wise

 

[Cerberus]

I believe a biology major who disbelieves in evolution for religious reasons should have his degree removed.

 

[JohnnyOU]

Originally posted by Cranius
I'm curious, why do you say that? I see no fundamental problems with theistic evolution, other than that you can't really prove it. What aspects do you believe don't work?

And I should point out that I'm a commited agnostic (an oxymoron? ) so I have no great investment in any particular viewpoint. I'd just like to know what your reasons are.

Oxymoron???? Isn't that a pimple cream?

 

[JohnnyOU]

Originally posted by Cerberus
I believe a biology major who disbelieves in evolution for religious reasons should have his degree removed.

Well I'm a zoology major, so I'm off the hook

 

[Echinoidea]

Religion and evolution are not mutually exclusive. The Catholic Church has actually embraced the theory of evolution, something I'm proud of as a Catholic.

Evolution was the most fascinating concept I learned as a biology undergrad. For me, everything in biology makes sense in the light of evolution. What bothers me the most is the paranoia and fear some religious fundamentalists have about it, as if it threatens to undermine the fabric of Christianity.

 

[bigbaubdi]

Originally posted by redgrover
It's nice to see a civil conversation on the topic. I think the evidence leans rather strongly towards evolution here. I also believe in God as Creator and Sustainer.

What evidence is there to support the notion of God as a Sustainer? If God is a sustainer (presumably benevolent), then why did the Holocaust happen? Why are 1 in 5 children in America living in poverty?

 

[Tezzie]

If God was so powerful and smart and blah blah blah then why doesn't he come down one day, appear on 60 minutes and spill the beans.

Evolution (although with some flaws) has a logical basis. Religion is mythology that found wider acceptance. People actually *TRY* to believe that creation happened or God exists. As of right now we don't have any proof.

Yes we can easily say that 7 days wasn't actually 7 days but a larger time frame that for X, Y and Z reasons was written that way. Yes there are many questions in science. Yes we will find more answers in the future and new questions will be raised. The human race is moved by the unknown. It fuels the machine that takes our cultures and lives forward. However there are 2 ways to approach that. One being keeping an open mind and try to find answers based on logic. Or we can stop progressing, accept that God does in fact exist and he has a "plan", we are pawns in Gods game and live our lives in the dark.

 

[rgporter]

Originally posted by exilio

If the gas mixture represented the atmosphere, the electric spark mimics lightning, and boiling water stands for the sea ... what or who does the scientist arranging and carrying out of the experiment represent?

What I never understood about that was how you'd get lighning at the bottom of the sea where the pressures used in the experiment would exist. I mean holy crap, I couldn't synthesize an amino acid with any respectable yield even given my choice of reagents and equipement in orgo lab.
Once you have living organisms, or perhaps even complex biological molecules like RNA, it's easy to see how evolution works. The part I was always skeptical about was that initial jump from simple carbon molecules to RNA etc.
It seems like it would take a very significant event to overcome the entropy of that reaction. Some people believe that it was atmospheric conditions and random probability which overcame the entropy, I believe it was God.

 

[Runtita]

Originally posted by Cerberus
I believe a biology major who disbelieves in evolution for religious reasons should have his degree removed.

Cerb, I love you.

 

[Chrisobean]

i think we all should read darwin's book, well i should at least... people thought he was nuts, and even he wasnt sure, those were his ideas, and since then people have worked dam hard to support those ideas. but there are also lots of people working to support the idea of religion.
i think alot of people believe in religion b/c they fear the unknown, like death and the afterlife. believing that you will get to fly through those pearly gates and live in the clouds after you die can be pretty comforting. im sure every religion has a nice little story about where you go when you die.. and if this makes people feel better about life (including me) then i am all for it.
lately, i have become disillusioned with organized religion, especially my catholic church. maybe its just my parish, but they seem too self-centered.. and i've pretty much stopped going altogether, not even for christmas (which i felt slightly guilty about). but i still say my prayers every night and believe in god and his master plan for me, and i also believe in free will, which may sound contradictory, but i think somehow god is guiding all the choices i make...
but basically, religion is a theory, albeit a divine one. every theory has its flaws, just like evolution. and i believe in that too. theories are not fact, hence the name! and religions are so different, and there are so many, with all different thoughts on creation, how can anyone say which is "right"?
evolution seems to be a more likely story than creation, but why cant they go together?
we will never know the truth about either one. but i will still believe in both.

