The facts of evolution cannot be refuted. They are amply supported by the fossil record, with Eohippus to modern horse & early primates to Homo Sapiens being two excellent examples. The current mainstream theory of evolution does a good job of explaining those facts. Naysayers need to provide as good or a better explanation for those facts. Else, they are merely making unsupported assertions that the mainstream theory is wrong.
There are no facts of evolution... only facts of observed similarities between different species, and of observed variation within species. You call it facts of "evolution" because it supports your pre-indocrinated ideas about the universe. Give me one example of a fact which supports evolution, and I'll show you how that fact also supports creation.
It's a fact that a phenomenon called genetic drift can reveals the approximate length of time since humans and chimps had a common ancestor.
Do you want to claim a status for the 'facts of evolution' similar to the status that fundies claim for scripture (or at least for their own scripture) -- namely that it's infallible and inerrant? Many different lines of what at first look like unrelated evidence (biogeography, comparative anatomy, fossil evidence such as you've referred to, comparative genomics) all seem to come together to support evolutionary theory. That kind of consilience is itself evidence that evolutionary theory probably does capture the broad picture of how the diversity of life on earth is historically related. I agree in broad outline. Some of the details of how evolution works on the genomic level, how it dovetails with stuff like developmental biology and so on, obviously are active areas of investigation. Evolutionary biology isn't complete, finished and done. Yeah, I agree. I do have to add that I get a little uncomfortable when society starts to treat scientific ideas as doctrines of (anti-)religious faith or as political ideology.
If one chooses to imagine an omnipotent creator, then the hypothesis of 'creation' would seem to be consistent with any state of affairs whatsoever. A theory that's consistent with any result wouldn't seem to have any predictive value at all. What's more, the origin, nature, method of operation, and even the existence of the hypothetical 'creator' become brand new problems that creationism doesn't seem to be interested in addressing (except by 'faith'). The bottom line is this: Explanations seek to reduce unknowns to knowns. If instead, we end up just introducing even bigger mysteries in place of little ones, we are blowing smoke and mystifying things.
This all seems an exercise in semantics. As some of you may know, I am a Christian, but one who accepts The Theory of Evolution... for now. It's brilliant, and probably 'true', whatever that means. However, I wish to quote an agnostic anthropology professor of mine (Dr. J. Marino, may he rest in peace) who said something like,' Darwin's Theory is a good theory, but that is all it is - a theory ! Almost all scientists accept it as a given, and rightly so, but thank God (said my dear agnostic prof) that not all of them do! That's just bad science.' You may all recall just a few years ago scientists found new proof of evolution, in the Galapagos Islands, of all places, among Darwin's finches. It seems some of the little birdies have gone right on adapting their beaks and foraging habits, and diets although they are not known to have read either The Origin of Species or Genesis. I agree with Matthew809 (Um, the above poster, not the Gospel verse): "There are no facts of evolution... only facts of observed similarities between different species, and of observed variation within species. You call it facts of "evolution" because it supports your pre-indocrinated ideas about the universe." Again though, it all seems a matter of semantics.
Creation lore is " given". It doesn't need an evidential support structure; any isolated factoid can be contorted to fit creation belief. Evolution science is earned. Every observation, every measurement, every fact that went into building it has been challenged, argued, tested and compared to every other fact, before it gained acceptance, and is even afterward re-examined in the light of every new piece of evidence, and each new piece of evidence only makes it stronger. As theories go, this one has been proven in the face of ferocious opposition - indeed, the only handhold its opponents can grasp is the word "theory".
Mathew809: From your Post #2 The above is a reply to the following from my Post #1 You do not seem to understand the difference between the facts of the fossil record & the explanation provided by the mainstream theory of evolution. Are you claiming that the fossil record is a fairy tale rather than facts? Are you claiming that the theory of evolution does not provide an explanation of those facts?is Note that my Post only claimed that the mainstream theory of evolution provides a very cogent explanation for the facts of the fossil record. My Post then asks that naysayers such as you provide a better explanation for those facts. You have yet to do so. Can you provide a better explanation for the fossils associated with the progression of species from Eohippus to modern horse or those associated with the species from early primates to Homo Sapiens.
Pardon, Jeeves. No one is talking about creationism here. That's a whole nother kettle of fishes. As I have mentioned innumerable times in other threads just today, I am a Christian - and I agree with you completely. So c'mon! I'm throwing you a bone here (no fossil-digger's pun intended). Let's put that particular 'bone of contention' aside and focus on the matter at hand. Shall we? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Yes, the only handhold its opponents can grasp is the word "theory", but the fact is that evolution, as good a theory as it is, remains a theory. That's how science works. Charles Darwin, I like to think, was a true scientist, and if someday someone comes up with something better, or I would guess at something much along the same lines but more refined, why, Darwin will shake that new theorist's hand (in Heaven, if you will) and thank him for clearing things up. That's what science is about, not the dogmatic clinging to any particular theory no matter how well supported it seemed to be by evidence when it was in vogue. In one of his books, The God Illusion, possibly, Richard Dawkins tells of an elderly microbiologist who was for decades the chief proponent of the theory that there is no such thing as the Golgi apparatus in a cell. He theorized that it was an optical illusion, and had said so in his university lectures for years. The old gentleman attended the lecture of a young microbiologist who showed that (theoretically) the Golgi apparatus is indeed 'a thing'. When the lecture was over, the old scientist met the younger and shook his hand, and thanked him for his new theory, saying that he now saw that he had been mistaken all those years. Dawkins wrote that the story even as he recalled it brought a tear to his eye.
