What if Evolution is True?

Creationism, Evolution, and other science issues

Moderator: Moderators

User avatar
Jose
Guru
Posts: 2011
Joined: Thu Sep 02, 2004 4:08 pm
Location: Indiana

What if Evolution is True?

Post #1

Post by Jose »

From my point of view, evolution is a really interesting theory that explains the history of life on earth. I see no religious significance to it, one way or another. Yet, there are others who consider it to be a Very Bad Thing.

This raises the question: why would it be so bad for evolution to be true? Maybe to simplify this, I'll consider several discrete issues:

1. What will happen if it turns out that evolution really is true?

2. Why will this happen?

3. What evidence is there to support this prediction?


I would be interested to hear what the creationists have to say in response to these questions. I would also be interested to learn whether the evolutionists can offer evidence that would indicate a different outcome.

Thanks for the help!

--Jose

User avatar
Jose
Guru
Posts: 2011
Joined: Thu Sep 02, 2004 4:08 pm
Location: Indiana

Post #11

Post by Jose »

abulafia wrote: Firstly, If one considers the Bible to be absolutely reliable, and the surface meanings of what it says to be accurate, it is possible to then surrender one's self fully to its teachings, proscriptions, etc. There are several reasons why this would appeal. If the absolute reliability of the historical elements is undermined, that undermines the reliability of the whole Bible. That's not to say that it loses all of its power, but it would no longer have that special distinction of being infallible. It is then up to the reader to struggle through determining what sections of it they think are true, what sections they want to base their life on, etc.
Yes...you've raised exactly my wife's argument: "it's easier to follow. You don't have to know all that dumb science." Having an infallible source is much more secure. But this still doesn't get at the intensity of feeling. For example: when Kansas removed evolution from the state standards, scientists started telling Kansas jokes. For my part, I started writing all of my evolution exam questions about fossils I'd found in Kansas. When it switched a year later, the new school board received death threats and hate mail calling them "babykillers"--but not jokes that make scientists look silly. I think I have a sense of the reasons here, but I'd like to see them articulated by someone who holds them dear, so I can understand them more fully.
abulafia wrote: Another key reason I think has to do with a very appropriate attack on the way that science and scientific theories are frequently presented, particularly in schools, but also more generally. Often in schools the best scientific theories of the day are taught as absolute fact. Students are taught that it's taken humanity a while to figure out how things work, and while we certainly don't know everything, here's the things we do know. Anything which is heterodox is ridiculed or laughed out.
Exellent point. There is a big push to replace the goofy way science is presented with inquiry-based, logic-based teaching. It's hard to do, of course, especially the way that K-12 teachers are themselves trained (for which I take my share of the blame; see also my letter to the editor in an upcoming issue of Science). The tradition has been to try to bring students up to speed with what we know, so that they can do some original research on things we don't yet know. We see where this leads us: "here are the facts. Memorize them."

Unfortunately, we also have NCLB, which strongly reinforces this "just the facts" approach. High-stakes testing, based on multiple-choice tests, is a lousy way to encourage thinking--especially if the results are punitive. We can work on it, but it's going to be hard.

I like your commentary on discussions with creationists who know the science and its methods of discourse. Here, we can have fun, and kick around ideas and evidence for or against. The non-scientists, though, are often the more vocal, and are often the ones who seek to force "equal time" clauses and "textbook disclaimers" and such onto the rest of the students. I'd like to know how to reach them with the message of dispassionate discussion.

The hard-core anti-evolutionists who know they are distorting the truth, however, are another matter. It's dishonest to agree in public that the Paluxy footprints are not, after all, dinosaurs and humans (especially the ones with the chisel marks), and then turn around and use them again as evidence the next week, in front of a new audience. Here again, it is important to reach the non-scientists, and try to get to a reasonable discussion. If you don't know the science, you can be swayed with ease--either way, as you rightly point out.

