A few months ago, I had intended to create a website by the name of Arguing Origins, intended to be a blog about the ridiculous "Creation vs Evolution" non-issue. I even went as far as to hire a cartoonist, the brilliant L.J. Dopp, to illustrate a satirical cartoon poking fun at the creationist point of view.
Unfortunately, for a variety of reasons (mostly that the creationist movement seems to have, thankfully, stalled), the site is now unlikely to ever be launched. However, several of the cartoons have been completed and I thought some of you might enjoy having a look. The ideas came from both myself and L.J., and L.J. was responsible for the brilliant visuals.
The cartoon is called "God's Sketchbook", and the premise is that, if there was an intelligent designer responsible for creating everything, maybe it took him a few attempts to get things right. Enjoy.
41 Comments
Hehe, I didn't quite get the fifth one (unless it's the play on the (l)eggs thing?) but the others were funny. As for the whole religion vs science, I don't think that has stopped at all, and I would still definitely subscribe to a blog about it if you started one.
I myself am an Atheist (the capital letter was intentional). I see religions as nothing but a large cult started as a way to brainwash people in to having morals and ethics, but unfortunately it went wrong and created the mess that is religion. As one person on TV once said, "without religion bad people do bad things, and good people do good things, but with religion good people do good things". Having said that; I have a few religious friends and as long as they do not preach to me and accept my views, I won't 'disrespect' them or anything.
#1, Lewis, Unknown, 7 November 2006. Reply to this.
"but with religion good people do good things"
Should be:
"but with religion good people do bad things"
:P
#2, Lewis, Unknown, 7 November 2006. Reply to this.
Hi Lewis,
On the subject of religion as a cult, I suggest you read Richard Dawkins' The God Delusion - in it he explores a few possible reasons for the widespread adoption of religion. Very interesting reading.
#3, Dave Child, United Kingdom, 7 November 2006. Reply to this.
Very clever. I'd second the notion that the movement to include "intelligent design" in science classrooms is not over. It's definitely lost a lot of steam thankfully, but there are still people out there wanting to put it in schools, including the idiot we have running the country over here across the pond. Ugh!
#4, J.D., United States, 7 November 2006. Reply to this.
I believe that religion is a good thing when it comes to educate people good manners and ethics. Nothing more!
And when people start killing eatch other because of religions I just shake my had and wish that this world would be some better place to lieve.
If I meet an alien sometime, I won't admit that I come from this planet calles earth :) - It's just a shame sometimes!!!
#5, Georges, Austria, 7 November 2006. Reply to this.
The thing is, religion is a way of threatening people to have good manners and ethics. If you don't act nice you'll "go to hell". The reality is, you get these extremists who start taking religion in to their own hands and doing what they think "god" is ethical.
#6, Lewis, Unknown, 7 November 2006. Reply to this.
Coming from a Christian background, the problem I see with Creationism has little to do with religion and more to do with the human need to be have what one believes to be right, often at the expense of trying to find out what is really true. I think that its quite clear that if God exists as Christians believe, He didn't consult the creationists as to how He put things together.
As far as religion in general is concerned, a lot of the moral precepts (honesty, charity, respect for others, faithfulness in marriage, etc.), that they espouse are generally those things that benefit society. The failure occurs when those precepts are ignored by people who prefer to let others do their thinking for them and by those who use and twist religion to gain wealth and power/control over others. We've seen it throughout history and we see it today. I have a few dedicated Christian friends whom I greatly respect but what I see as the overwhelming misuse/abuse of religion is what causes me to seriously question the reality of God.
#7, Steve, United States, 7 November 2006. Reply to this.
Very well said, Steve (and you are very much not alone in your questioning). It's unfortunately rare to see any Christians talking the way you do. I'm sure there are plenty of them, but they're not a very vocal group in my experience.
Lewis and Georges: Religion is, according to some people, about power. Humans are predisposed towards believing in higher powers, and predisposed to acting upon belief - and while religion is widely credited with responsibility for morality and ethics, atheists and non-religious cultures also have strong moral and ethical principles. Religion has helped, and hurt, a great many people - neither of which justifies teaching of unscientific information as science.
You are also both right in realising that the worst face of religion is the extremist one. People killing for their religion is a very bad thing. However, there are a great many people that are suffering all around the world because of religous beliefs - the woman being sentenced to 90 lashes of a whip for being in a car with a man when unmarried (rape victim, Saudi Arabia), the couple prevented from getting married at all (John and Steve, USA (fictional)), the child whose education is suffering because they are forced to spend hours every week listening to preachers talking about something they don't believe in (me when I was at school).
And why? Because their parents believe something. Why do their parents believe? Because their parents' parents believed. And so on. That's no basis for a society to function on. That's why the USA was formed as a secular society. That's why the UK is a functionally secular society. For some reason though, pre-Christ thinking still affects our lives today and still forms the basis for much of our society's laws and regulations - whichever side of the pond you are on.
To all ... apologies for the rant - I feel quite strongly about religion generally. Believe what you want, by all means. But you can't expect other people to live their lives according to the rules you arbitrarily attribute importance to (or expect them to even pay the slightest attention to those rules), however important you feel they might be.
#8, Dave Child, United Kingdom, 7 November 2006. Reply to this.
I'm a new Christian myself and simply don't see Creation vs Evolution as a very important debate. Sure, it's worth thinking about but when people get riled up about it it's kind of saddening. And yes, I'm fully in agreement that extremist views are bad in religion, they're often bad elsewhere too.
As for the subject matter, I follow the creationist line of thought but don't rule out Evolution, it happens but we didn't evolve from Monkeys.
#9, Teifion Jordan, United Kingdom, 7 November 2006. Reply to this.
