Why do you believe in Creationism or Evolution?

[emmy27sf]

so why do u believe in evolution or creationism???

[harmonium]

OK, so oligo-A tracts can be used as phasing elements. This has been known for years. They tend to bend the DNA helix toward the minor groove. What's so hard about that? Here's a DNA sequence with an A or two in it. A mutation occurs to add another A. Another occurs to add another A. Now we have an oligo-A tract. If the bend introduced by this tract happens to do some good--such as move an upstream transcriptional regulator closer to the polymerase-binding site, then this randomly-developed oligo-A tract provides a useful function, and may be retained.

An oligo-A tract that bends DNA the wrong way would be selected against.

So, oligo-A tracts are, indeed, being used for a purpose. They bend DNA. They show up in places where bends happen to help. They don't have to be there, of course, because DNA is flexible and bends by itself. But some "encouraged bending" can make the random flexibility work better. But, we need no designer to come up with this. Random mutation, followed by selection, works just fine.

You've completely missed the point of my post. I was originally asked by Enigma to provide evidence for the fact that credible scientists are working on original research to support the theory of intelligent design. This was just a simple example of that and so I think it met the criteria just fine. The hypothesis that they are testing is just one part of a much larger experiment they are doing showing that gene duplication might be a little more complex than evolutionists assumed and thus fits into the larger theory of irreducible complexity.

That's all I was showing, it's irrelevant if the hypothesis is ultimately correct or not. I was just meeting the requirement that Enigma asked for and I think that such an experiment meets his criteria nicely.

Well now. There are many types of pre-flagellae in bacterial systems. Others have commented on them. Many of the parts that are used in flagellae are found in use elsewhere. The short answer is that it has been shown that bacterial flagellae could have been formed by an evolutionary process. Therefore, we seem to have met Dembski's definition of finishing off intelligent design quite nicely.

Despite the fact that this response to Dembski has been presented before, and despite the evidence, it is certain that the "bacterial flagellum agrument" will be raised over and over for years to come. That's how it is.

I think it's highly debatable whether bacterial flagallae have now been "proven" to have evolved. It is true that evolutionists have been trying to show this, regardless of whether they have proven anything yet or ever will. Regardless, you again miss the point I was trying to make. Enigma required that the experiment to be falsifiable and I provided that. The interesting thing is that his example for the falsifiability of evolution was in fact not falsifiable.

[Jose]

Ah, but it has been said many, many times that proving creation would immediately falsify evolution. Since creation seems to be the only serious contender, according to the current flavor of the debate, it seems that this is the method of falsifying evolution. It is falsifiable. Let's get the creationists onto it.

Now, Michael Behe has done significant research. Most of it addresses fine points of protein structure, and things of that sort. As such, his data says nothing about origins of those structures.

As for whether he is doing research on intelligent design, that's open to opinion. But, time will tell. We must all admit that his approach of trying to prove "irreducible complexity" is really just a search for complex biological systems for which little data exists. Oligo-A tracts and gene duplication are poor choices, since so much is known about them...at least to scientists in the field. To non-scieintific readers, Behe's arguments may sound like fatal blows to evolution, but that is just from lack of background, and a desire to believe Behe's argument independent of the data.

To conclude that, since a well-established evolutionary mechanism is not yet known, we must conclude that the system was designed, is just plain silly. Not knowing how something works is merely proof that we don't know how it works. It does not prove that it was created or designed by someone or something that we can never know anything about and can never prove exists.

I think the real question is not whether Behe or anyone else is trying to find places where we have insufficient data points to describe a logical evolutionary progression, but whether anyone, Behe included, is actually trying to test the hypothesis of intelligent design. This is not done by attacking evolution, or suggesting occasional areas where not enough is known yet. It is done by assessing the predictioins of the hypothesis itself.

Now, it seems to me that ID predicts that the designer would create things that work well. He would have no reason to tweak pre-existing systems to make them work a little differently. He would have no reason to use exactly the same parts over and over and over in everything he makes, especially if there are better designs that would solve the problems more efficiently. That is, the clear prediction of the hypothesis of ID is that there should be life forms that are perfectly designed and that don't use the same old parts that everything else does. Re-using the same parts is a hallmark of evolution. I'm thinking of parts like DNA, RNA, and protein constructed from the same set of 20 amino acids, and using a genetic code that is pretty much the same among organisms. Where are the life forms that are designed to use more efficient materials?

It also seems that a clear prediction of ID is that there should be no sloppy or stupid designs. Sloppy or stupid designs would be evidence of evolution--or of a sloppy or stupid designer, or of the designer's first, practice designs before he got it right.

