As a person who leans toward creationism, I would appreciate to hear everyone's experience (Ah Ha moments) that lead them to believing in Evolution or being an Athiest (or creationist). I kind of understand Agnostics:)
I have done my best to learn all sides. I have seen many PBS series on evolution, had my biology classes, and watched some documentaries on athiests just to see if I could understand the reasoning. I am likely biased from birth because my parents raised me Christian.
I am hoping that this thread might help me to understand the science I am not aware of (besides the various fossils everyone has heard of).
I will also argue my reasoning on topics I don't follow so don't post if you can't handle a few questions (or just tell me you don't want questions).
I hope this will be fun and enlightening for me if nobody else:)
All the facts for evolution
-
Robert Muir
- Posts: 280
- Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2010 10:15 pm
I'm a non-practicing agnostic Catholic. 
I've always "gone along" with evolution as I've always had a scientific leaning and it seemed that nearly all scientists believed in evolution. But what really lit the lightbulb up for me was the variation with a species.
Variation within species is, IMHO, the keystone, capstone, and cornerstone of the whole concept of evolution. Without variation within the species, you cannot have evolution.
Consider the harsh conditions of the arctic tundra in Alaska and the ideal physical properties required to survive and thrive there without artificial high-tech means. Consider the Alaskan Eskimo. Within a mere 10-20 thousand years, that small population changed drastically from the human average. How much longer would it take for a new species to develop?
I've always "gone along" with evolution as I've always had a scientific leaning and it seemed that nearly all scientists believed in evolution. But what really lit the lightbulb up for me was the variation with a species.
Variation within species is, IMHO, the keystone, capstone, and cornerstone of the whole concept of evolution. Without variation within the species, you cannot have evolution.
Consider the harsh conditions of the arctic tundra in Alaska and the ideal physical properties required to survive and thrive there without artificial high-tech means. Consider the Alaskan Eskimo. Within a mere 10-20 thousand years, that small population changed drastically from the human average. How much longer would it take for a new species to develop?
-
AlexOliver
- Posts: 461
- Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2010 7:25 pm
" I would appreciate to hear everyone's experience (Ah Ha moments) that lead them to believing in Evolution or being an Athiest "
For me it's not creationism vs evolution. It's evolution or some other scientific theory that hasn't been properly developed yet. Creation doesn't even enter into my realm of possibility.
I'm a pretty staunch atheist.
For me it's not creationism vs evolution. It's evolution or some other scientific theory that hasn't been properly developed yet. Creation doesn't even enter into my realm of possibility.
I'm a pretty staunch atheist.
-
jacob
- Site Admin
- Posts: 15969
- Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2013 8:38 pm
- Location: USA, Zone 5b, Koppen Dfa, Elev. 620ft, Walkscore 77
- Contact:
There are many variations of this quote (Stephen Roberts):
"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.
In terms of evolution, it's a scientific theory. It's somewhat absurd not to believe in it in the same way it's absurd not to believe in gravity or climate change. It's the best explanation of observable facts that the smartest people on the planet have been able to come up with. It doesn't mean it's correct, but it does mean that we don't have anything that is better in terms of predictive and explanatory power. In other words, if new facts are found, the theory can explain them. It can also predict facts which are not known yet. [I hope you read the post about what "theory" and "fact" mean in this sense.]
"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.
In terms of evolution, it's a scientific theory. It's somewhat absurd not to believe in it in the same way it's absurd not to believe in gravity or climate change. It's the best explanation of observable facts that the smartest people on the planet have been able to come up with. It doesn't mean it's correct, but it does mean that we don't have anything that is better in terms of predictive and explanatory power. In other words, if new facts are found, the theory can explain them. It can also predict facts which are not known yet. [I hope you read the post about what "theory" and "fact" mean in this sense.]
I've always believed in evolution as a scientific theory, but my "aha moments" would be (1) breeding fruit flies and personally observing evolution ("change in inherited traits over successive generations") in my high school science experiment and (2) observing the statistical clustering of DNA sequences of separate organisms and seeing how more closely related organisms also had more similar DNA sequences.
Creationism as a "theory" is not very useful. Since it is primarily a religious belief it invokes a supernatural being (God) to explain the variety of life. While this may be satisfying to some, it doesn't help us predict anything or create any new medical treatments and so forth. On the other hand, evolution directly predicts and helps us develop strategies to deal with important medical issues like bacterial antibiotic resistance.