User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 20499
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 197 times
Been thanked: 335 times
Contact:

Post #12

Post by otseng »

Jose wrote:
I guess, what I'm getting at is, "why is it such a big deal that so many literalist Christians seem so insistent that evolution must be wrong, that scientists must be conspiring to keep the truth from being published in scientific journals, and that it is critical to get creationism into the school curricula (currently disguised as ID)?" If it's just a matter of interpreting scripture slightly differently, that doesn't seem like such a momentous issue. There must be much more at stake.

Perhaps I'm hanging out with the wrong crowd, but I don't see many Christians around me with this mindset. I don't necessary think it is critical to teach Creationism in public schools. And I don't believe there is a conspiracy to keep Creationism out of schools.

I think it is a small minority of Christians that are adamant about pushing Creationism into schools. I may be wrong and I certainly don't have any numbers to support that.
Jose wrote:
The non-scientists, though, are often the more vocal, and are often the ones who seek to force "equal time" clauses and "textbook disclaimers" and such onto the rest of the students. I'd like to know how to reach them with the message of dispassionate discussion.

Hopefully this forum can be one point of contact between involved parties and provide civil discussions on this issue.
Abulafia wrote:
I think to the vast majority of evolutionists, something here seems horribly wrong. Doesn't this abovementioned creationist approach defy Occam's razor? Isn't it simpler for the universe to be the result of a few rules, simple in their basics though complex in their interactions than for it to be the product of Divine agency?

I think it goes both ways. Some things have a more elegant explanation in EM, yet some things have a more elegant explanation in CM. I don't think either one has the monopoly on Occam's razor.

User avatar
Jose
Guru
Posts: 2011
Joined: Thu Sep 02, 2004 4:08 pm
Location: Indiana

Post #13

Post by Jose »

otseng wrote:Jose wrote:

I guess, what I'm getting at is, "why is it such a big deal that so many literalist Christians seem so insistent that evolution must be wrong, that scientists must be conspiring to keep the truth from being published in scientific journals, and that it is critical to get creationism into the school curricula (currently disguised as ID)?" If it's just a matter of interpreting scripture slightly differently, that doesn't seem like such a momentous issue. There must be much more at stake.

Perhaps I'm hanging out with the wrong crowd, but I don't see many Christians around me with this mindset. I don't necessary think it is critical to teach Creationism in public schools. And I don't believe there is a conspiracy to keep Creationism out of schools.
They must be more abundant here. There's also the Wedge Document which calmly states their goal as "To see intelligent design theory as the dominant perspective in science" starting with things like getting Ohio to require the Critical Analysis of Evolution lesson plan (rtf document) which asks students to discuss homology, the fossil record, antibiotic resistance, peppered moths, endosymbiosis, etc. and offers examples of how teachers and students should use these to argue against evolution. You know the arguments--homology is used in circular reasoning, there are no transitional fossils, there is no accurate dating of geological strata because of circular reasoning, antibiotic resistance is microevolution and therefore doesn't count, the peppered moths were faked, and no one has observed endosymbiosis take place. They also offer incorrect definitions of terms, in order to make the discussion more confusing.

Were these honest analyses, rather than re-use of arguments that have been demonstrated to have no merit, it would be different. But, with the deception, and the fierce fight to get this into the classroom, and the long-term goal of replacing science (and eventually politics and law) with biblical teachings, it is clear that there is more at stake for these people than just whether they need to interpret Genesis more metaphorically.

They are, perhaps, a small minority, but they are very vocal, very organized, and politically connected.
otseng wrote:Hopefully this forum can be one point of contact between involved parties and provide civil discussions on this issue.
Indeed.
otseng wrote:Some things have a more elegant explanation in EM, yet some things have a more elegant explanation in CM. I don't think either one has the monopoly on Occam's razor.
Occam's razor doesn't weigh much. Anyone can use it. Of course, it's not infallible. We'd prefer if the simpler hypothesis were correct, so we choose it first, but we sometimes find that additional information forces us to the more complex choice. Occam's razor is a useful tool, but we must recognize it as such. I think we usually do.