I'm not sure what your professor meant by "that is all it is - a theory". I agree that evolutionary theory is a theory (or a closely related family of theories perhaps), but calling something a 'theory' shouldn't have perjorative connotations. My own inclination is to say that the 'facts' of evolution are what actually happened out there with the history of life on earth. They are actually existing states of affairs. Facts aren't true or false, they just are. Theories are models that human beings create that try to capture and represent what what's really happening in reality. Scientific theories are expressed in mathematical and/or natural language and they can be true or false. What Darwin and Newton thought up, and what their successors have elaborated on to no end, are theories. Theories' success comes in the form of explanatory and predictive power. So, if your professor was merely cautioning his students that theories are human creations and aren't necessarily infallible or inerrant, I agree with him entirely. What does 'a given' mean? Treating a scientific theory as if it was religious scripture in the fundamentalist sense, as something revealed and inerrant, is obviously bad science. But treating a well-verified and very-successful scientific theory as a working assumption isn't any kind of error, it's how scientists conduct their business every day.
My old professor meant his use of the word 'theory' at that time in any pejorative way whatsoever. he was just reminding us of the meaning of the word. A theory by definition cannot be set in stone. By 'a given' he only meant to say that the theory was so widely accepted that it had become practically 'fact'. In any case, I am only paraphrasing him. All this happened years and years ago when I was a boy and Shep was a pup. Of course, I cannot remember his exact words. Apologies if I was unclear or have besmirched the professor's good name.
Here are a bunch: Evening Primrose (Oenothera gigas) Kew Primrose (Primula kewensis) Raphanobrassica Hemp Nettle (Galeopsis tetrahit) Madia citrigracilis Brassica Maidenhair Fern (Adiantum pedatum) Woodsia Fern (Woodsia abbeae) Stephanomeira malheurensis Yellow Monkey Flower (Mimulus guttatus) Fruit fly (Drosophila paulistorum) These are all organisms that evolved into new species as we watched.
OK. I agree that these organisms support the theory of evolution. Now... God designed all these organisms with the ability for dramatic change over generations, within predefined limits as allowed in their respective DNA code. See, these organisms also support the idea of creation. These "facts" of evolution are also therefore "facts" of creation.
That's fine. If you are claiming "God designed atoms to one day form molecules which one day would form DNA which one day would allow evolution" you're really saying the same thing as all the biologists out there. (Many physicists would disagree but that's another discussion.) Agreed. All life comes from somewhere, and if you want to call that creation that's fine. They do not, however, support young earth _creationism_ which says that God made dogs and wolves and birds and bats and whales as they are now.
So what are those limits? And if we see an organism that transcends those limits, would that invalidate creationism? And how do you explain how all these kinds of organisms arose from single celled ancestors in the first place?
hmmmm . . . sounds like a good reason to keep creationists out of the ballgame. no, the situation is real enough.
Why is this thread in the Religion forum? Is this a discussion about a scientific theory, or about religious belief? Right. And Einstein's Theory of General Relativity is just a theory. And the germ theory of disease is just a theory. And Pythagoras's theorem is just a theorem. And the idea that there are atoms is just a theory. And the idea that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere contributes to the greenhouse effect is just a theory. And the idea that fire is caused when oxygen combines with other elements is just a theory (as is the idea that a gas called "oxygen" exists). Everything of value in science is "just a theory". That's not a proof of evolution, just evidence in favour of it. The truth of the theory of evolution, just like all good scientific theories, lies in the accumulation of evidence in support of theory and the lack of evidence against it. It's perverse to deny facts in this manner. If I can produce a certain gas reliably, and repeatably see it produce flames when combined with various other substances, and I choose to call that gas "oxygen", I may as well say that the existence of "oxygen" is a fact, not just an observed, repeatable similarity that has something to do with fire. In principle, anybody can go out and verify for themselves the "fact" of evolution in the same way that they can go out and verify the existence of oxygen. Yes. It's a question of what it takes to say that something exists. If an overwhelming amount of evidence won't do it for you, then what will?
Fine. What is the matter at hand? Evolution theory is proved to the point where you can base practical science and technology on it. It's not a "given". Electricity is only a theory, as well, but the lights work, so what's the point of contention?
I agree, but then what's the point of contending over anything? And what's the point of anything? I'm done here. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