What kinds of sloppy designs are there? One good one that my students always ask about is RNA. Why is there this stupid mRNA intermediate in protein synthesis? Why not design ribosomes so they can read DNA directly? We can't fall back on "because the nuclear envelope is there" because bacteria have no nuclear envelope, yet use the same darned mechanism. For that matter, why use this baroque, goofy machine called a ribosome? It has all these zillions of proteins, yet the actual catalysis seems to be done by the RNA itself. Why not design this to be more efficient?

We can ask what the deal is with the human prostate. Why have this silly thing wrapped around the urethra, so that, as it enlarges with age, it becomes progressively harder to pee? Why design humans so that they fall apart as they age, and so that their amyloid protein preciptates in their brains so that they get Alzheimers?

Why design the human female reproductive cycle to be so inconvenient? Other mammals don't do it this way; they fully resorb the uterine lining without wasting any of the material that went into building it. We just ditch it, in a messy and often painful process. This problem, in particualr makes much more sense from an evolutionary point of view: to cycle into fertility as often as possible, it was more expedient (i.e. it took fewer mutations, and besides that's what happened) to truncate the resorption process, rather than re-design the resorption process so that it could occur in far less time than the original developmental program requires.

I guess we have to fall back on the idea that ID also includes a component of Capricious Design, Redundant Design, Goofy Design, and Highly-Inefficient Design.

It is these issues--finding novel designs that aren't just rehashing of the same old components of biological systems worldwide, and explaining how these seemingly stupid designs are really intelligent--that should be the focus of ID research. Simply finding places where there isn't much data is no better than mapping a new country, and, for lack of knowledge about parts of it, writing "monsters be here."

[harmonium]

According to Websters, it defines naturalism as "The doctrine of those who deny a supernatural agency in the miracles and revelations recorded in the Bible, and in spiritual influences; also, any system of philosophy which refers the phenomena of nature to a blind force or forces acting necessarily or according to fixed laws, excluding origination or direction by one intelligent will."

I don't think the idea that naturalism is diametrically opposed to the idea of God is true just because I think it is. Rather, it is a fact that in the framework of naturalism the existence of a God is denied, while in the framework of creation, the existence of God is affirmed. Logically only one can be true because both views contradict one another. Yes, some Christians believe that God used evolution to create life, however, that's not naturalism anymore (it goes specifically against the definition of naturalism). In naturalism God cannot exist and in Christianity God must exist. If that's not diametrically opposed than what is?

Let's not get excited here. Evolution does not require this definition of naturalism. The dictionary definition, the statements of the founders of the movement, and any other evidence you can come up with to explain naturalism does not matter. "The naturalism you speak of" represents your view about the framework behind evolution.

Who's getting excited? It's pretty clear that I am not the only one with a bias - I hope you can recognize that you are displaying your view here as well, not just facts. Of course the actual definition of the word matters or are you now saying that words have no meaning? If that's the case then your argument is futile because you are using words with which to clobber words. I think it is interesting that the actual dictionary definition supports my position rather than yours. I think I am going to trust the dictionary's definition of a word rather than your opinion on what a word means.

I don't think scientists were asking themselves "How can I disprove God today?" and came up with evolution. The "framework" was the interpretation of the available evidence, regardless of God. Darwin was a Christian until he started looking at the evidence. Lamarck believed in the unchanging nature of species until he started studying invertebrates. But whether it was inspired by naturalism or Naturalism or by interpretation of available evidence, the fact remains that there is plenty of religious thought that does not take the first parts of Genesis literally.

I think the example from the life of Darwin is an interesting one because it shows that once Darwin began to see life in a naturalist viewpoint he could no longer accept the existence of God. Regarding Lamarck, there is no indication on what his initial working framework was while viewing the evidence and so it doesn't prove anything.

Yes, there are Christians out there who believe that God used evolution to create life and so on. However, I will clarify that my original point does not include theistic evolution. I was speaking in general terms and in regards to the generally accepted view of naturalistic evolution - the theory that evolution is purely driven by naturalistic forces. When an evolutionist approaches the evidence, because they approach it from a naturalist world-view, they try to explain the evidence without the need for a creator...they assume no divine intervention. I am surprised you are debating this point, at my college, the professors (who were staunch evolutionists) made this very clear.

It isn't that the evidence itself points to the absence of a creator, it is the framework with which the evidence is approached and investigated that assumes the absence of a creator. The evidence did not create the framework, the framework was brought to the evidence.

An interesting aspect to this argument is that there are many examples of people who came to be creationists not because they first believed in a God. But they took a look at the evidence and they saw that the evidence pointed to an intelligent designer. The evidence made them question their initial framework and look for another. How is that any different than evolutionists who also look at the evidence and come to the conclusion that there isn't a God? I think the answer is that everyone comes to the question of origins with a bias, they already have a predefined world-view that has shaped their thinking. When they view evidence they initially try to make it work within their assumed framework. I would hope that when the evidence ceases to work within the assumed framework then an alternative would be pursued.