@jacob -- love the robert's quote
Creationism as a "theory" is not very useful. Since it is primarily a religious belief it invokes a supernatural being (God) to explain the variety of life. While this may be satisfying to some, it doesn't help us predict anything or create any new medical treatments and so forth. On the other hand, evolution directly predicts and helps us develop strategies to deal with important medical issues like bacterial antibiotic resistance.
@jacob -- love the robert's quote
-
RightClawSouth
- Posts: 123
- Joined: Wed Jul 28, 2010 3:15 am
For me I realized when I was in high school that it made no sense that *faith* should be so revered - why would that be something so good? At the time though I realized it wasn't a virtue, I didn't think it was a bad thing, I was just confused as to why someone would think it was good or bad. I would now say that faith is definitely a bad thing - belief in something with no evidence (or often in spite of evidence to the contrary) is definitely a bad thing in my book.
Sometime in college I dismissed religion completely. I call myself an atheist because though one can't disprove the existence of God, neither can one disprove the existence of the tooth fairy either and I lend both the same amount of credence. Technically I've come to a preliminary conclusion based on the available evidence (or lack thereof) and I'd be quite willing to change my mind if some evidence were to turn up. However, I agree with Carl Sagan that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence so the evidence would have to be pretty freaking impressive.
I was never taught creationism as fact (only as part of a religious studies class) and it was so obviously ridiculous from the get-go (no offense intended, as I said, I never had to deal with being taught it as fact) that I never even considered it an option.
Sometime in college I dismissed religion completely. I call myself an atheist because though one can't disprove the existence of God, neither can one disprove the existence of the tooth fairy either and I lend both the same amount of credence. Technically I've come to a preliminary conclusion based on the available evidence (or lack thereof) and I'd be quite willing to change my mind if some evidence were to turn up. However, I agree with Carl Sagan that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence so the evidence would have to be pretty freaking impressive.
I was never taught creationism as fact (only as part of a religious studies class) and it was so obviously ridiculous from the get-go (no offense intended, as I said, I never had to deal with being taught it as fact) that I never even considered it an option.
I was raised as a Christian, but always Agnostic. I remember vividly some of my church adventures, pretending to believe in something so strange. Confronting others was an exercise with futile results, sometimes I felt they were not really believing, but just reaffirming thoughts and behaviours, that really scared me.
-
RobBennett
- Posts: 120
- Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2010 8:09 pm
- Contact:
"For me it's not creationism vs evolution. It's evolution or some other scientific theory that hasn't been properly developed yet. Creation doesn't even enter into my realm of possibility."
My view comes close to this except that I believe that God created everything. I don't see any conflict between creationism and science whatsoever. I believe that God wants us to use science to better understand His creation. I think that the whole idea that there is some sort of conflict here has just led to a huge waste of human energies.
It's hard for me to imagine that there are not some things that are part of the evolution theory that are accurate. Too many smart people believe in it for there to be nothing there. But I do not at all believe that the evolutionists have gotten it all right. My sense is that they have made some huge mistakes and have been extremely defensive about them. There's a movie by Ben Stein called "Expelled!" in which he documents how people have lost their jobs for teaching Intelligent Design. People wouldn't lose their jobs if the evolutionists were confident that their claims can withstand scrutiny.
So I believe that in time there will be a post-evolution theory that will correct the errors in the evolution theory while also affirming the important things that the evolutionists got right. And that all of this will lead us to a better appreciation of the wonders of God's creation!
Rob
My view comes close to this except that I believe that God created everything. I don't see any conflict between creationism and science whatsoever. I believe that God wants us to use science to better understand His creation. I think that the whole idea that there is some sort of conflict here has just led to a huge waste of human energies.
It's hard for me to imagine that there are not some things that are part of the evolution theory that are accurate. Too many smart people believe in it for there to be nothing there. But I do not at all believe that the evolutionists have gotten it all right. My sense is that they have made some huge mistakes and have been extremely defensive about them. There's a movie by Ben Stein called "Expelled!" in which he documents how people have lost their jobs for teaching Intelligent Design. People wouldn't lose their jobs if the evolutionists were confident that their claims can withstand scrutiny.