 

[HollyJ]

Well, I have a degree in religion :waits for applause:, and I don't see a problem with the coexistence of faith and science. In this case, as in others, I think that faith and science are trying to explain two different things.

Science tries to explain the physical facts and properties of the universe, and so in concerned with data, evidence, and theories. It gives us (little t) truth about the world around us and what came before us. Evolution fits in this category. Really, it's pretty great.

Religion deals with giving meaning to life and explaining it under that rubric. It trades in tradition and intuitive ways of knowing. It attempts to gives us (capital T) Truth about the nature of who we are and our place in the universe. Creationism fits in this category.

I think that problems arise when people confuse the two. Creationism is NOT an attempt to explain how the universe was created and how life was formed. If it were, it would utterly fail in this regard. It doesn't offer any facts, any evidence, or really any support for itself other than intuitive knowledge and tradition. Fortunately, that's not what it's here for. Creationism is an attempt to navigate our philosophical way through the universe, and as such, it works really well for a whole lot of people.

Conversely, evolution does not work well as a philosophical model. It doesn't offer a whole lot of meaning, a system of ethics, or really any order in the universe other than a Hobbesian ethic, which people (understandably) don't find fulfilling. In other words, as a religion, evolution doesn't work so well. But it does work well as a fact-based system of (little t) truth.

My point is that (a) both systems can absolutely coexist with very little conflict, and (b) people who demean one system or the other are missing the point of each.

 

[bruinrab]

My father, although he doesn't practice our religion very much, is a very faithful person. He's also very rational, so he came up with a theory that I think may solve the evolution/creation debate: Adam and Eve were the first amoebae.

 

[vizzini]

This debate is great, I have read a lot of good posts on this! However, one can discuss the evolution vs. creation forever, and get no place because of an underlying philosophical argument that is as old as time: what is real and what is not. Basically, how can you prove anything at all? Now, I am no philosopher, and not much of an intellect at all, but I do enjoy reading philosophy and books about the evolution debate. I have found the following books to be helpful, not only because of what they say, but because of what they make you think about: "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenence" by Robert Pirsig - dont let the title fool you: in my opinion it is one of the most important books written in the last 100 or so years..."The Science of God" by Gerald Schroeder - great book about the correlation between what we know about science and the Bible...any book by Kierkegaard or Kant - preferably a book that has some of their writings with commentary by critics...These are the two philosophers I have found to have a philosophical system that seems to be....for lack of a better word...true (whatever that means!)

What I believe, as a Christian, is that science can explain many many things in this physical world: we're getting closer and closer to knowing the details of how it began, how we evolved, how our bodies and minds work etc. We have five keen senses that can hypothesize, experiment, conclude, theorize, predict...But science falls drastically short trying to explain "why" which is very different from "how"...that is where religion, spirituality and faith come in...even then, the existence of God cannot be proved: that is why we have religions based on belief and faith. If it could be proved, there would be no point in having faith (the backbone of Christianity)...some philosophers call it "existential truth" meaning truth that cannot be proved or disproved by an outside observer: like if I said "I love my family" which is the truth for me- nobody could prove or disprove me. They could use logic and reasoning to draw conclusions, but not offer proof. All in all I think it has helped me to realize that the point is not to understand God, but to understand that it cannot be understood.

Anyway, check those books out, and please let me know of any books like those you have enjoyed or if you have already read any of them! "The Science of God" is a good start, its pretty cool to see how the creation story matches what we know about biology, anthro, paleo, geology, etc....although, like i said earlier, it does not prove the existence of God, only that science and the Bible are compatible.

Please keep the postings coming on this, I really enjoy reading these and getting others thoughts because I still feel confused everyday about all this!

 

[Aptamer]

Originally posted by rgporter
What I never understood about that was how you'd get lighning at the bottom of the sea where the pressures used in the experiment would exist. I mean holy crap, I couldn't synthesize an amino acid with any respectable yield even given my choice of reagents and equipement in orgo lab.
Once you have living organisms, or perhaps even complex biological molecules like RNA, it's easy to see how evolution works. The part I was always skeptical about was that initial jump from simple carbon molecules to RNA etc.
It seems like it would take a very significant event to overcome the entropy of that reaction. Some people believe that it was atmospheric conditions and random probability which overcame the entropy, I believe it was God.