[Jose]

harmonium wrote:

It isn't that the evidence itself points to the absence of a creator, it is the framework with which the evidence is approached and investigated that assumes the absence of a creator. The evidence did not create the framework, the framework was brought to the evidence.

Let's rethink this in the correct historical context, to avoid one of those I say / you say kinds of things. In Darwin's time, and for some time before, one of the main sciences was "natural theology." The foundation of this science was to demonstrate the glory of God by describing all of his creation. That is why so many of the explorer ships carrried naturalists. Darwin was just one of many.

By the time Darwin started collecting things, there was already a growing movement for some kind of evolutionary explanation of life. Darwin merely added a plausible mechanism--natural selection.

The point here is that it was the evidence, collected from around the world by Darwin and others, that forced the natural theologists to rethink their framework for interpreting what they saw. They began as creationists. The evidence forced them to create a new framework: evolution.

150 years later, we can say "aha! you are simply making the evidence fit your pre-existing framework!" and we can apply this statement to both evolutionists and creationists. What do we expect? We've had 150 years to refine the theory of evolution, based on steadily accumulating evidence, and some 2000 years to refine the notion of creation, based on the theory of the infallibility of scripture. We'll never be free of "pre-existing frameworks" for this discussion.

I think it might be prudent to set aside the notion of whether everyone has their minds made up, and ask "what is the evidence?" Let the creationists bring forth evidence that shows that X was created, and let the evolutionists bring forth evidence that X evolved. Where does the evidence itself lead?

[ST88]

Who's getting excited? It's pretty clear that I am not the only one with a bias - I hope you can recognize that you are displaying your view here as well, not just facts. Of course the actual definition of the word matters or are you now saying that words have no meaning? If that's the case then your argument is futile because you are using words with which to clobber words. I think it is interesting that the actual dictionary definition supports my position rather than yours. I think I am going to trust the dictionary's definition of a word rather than your opinion on what a word means.

Firstly, please don't confuse circumstance with intent. Neither Naturalism nor Evolution depend on one another. They can be arrived at completely independently, and were.

Secondly, that there is a thing called "naturalism" is neither here nor there. This is what I was saying about bringing up definitions of it. Evolution does not use "naturalism" as a crutch or even as a doorway; it is its own framework in the context of the evidence.

Thirdly, the idea of the dictionary definition of naturalism as an opposing notion to God is not what I was talking about. You spoke of naturalism as if it were some overarching idea that clouded the minds of scientists in the 18th & 19th centuries. It's not a working theory in and of itself, it's a deconstructionist critical notion designed to explain other theories after the fact. Darwin didn't reject God because he suddenly got naturalism. We can call his theories naturalistic because we are looking back at them. But we can't use naturalism to explain how they were devised. Such deconstructions can only be done as sociological exercises. This is what I meant by saying that naturalism is only in opposition to God because you think it is. You are applying a deconstructionist framework to a past event in order to explain it, and it doesn't work that way.

When an evolutionist approaches the evidence, because they approach it from a naturalist world-view, they try to explain the evidence without the need for a creator...they assume no divine intervention. I am surprised you are debating this point, at my college, the professors (who were staunch evolutionists) made this very clear.

Again, you're confusing circumstance with intent. Evolutionary theory is not some worldwide conspiracy to try and disprove God. And you're correct about evolution not requiring any divine intervention for itself. But evolution does not require the absence of God. Only a strict literal interpretation of the Bible would lead one to conclude that. The fact that scientists try to explain evolution without consulting the Bible is because the Bible is not helpful in this regard. Not because they have some bias against religion, but because they are curious as to how biology works. That this type of study tends to disprove your version of geologic history is not an issue. No one is trying to do that, it's just a circumstance of the evidence and the proposed theories that explain it.

It isn't that the evidence itself points to the absence of a creator, it is the framework with which the evidence is approached and investigated that assumes the absence of a creator. The evidence did not create the framework, the framework was brought to the evidence.

You are correct up to a point. Evidence does not point in any particular direction unless it is interpreted. The framework you are talking about does not assume the absence of a creator. It does not even assume that the creator did not interfere with the process. Because Creationism assumes a Creator before any evidence is interpreted, it apparently is automatically assumed that evolution assumes no creator. But this just isn't true.

An interesting aspect to this argument is that there are many examples of people who came to be creationists not because they first believed in a God. But they took a look at the evidence and they saw that the evidence pointed to an intelligent designer. The evidence made them question their initial framework and look for another. How is that any different than evolutionists who also look at the evidence and come to the conclusion that there isn't a God? I think the answer is that everyone comes to the question of origins with a bias, they already have a predefined world-view that has shaped their thinking.