So I believe that in time there will be a post-evolution theory that will correct the errors in the evolution theory while also affirming the important things that the evolutionists got right. And that all of this will lead us to a better appreciation of the wonders of God's creation!
Rob
-
AlexOliver
- Posts: 461
- Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2010 7:25 pm
-
RobBennett
- Posts: 120
- Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2010 8:09 pm
- Contact:
"People wouldn't lose their jobs if they didn't insert religion into the classroom."
Some of these people didn't even have any religious beliefs. Some of them were agnostics. Some were atheists.
How are we going to learn about any weaknesses in the evolution theory if we start out by saying that any criticism of it is by definition "religion" and therefore cannot be considered? This makes it impossible to show that the theory is false.
Can something that cannot be shown to be false really be called "science"? It seems to me that once you say that no evidence against a theory may be considered you have entered the arena of faith-based belief.
Rob
Some of these people didn't even have any religious beliefs. Some of them were agnostics. Some were atheists.
How are we going to learn about any weaknesses in the evolution theory if we start out by saying that any criticism of it is by definition "religion" and therefore cannot be considered? This makes it impossible to show that the theory is false.
Can something that cannot be shown to be false really be called "science"? It seems to me that once you say that no evidence against a theory may be considered you have entered the arena of faith-based belief.
Rob
-
RobBennett
- Posts: 120
- Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2010 8:09 pm
- Contact:
"If a physics teacher started lecturing about "Intelligent Falling" alongside with gravity, I'd fire him too "
If the popular belief at a given time was that the sun revolves around the earth, and a teacher started lecturing about evidence showing that the earth revolves around the sun, should that teacher be fired too?
How do we learn anything if we fire anybody who questions what we currently believe? If all questioning is from this point forward forbidden, it seems to me that the scientific project has come to an end. Once we know it all beyond any doubt whatsoever, there's nothing more for us to do.
I don't think we know it all. I BELIEVE that there's a creator. But it doesn't bother me even a little bit that there are people trying to show that there is not. If I am wrong, I would like to learn that I am wrong. And the people who share my belief that there is a creator are unlikely to be the ones who are going to convince me. I feel that the people trying to prove the things that I do not believe are my friends. I would never think of firing such people for the "crime" of challenging my beliefs.
Rob
"If the popular belief at a given time was that the sun revolves around the earth, and a teacher started lecturing about evidence showing that the earth revolves around the sun, should that teacher be fired too?
How do we learn anything if we fire anybody who questions what we currently believe? If all questioning is from this point forward forbidden, it seems to me that the scientific project has come to an end. Once we know it all beyond any doubt whatsoever, there's nothing more for us to do.
I don't think we know it all. I BELIEVE that there's a creator. But it doesn't bother me even a little bit that there are people trying to show that there is not. If I am wrong, I would like to learn that I am wrong. And the people who share my belief that there is a creator are unlikely to be the ones who are going to convince me. I feel that the people trying to prove the things that I do not believe are my friends. I would never think of firing such people for the "crime" of challenging my beliefs.
Rob
I was never really sure why it's an either/or, even if evolution is dead wrong, why does that make creationism useful? Or why couldn't god have 'created' evolution, the same way we now accept that stars and planets can form naturally, but god may have 'created' the Big Bang. God can keep abiogenesis until science can recreate the feat.
As to my 'aha' moment, two words, infinite regression. One of the standard arguments of creationism is that life is (irreducibly) complex, so it must have been designed. This is commonly given as the watchmaker argument, which in and of itself is wrong, but lets assume it is valid. Then who created the creator? In the watchmaker's case, god had to have designed him, and then we ask who designed god? We need deities to create deities who were themselves created by yet higher deities, ad infinium.
But people lose their jobs for teaching creationism in science class because it isn't science. Simply put, it isn't a theory as 1) it is unfalsifiable, and 2) it makes no predictive statements.
As to the 'teach the controversy' issue, even if evolution is wrong, it still is right enough to predict many things that have happened and discoveries that have been made. We still teach kids that F=ma even though Newton was wrong, and we've since come along to the general theory of relativity (which even that is starting to show problems). However, for many applications Newtonian physics is accurate enough to be useful. Thus even if evolution isn't 100% perfect (no scientific theory or law is) it'd still make a good primer for the field. The 'controversy' can (and should) be taught at a higher level and even then we should ask for a new theory that will make predictions in the field, not some hand waving 'god did it' explanation.