Abulafia
Student
Posts: 58
Joined: Wed Sep 08, 2004 8:08 pm
Location: Vancouver, BC

Post #14

Post by Abulafia »

otseng wrote:
Abulafia wrote:
I think to the vast majority of evolutionists, something here seems horribly wrong. Doesn't this abovementioned creationist approach defy Occam's razor? Isn't it simpler for the universe to be the result of a few rules, simple in their basics though complex in their interactions than for it to be the product of Divine agency?

I think it goes both ways. Some things have a more elegant explanation in EM, yet some things have a more elegant explanation in CM. I don't think either one has the monopoly on Occam's razor.
Good point. I still need to understand better the best CM models out there, and was mainly working from my understanding of 'mainstream' science. Thanks for pointing out my unstated assumptions! ;)

User avatar
Jose
Guru
Posts: 2011
Joined: Thu Sep 02, 2004 4:08 pm
Location: Indiana

Post #15

Post by Jose »

Now that we have so many new members, I thought I'd try to wake up this thread again.

There seems to be a lot of political activity centered around teaching "problems" with evolution, teaching "alternatives" to evolution, and generally trying to sow doubt that evolution might be reasonable. This puzzles me, because I see no reason for evolution to conflict with any religious views, or why anyone who is deeply religious should have any problem with evolution.

Now, I've heard many people say that "people who believe evolution are godless heathens who behave like animals, blah blah blah, etc." Saying things like this is painting evolutionists with assumed behaviors, and is IMHO creating fear where none should exist.

So, I'd like to ask the question the other way around. Suppose evolution really is true--and has been for millions and millions of years. If so, then we still have the Bible, and we still have a bazillion other religions, and we still have whatever sort of morality different people consider valid. We have all of these things, just as they are, even though evolution occurred and continues to occur.

Questions for debate:

If evolution really is true, would it change anything? Would anything at all happen?

Based on the answer to this question, why bother trying to fight off evolution?
Panza llena, corazon contento

israeltour
Apprentice
Posts: 174
Joined: Mon May 16, 2005 3:16 pm
Location: California
Contact:

Post #16

Post by israeltour »

Questions for debate:
Jose wrote:If evolution really is true, would it change anything?

Apparently not, since everything is what is. :D

I would restate the question: if the Church realized that eveolution was true, would it change anything? --> to this, the answer is yes. It would change their interpretation of Genesis 1... perhaps to something like I've been advocating, that it's a scientifically accurate account of what happened right after the dinosaurs were killed 65 million years ago... just assume that the perspective is from above the earth spinning beneath you, but below the firmament.

Jose wrote:Would anything at all happen?

Unclear. If it happens the way I want it to, then people whose only obstacle to accepting Jesus is Genesis would then be free to come know Him.

Jose wrote:Based on the answer to this question, why bother trying to fight off evolution?
I completely agree, but people are needlessly stubborn.

teegstar
Student
Posts: 15
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2005 9:04 am
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Re: What if Evolution is True?

Post #17

Post by teegstar »

Jose wrote:From my point of view, evolution is a really interesting theory that explains the history of life on earth. I see no religious significance to it, one way or another. Yet, there are others who consider it to be a Very Bad Thing.

This raises the question: why would it be so bad for evolution to be true? Maybe to simplify this, I'll consider several discrete issues:

1. What will happen if it turns out that evolution really is true?

2. Why will this happen?

3. What evidence is there to support this prediction?


I would be interested to hear what the creationists have to say in response to these questions. I would also be interested to learn whether the evolutionists can offer evidence that would indicate a different outcome.

Thanks for the help!

--Jose
1. What will happen if it turns out that evolution really is true?

I think the reason so many religions are afraid to embrace the Theory of Evolution is that is puts a hard challenge against their creeds. Evolution redefines who and what we are as a species, and where we are going. Accepting that the world was round was much easier, as it only changed a very minor detail of the Bible. Evolution goes straight up against fundamental elements of the Bible. Genesis is a fable, humans are no better than donkeys, and the world may in fact be black and white. The foundation of religion (the Bibles) will be rocked and people may look elsewhere for their spiritual wellbeing.