Do you really need good yield of biomolecules to create life? Really, you don't. What you need is a self-replicating system that is able to proliferate itself in a similar manner to a single bacteria replicating itself into millions of colonies.

So, is there a small scale self-replicating system? Yeah, it's called the Whitehead ribozyme designed by David Bartel at the Whitehead Institute at MIT. It was yielded from in vitro evolution to create a RNA sequence by non-biochemical means and that was able to copy itself many times over with high fidelity.

But you ask, what can make the jump from 'simple carbon molecules' into nucleotides and amino acids at the expense of entropy? First, you must accurately define entropy, and you must do so without answering it with the general chemistry definition of disorder, which is wrong. Entropy is defined as the measure of the spontaneous dispersal of energy from permissible processes. Remember processes occur while interacting with its surroundings. The creation of biomolecules is an entropically favorable process, contradictory to what you said, by dispersing more energy to its surrounds than it takes up in the creation of the biomolecule. Remember doing this in general chemistry...calculating deltaH, deltaG, and deltaS?

Therefore, the 'overcoming' of entropy to create biomolecules is not driven by God but by fundamental scientific fact.

 

[bewitched1081]

hello! evolution is a religion in itself. you have to have faith to believe in something that has NEVER been proven. sure adaptation has been observed. but you need to take a leap of faith to believe that the first cell was developed from scratch and that monkeys evolved into humans. they cant even find evidence for the endosymbiont theory. so dont try to espouse the idea that evolution is more empirical than creation when there is no empirical evidence available.

 

[DrBodacious]

Originally posted by tugbug
I dont see any reason why a person couldnt believe in both. If God created everything... he had to do it somehow.

I'm sorry if I come off as nasty, but I think that since religion has very little evidence to substantiate itself, but is rather a tool to supposedly make peoples lives more meaningful, that it hinders scientific progress by mystifying the things we don't know, rather than encouraging the discovery of substantiated truths. For me, a self-proclaimed scientific thinker, religion answers few questions and I can't ignore my doubt in order to make my life simpler.

I like someone's signature quote by Thomas Jefferson, "Question boldly even the existence of God..." This is all I ask of people when I back up my skepticism. I don't propose to have all the answers myself and if you have found acceptable answers with religion, I can't say that you are wrong. I do say that I have a hard time comprehending why people are so deeply rooted in this or that religious belief.

 

[DrBodacious]

On another note, science is based on reproducable evidence, so it would be impossible to prove the existence of God as "spirits" are, as of yet, not containable in a controlled environment. When we are talking about things that aren't tangible, it is philosophy.

I got this from Stephen Hawkins "A Brief History of Time" movie, when one famous researcher was doubting that string theory could be classified as part of science, as strings are much too small to ever be experimented with.

 

[Tezzie]

Originally posted by bewitched1081
hello! evolution is a religion in itself. you have to have faith to believe in something that has NEVER been proven. sure adaptation has been observed. but you need to take a leap of faith to believe that the first cell was developed from scratch and that monkeys evolved into humans. they cant even find evidence for the endosymbiont theory. so dont try to espouse the idea that evolution is more empirical than creation when there is no empirical evidence available.

Not exactly.

Evolution is both theory and fact.

Even if Darwins theory on how things exactly happened is proven wrong at some point in time and replaced with something else, it doesn't take away the fact that the human race evolved from apes.

You have faith in something when you don't have any actual facts. There are no facts leading to creationism. On the other hand there are facts that prove evolution (*not the theory of evolution*), so you don't actually have faith in something anymore but rather you see, understand and know.

 

[lessismoe]

1. The theory of natural selection says NOTHING about how the first cell of life was created/arose. This is a COMPLETELY different argument than creationism vs. evolution.

2. Darwin knew nothing of cells, and so could never have said that all life came from one progenitor cell. His premise was that species arise from other species after being separated from the original population for large amounts of time.

Neo-darwinism couples modern science advances with Darwin's insights into the process of natural selection. By the way, bewitched, this is how scientists know humans evolved from apes; fossil record evidence (like Lucy), genetic evidence (similarity of human and chimp DNA sequence) and methodology of speciation (physical population separations, chromosomal inversions/translocations).

3. The endosymbiont theory has PLENTY of proof. We see plenty of examples of endosymbionts in nature. The roots of peas and beans have symbiotic relationships with nitrogen-capturing bacteria. Why else would mitochondria have their own, self-replicating DNA?