All of the so called 'basic flaws' I've heard people claiming to have found in evolution I've found have turned out to be like a precocious grade-school kid smugly telling their teacher "Aha, subtraction must be flawed because if I have three apples and then subtract 4 apples, then it makes no sense and is wrong" or even "Hah, you English teacher made one spelling mistake, therefore everything you've ever taught must be false".
As to my 'aha' moment, two words, infinite regression. One of the standard arguments of creationism is that life is (irreducibly) complex, so it must have been designed. This is commonly given as the watchmaker argument, which in and of itself is wrong, but lets assume it is valid. Then who created the creator? In the watchmaker's case, god had to have designed him, and then we ask who designed god? We need deities to create deities who were themselves created by yet higher deities, ad infinium.
But people lose their jobs for teaching creationism in science class because it isn't science. Simply put, it isn't a theory as 1) it is unfalsifiable, and 2) it makes no predictive statements.
As to the 'teach the controversy' issue, even if evolution is wrong, it still is right enough to predict many things that have happened and discoveries that have been made. We still teach kids that F=ma even though Newton was wrong, and we've since come along to the general theory of relativity (which even that is starting to show problems). However, for many applications Newtonian physics is accurate enough to be useful. Thus even if evolution isn't 100% perfect (no scientific theory or law is) it'd still make a good primer for the field. The 'controversy' can (and should) be taught at a higher level and even then we should ask for a new theory that will make predictions in the field, not some hand waving 'god did it' explanation.
All of the so called 'basic flaws' I've heard people claiming to have found in evolution I've found have turned out to be like a precocious grade-school kid smugly telling their teacher "Aha, subtraction must be flawed because if I have three apples and then subtract 4 apples, then it makes no sense and is wrong" or even "Hah, you English teacher made one spelling mistake, therefore everything you've ever taught must be false".
-
jacob
- Site Admin
- Posts: 15969
- Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2013 8:38 pm
- Location: USA, Zone 5b, Koppen Dfa, Elev. 620ft, Walkscore 77
- Contact:
@Rob - Weaknesses in the theories should be handled at the research level, which is where they are. Not in the school rooms. Whether evolution is true or not is solid on the same level as whether the Earth is flat or not. Once a theory is solid, it should reach the school rooms. This typically happens half a century after the discoveries have been made.
If Intelligent Design wishes to make it into the school rooms it should reach a comparable level of solidity. Right now it is just a hypothesis by a relatively limited number of people. Creationism would be solidly set in the religion class. As a science it is lacking and thus should not be in the science class either.
The point of schooling is in my opinion not to teach students controversies they have no perspective on (but which they think they do). It is to provide a solid understanding of the best theories in existence.
I have not engaged in a lot of evolution debates, but I have done some climate change debates(*). It is highly frustrating how impossible it is to convince people. The main reason is of course is that it is impossible to use reason to convince a believer. A secondary reason is that people simply don't have the scientific foundation to understand the science. All they understand is the disagreement and that is not helpful at all. Kinda what csdx said in his last paragraph---it's crazy to try to reason about climate science with people whose understanding of climate is the amount snow fall in their backyard last winter ("more than they remember in the past three years, therefore global warming is false"). But it's really like that in most of the cases... which is why I don't do it anymore.
(*) It's interesting to note that the theories of climate change and evolution are almost equally old---both late 19th century. I bet not many people actually realize that the concept and early calculations of climate change are that old.
If Intelligent Design wishes to make it into the school rooms it should reach a comparable level of solidity. Right now it is just a hypothesis by a relatively limited number of people. Creationism would be solidly set in the religion class. As a science it is lacking and thus should not be in the science class either.
The point of schooling is in my opinion not to teach students controversies they have no perspective on (but which they think they do). It is to provide a solid understanding of the best theories in existence.
I have not engaged in a lot of evolution debates, but I have done some climate change debates(*). It is highly frustrating how impossible it is to convince people. The main reason is of course is that it is impossible to use reason to convince a believer. A secondary reason is that people simply don't have the scientific foundation to understand the science. All they understand is the disagreement and that is not helpful at all. Kinda what csdx said in his last paragraph---it's crazy to try to reason about climate science with people whose understanding of climate is the amount snow fall in their backyard last winter ("more than they remember in the past three years, therefore global warming is false"). But it's really like that in most of the cases... which is why I don't do it anymore.