2. Why will this happen?

As more people study Evolution, as science begins to fill in all the gaps whre God once sat, they will tell others. It will happen because people will learn to understand how biological, ecological, genetic, chemical, physical and satistical theories all explain Evolution. People will pass their knowledge on and gain more knowledge. Like anything though, it will take time, longer than our lifetime thats for sure!

3. What evidence is there to support this prediction?

Well, as they say, we study Evolution (the past) so that we can understand our future - so i'll do that right now. In the past the scientific community has brought many theories to the world. From the Earth being round, to the explaination of many natural disasters once thought to be the work of the Gods. People, over time, have come to accept the scientific basis for these facts - over time the same will apply to evolution. Its only a new Theory remember - it isnt even 200 years old, its barley 100 years old - your greatgrand parents didnt know anything of it!

User avatar
Jose
Guru
Posts: 2011
Joined: Thu Sep 02, 2004 4:08 pm
Location: Indiana

Post #18

Post by Jose »

Thanks, teegstar! Unless I'm reading your post differently than you intended, it seems to me that you've discussed this from the viewpoint of the other thread on this topic: "the consequences of believing in evolution." That is, what you predict--with which I fully agree--is the consequences of people discarding their religious beliefs and accepting evolution in their place.

This is really a different question, if an odd one. If evolution really is true, and has been since the beginning, then wouldn't it be necessary to conclude that all of our religions can flourish, and have flourished, even in an evolutionary world? Wouldn't it be necessary to conclude that none of the horrible things that anti-evolutionists predict will not, and cannot happen--because the world is exactly the way they claim it is not, and these things didn't happen?

I would really like to hear theists', and YEC's views on this...if what you and your predecessors have argued against for so long is actually the way the world is, what will happen? It's easy for us evolutionists to answer the question in our way, but what about for anti-evolutionists?
Panza llena, corazon contento

User avatar
fire_of_Jesus
Student
Posts: 61
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2005 1:02 pm
Location: michigan(231)

Post #19

Post by fire_of_Jesus »

jose ur an evolutionist? why? thats not the right path thats for sure. if evolution is true then how did all these different religions flourish? how did they find noahs ark on Mt. Arack? and the ark was the exsact leangths as it was in the bible and made out of the same wood, how strange that is if God never even existed, wow i wonder how Moses could have predicted that a boat with all those measerments could have came to rest on Mt. Arack. how strange that is dont u agree jose? if evolution is true then why did they find Jesus's robes in his tomb? If u know about these things as i do then u would know that there is know way that all thses things could have happen if God doesnt exist. #-o dang u sure hit ur head on that one didnt u? how do u guys come up with these nonsence topics that even a 15 year old Christian can prove to be wrong? i hope in the future maybe u numb skulls can come up with a more debatable topic. well see ya all later u evoltutionist peeps.

User avatar
micatala
Site Supporter
Posts: 8338
Joined: Sun Feb 27, 2005 2:04 pm

Post #20

Post by micatala »

Hi again fire_of_jesus. As I did in the Nazarath thread, I will ask if you have a citation or some evidence we can look up on the discovery of Noah's ark, as well as Jesus' burial cloth. In the forum, we ask that assertions be backed up with evidence, and while this does not always occur (at least to my satisfaction ;) ), it is always a good idea to say 'how you know what you know,' or 'why you believe what you believe.' Yes, this does mean that when you provide sources, some may question the veracity of the sources, but that is part of the nature of debate.

To prove something wrong, you have to provide evidence that it cannot possibly be true. This evidence could be Biblical, but extra-biblical sources are also good, because not even all Christians will always agree on the appropriate interpretation of scripture, and those who are not Christian will not be persuaded at all if only Biblical evidence is cited.

PS I'll also again suggest that leaving out the insults (also referred to as ad hominem attacks) would be better practice.

Post Reply