Please, someone give me some empirical evidence FOR creationism. I'm really struggling to understand where you're coming from.

 

[DrBodacious]

Originally posted by bewitched1081
hello! evolution is a religion in itself. you have to have faith to believe in something that has NEVER been proven. sure adaptation has been observed. but you need to take a leap of faith to believe that the first cell was developed from scratch and that monkeys evolved into humans. they cant even find evidence for the endosymbiont theory. so dont try to espouse the idea that evolution is more empirical than creation when there is no empirical evidence available.

The famous studies done by Stanley Miller in 1953 show how new molecules and cells can and likely would be synthesised given the chemical makeup and environmental conditions that he believed to have been present six billion years ago. Even if the conditions he predicted weren't identical, it really isn't that huge of a leap of faith to think that over a billion years, on one of millions of potentially habitable planets in the Milky Way, one of hundreds of billions of galaxys in the universe, life could evolve, yes, by chance.

P.S. of course then we could talk about how God designed the universe with the intentions of creating life. I don't think we will ever disprove the existence of a higher power or God. By nature God is mystical and can only be doubted using reason.

 

[goobernaculum]

Theistic evolution has problems from both sides: creationists and darwinians.
Creationists don't like theistic evolution because adherents to this doctrine believe in a design, but it is a design only recognizable through faith. That is, the "theistic" part of theistic evolution is an optinonal tag-on if you're a "spiritual" person. Intelligent design says that everyone can view nature and see that someone must have designed this. Furthermore, Darwinism attributes all of evolution to random mutations, natural selection, etc. A designer is never mentioned, nor is it implied. "Nature" moves evolution. Unless you believe that the designer is some amorphous "nothing" called nature (or perhaps randomness), this really isn't a deity. In fact, a designer who creates via evolutionary means would be intending to conceal himself and his purposes, which in my definition would be contrary to a designer or a God's intentions (that last bit is an assumption).
Darwinians look at this and simply ask, "why add the theistic part?" They take pride in denying a teleological existence or taking comforts in what a designer might have to offer (e.g.- an afterlife). To them, theistic evolutionists are, quite frankly, weak as they hold onto an unnecessary byproduce of their society.

I had already said that the mechanisms for microevolution are legitimate, and very very few scientists like ourselves would deny it. The problem is that Darwinism attempts to use mutation and natural selection as THE means for macroevolution. It is a piece of the pie used to make an assumption about the entire pie. Similar things were done with Newton's laws until Einstein and his buddies came around to show that there's way more stuff going on that better explains the universe. The existence of transitional fossil records have been more of a problem than a support for evolutionists because their existence is extremely rare. Complex molecular machines and organ systems (e.g.- the eye) have been explained away by many darwinists, but if you've taken any course in philosophy, history, and especially ethics, you'll discover that anyone can explain anything away.

 

[Jonathanamine]

check this link out.
it's worth reading

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-c003.html

 

[Jonathanamine]

Here's another one about the dangers of "theistic evolution"


http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c015.html

 

[goobernaculum]

Please, someone give me some empirical evidence FOR creationism. I'm really struggling to understand where you're coming from.

Evolution's primary tools to establish itself are natural selection and random mutation. (And as an aside, though it's true that the theory of natural seletion doens't say anything about the origins of life, it doesn't take a rocket scientist what the strong implications are about the origins of life: it just happened).

Intelligent design's primary tools are complex specificity and what Michael Behe calls irreducible complexity, both or which are measured by mathematical models and probability.

I don't claim that intelligent design explains everything. But that's also because I'm comfortable in not having to have everything be explainable.

Do you honestly believe that evolution as a truth claim is a theory that is unchallengeable and that the questionable parts are only to be proven in the future?

 

[Aptamer]

Originally posted by goobernaculum
Evolution's primary tools to establish itself are natural selection and random mutation. (And as an aside, though it's true that the theory of natural seletion doens't say anything about the origins of life, it doesn't take a rocket scientist what the strong implications are about the origins of life: it just happened).

Intelligent design's primary tools are complex specificity and what Michael Behe calls irreducible complexity, both or which are measured by mathematical models and probability.

I don't claim that intelligent design explains everything. But that's also because I'm comfortable in not having to have everything be explainable.

Do you honestly believe that evolution as a truth claim is a theory that is unchallengeable and that the questionable parts are only to be proven in the future?

I was waiting for someone to bring up Michael Behe. Oy...have you read Darwin's Black Box?