(*) It's interesting to note that the theories of climate change and evolution are almost equally old---both late 19th century. I bet not many people actually realize that the concept and early calculations of climate change are that old.
-
RobBennett
- Posts: 120
- Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2010 8:09 pm
- Contact:
"If Intelligent Design wishes to make it into the school rooms it should reach a comparable level of solidity. Right now it is just a hypothesis by a relatively limited number of people."
These people were not fired for teaching in a classroom. They were fired for publishing research. In one case the guy was fired just for CITING a piece of research that mentioned intelligent design.
How can the hypothesis become accepted by a larger number of people if it is a firing offense to examine it or to tell people about it?
My sense is that there is politics in science just as there is in anything else.
Rob
These people were not fired for teaching in a classroom. They were fired for publishing research. In one case the guy was fired just for CITING a piece of research that mentioned intelligent design.
How can the hypothesis become accepted by a larger number of people if it is a firing offense to examine it or to tell people about it?
My sense is that there is politics in science just as there is in anything else.
Rob
-
AlexOliver
- Posts: 461
- Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2010 7:25 pm
Rob, your OP said, "in which he documents how people have lost their jobs for teaching Intelligent Design." then in the last post you said, "These people were not fired for teaching in a classroom. "
Teaching and publishing research are two very different things so please be a little more explicit next time.
Teaching and publishing research are two very different things so please be a little more explicit next time.
-
Robert Muir
- Posts: 280
- Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2010 10:15 pm
-
jacob
- Site Admin
- Posts: 15969
- Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2013 8:38 pm
- Location: USA, Zone 5b, Koppen Dfa, Elev. 620ft, Walkscore 77
- Contact:
@Rob - There's politics in science in terms of who gets the grant money, who gets promoted, and which direction research is taking. There's no politics in terms of what is correct and what isn't. It's about reason rather than rhetoric. Only politicians care about "who" said what. Scientists care about "what" was said. Very few scientists care about titles and credentials.
[I note that I'm still heavily influenced by this culture. Theories should stand on their own. I prefer to avoid getting associated personally with my theories. This is also why I don't put PhD after my name. I'm culturally inclined to find this pretentious ]
Also, there are different publication standards. These standards can be very different. Some journals will publish anything that looks like a paper. Others journals require a ton of peer-review. While this does create a certain inertia, it would be impossible to run a conspiracy covering up something which is factually wrong. This is not to say that this couldn't be the case. However, what it does mean is that there's still a lot of work to be done to convince the rest of the researchers that a better theory exist.
To give a personal example. EMH may be inaccurate, but it's still the best "science" (I hate to call economics a science) people have come up with. If a better model---as measured by one than can make more money than the EMH---was invented, the EMH would go the way of Newton's law. It would be useful as a pedagogical tool and in simple cases, but professionals would stop using it. In my opinion, something better than the EMH exists, but people have not been able to formulate it theoretically yet. I suspect that with computers being able to simulate systemic effects, we're going to see better models within a couple of decades.
Incidentally, "Published research" can mean anything. They important thing is what was published. Not whether it was published. In other words, publication is not a stamp of certification.
[I note that I'm still heavily influenced by this culture. Theories should stand on their own. I prefer to avoid getting associated personally with my theories. This is also why I don't put PhD after my name. I'm culturally inclined to find this pretentious
]Also, there are different publication standards. These standards can be very different. Some journals will publish anything that looks like a paper. Others journals require a ton of peer-review. While this does create a certain inertia, it would be impossible to run a conspiracy covering up something which is factually wrong. This is not to say that this couldn't be the case. However, what it does mean is that there's still a lot of work to be done to convince the rest of the researchers that a better theory exist.
To give a personal example. EMH may be inaccurate, but it's still the best "science" (I hate to call economics a science) people have come up with. If a better model---as measured by one than can make more money than the EMH---was invented, the EMH would go the way of Newton's law. It would be useful as a pedagogical tool and in simple cases, but professionals would stop using it. In my opinion, something better than the EMH exists, but people have not been able to formulate it theoretically yet. I suspect that with computers being able to simulate systemic effects, we're going to see better models within a couple of decades.
Incidentally, "Published research" can mean anything. They important thing is what was published. Not whether it was published. In other words, publication is not a stamp of certification.