I have been arguing pro-evolution, and not anti-Creationism. If you want my personal opinion, the relative intellectual weight of the two arguments are not equal. I cannot see how an un-biased, rational mind can come to the conclusion that Creationism is viable and evolution is not without a prior belief or suspicion that God exists. If you want to call this opinion a bias on my part, that's fine with me. I hope I haven't allowed this bias to color my arguments.

When they view evidence they initially try to make it work within their assumed framework. I would hope that when the evidence ceases to work within the assumed framework then an alternative would be pursued.

I'll tell you how it's different. The Creationist position requires a God, and not just any interpretation God, but the Creationist God. I.e., in order to accept Creationism, you must accept that there is a Creationist God. Evolution works in the opposite way. The theories of evolution do not automatically pre-suppose that there is no God. There is no requirement that God does not exist. People who think evolution is a valid theory might come to the conclusion that there is no God because the evidence is not consistent with one God model or another. But these decisions are well beyond the scope of the theory and fall into the realm of personal opinion.

You are free to argue that evolutionary theory has the unfortunate characteristic of tending to cause people to disbelieve in God, but not because it denies God. If you set the two models against one another -- something I don't advise, but I realize that it happens -- it appears as if they each refute each other. But it's not that simple. There are many God models (and there is more than one evolutionary model), and there are many ways to interpret the differences. If you think they have equal scientific weight, then you will tend to see the theories of one in the light of the other (such as believing that hypotheses and corollaries in Creationism have parallel logical structures in evolution). Thinking that these two versions of biology are mirror images of one another takes us out of the scope of debate logic and into the realm of opinion.

[otseng]

There has been a lot of interesting discussions in this thread. And I'd like to encourage everyone to start up separate threads (or use existing threads) to debate specific issues of C vs E. Remember, this entire subforum is here to debate C vs E. By starting threads that deal with a specific issue, things can be organized much better here and posts can be found in the relevant threads. Thanks.

[Charlotte Cowell]

I see theories of creation and evolution - which I guess, to generalise, represent the views of theologians v scientists - as being like the vertical posts of a ladder with many linking rungs linking the two - between them we can climb to reach the truth. I can't see why so many people think the two theories are mutually exclusive, because to my mind, all they do is add weight and truth to one another.
One problem, I think, is that many widely accepted, 'text-book' explanations or interpretations (of each) are based on fundamental misapprehensions. I think that religious-minded - or 'spiritual', if you like - people have an intuitive, creative understanding of the truth in our universe, but frequently lack the scientific knowledge which would give their ideas credibility. They see the overview, or the holistic view, whereas scientists tend to look at the microcosm and to reduce things to their lowest denominator - experimentation usually involves separating out elements in order to produce an explicable, measurable result, which is not conducive to seeing the overall picture.
Of course, there are many religious scientists or scientific theologians and I do think that when human consciousness and understanding evolves further, we will find that a lot of the premises upon which our text-books are based, are not quite correct. I believe the truth is simple and that there is a unifying force in the universe. I believe in creation, I believe there is an overall design in the universe - there are too many 'coincidences' in nature and life for there not to have been a creation - but I can also see that evolution has been a clear progression. I think the next stage of evolution for humans will be spiritual and involve breaking down a lot of preconceptions, pre-programming and barriers in our minds.

Charlie C
www.realm.org.uk

[nikolayevich]

Your post raises some interesting questions. I've responded in a new thread, as per Osteng's comments above:

See response here.

[youngborean]

I don't believe in either. I enjoy the attempts of both Creationism and theories of Evolution. They are both man made attempts in my mind to illuminate the active intelligence, yet I believe they are only useful within their isolated parameters. Creationism has offered a desire to seek out science, only through a lens. Evolutionism does the same, in that it has offered little to disciplines of science outside of evolutionary biology, yet it has promoted minds to work in a different ways to look at an issue. Both are good in that they promote thought in discussion. I do believe in God and the Creation story as written in Genesis. However, creationism stands as a system of man to prove that story, which is something I refuse to put my faith in. I believe there is danger in Evolutionary biologists doing the same thing and limiting thier potential achievements.

[Charlotte Cowell]

It isn't just biology, though, Quantum physics is also 'coming around' to theories which tie in with ancient spiritual beliefs about the way the universe came into existence. For example, the idea of creation and continuation through sound and/or electromagnetic waves has gained a lot of credibility in recent times and I think the idea will become stronger as we learn more. Concepts such as ESP and the power of prayer/mediation, previously counted only as the preserve of new age spiritualists or devoutly religious people, are also starting to look more realistic in the light of new quantum theory - there are now logical scientific explanations for things that were once the preserve of magicians and mystics. I think it's just a question of broadening our understanding. I think the term 'mind over matter', is a strangely apt cliche! Anyway, it's still a bit mind-boggling