Please do not judge me until you finish reading my statement!
I am a Christian. However, I am also a engineer. I mention this because I am quite scientific in my thinking. I have no problem accepting evolution as the how and God as the why (to quote South Park). I also do not believe that Creation (or the not so clever mask Intelligent Design) should be taught in science classes... because it's not science.
What I have to take issue with here is the attitude that Christians are somehow blind to reality. I believe that the major problem that Christianity suffers from is the same thing that politics suffers from (imagine that... religion and politics in the same sentence!). Some individual are so passionate about what they believe that they are not willing to listen to other ideas and are not willing to have any kind of intellectual discussion about it. If you disagree with them then you must be wrong. As a Christian I am sick and tired of my fellow Christians giving me a bad name (much like my Muslim friends are sick and tired of being associated with terrorism).
Please don't judge all Christians or Christianity by the ignorant actions of a few. I believe that those that you all have spoken of are missing the point of Christianity. I say this about the various denominations all the time. When people argue about whether they should be baptist or methodist or other... they've missed the point.
If anyone is interested in helping their Christian friends (or yourself) I would highly recommend a book series (just 3 books) called 'A New Kind of Christian.'
#10, JP, United States, 8 November 2006. Reply to this.
Hi Teifion,
Thanks for your comment. You said "it happens but we didn't evolve from Monkeys". I am curious - what do you base that on? From a purely scientific point of view, the alternatives are few and far between. Do you say that because you don't want us to have evolved from "lower" life? Or because you have seen scientific evidence to the contrary?
JP: That's interesting. Certainly the extremists make the whole issue trickier, and there's little doubt that extremism is unhelpful in all forms. What you see as extremism might not be the same as what other people see as extremism though. You might see Christians on the street trying to convert (or is the expression "save"?) people as they go about their daily business as normal or average - I see that as extreme. Same with people asking for religion to be taught as fact, or parents forcing religion on their children. Extremism seems to be, like most things, dependant very much on your point of view.
#11, Dave Child, United Kingdom, 8 November 2006. Reply to this.
Teifion: You're correct, we didn't evolve from monkeys. However, all simians - monkeys and apes, including the five species of great ape (Chimpanzees, Bonobos, Orang Utans, Gorillas and Humans) - did evolve from a common ancestor. The evidence precludes any other conclusion.
#12, Nick Fitzsimons, United Kingdom, 8 November 2006. Reply to this.
Confucius or Buddah (??) once said it is good for man to be born with religion, and bad to die with it. Meaning that's where you get a good moral background, but you must begin to think for yourself as you mature.
#13, BDB, United States, 16 November 2006. Reply to this.
Actually, Lewis, atheism is just another religious view, and is therefore no different to any other religious view, such as Budhism, Islam, Confucianism, Hinduism, Christianity.
Regarding creation/ evolution, the only question is, what actually happened? How did the place come into being? Both the atheist/ evolutionist point of view and the creationist point of view are religious points of view. To find out which one is right - and they are mutually exclusive - we have to examine the evidence. My impression is that most atheists are not willing to do that because if the creation model fits the evidence better than the evolution model they would have to acknowledge there is a creator and they could no longer be atheists.
Creationists have the same problem, but not as acute, because they can more easily compromise by saying that God used evolution to create the universe.
But the evidence, how does that go? Ideally we would approach it with an open mind, but as I have just said, none of us has an open mind. We all have our biases.
Try this: Write down what evidence you would expect with an evolution model, and what evidence you would expect with a creation model. This exercise itself will help, because it will show you what both sides are actually saying, rather than what you think they're saying. Then examine each piece of evidence and put it in the column for either evolution or creation, depending on how the evidence stacks up.
Then honestly re-assess your religious viewpoint on the basis of the results.
Disclaimer: Take care. This is a dangerous exercise if done properly.
#14, Willem, Australia, 17 November 2006. Reply to this.
Actually, Willem, you're dead wrong on all counts.
Evolution is a scientific theory. It is the best explanation for all the evidence of life on Earth, observed reality, and falsifiable testing.
Creationism is not - it's based on mythology. You say it "fits" better, but your problem is one of understanding the difference between science and faith. Creationism requires faith - faith in a supernatural god who is not falsifiable.
Can I prove that god does not exist? No. Can you prove that he does? No. Can you disprove the existence of Zeus or Shiva or Vishnu or leprechauns or aliens? No. And that doesn't make them real, does it?
Belief in god (in fact, belief in any religion) is a belief in something supernatural. The key word being SUPER - beyond nature, which we with our five senses cannot observe.
Evolution is based entirely on science - science being a process of observed reality and falsifiable testing. And evolution is certainly falsifiable, but only through evidence, observed reality, and falsifiable testing. If you want to say "evolution is false" then prove it - don't just default to the primitive notion that our ancestors did: "I don't understand this, so there must be a force/entity/being greater than myself who created it."
The fact is that every single piece of evidence - every fossil, every living thing, every observation, every piece of research is another piece of the puzzle and the picture that puzzle forms is one of a process of evolution by natural selection.
Your sense of reason is seriously, fundamentally flawed when you try to equate faith in the supernatural with the observed realities of nature.
When someone comes along and says they believe God created the world and that evolution and therefore all of modern natural sciences (biology, zoology, genetics, and so on) are false, the onus is on them to prove it. All the evidence supports science because the science is based on the evidence.
Your evidence is a book writted thousands of years ago by some nameless member of primitive superstitious humans.
All the Creationist literature you'll read is focused solely on disproving evolution - finding "holes" in the theory. And evolution is full of holes, but that's fine in science. Science is not based on tearing down that to which evidence points. Science is finding the best explanation for an observed phenomenon, testing that explanation as new evidence arises.
So, tell us, what is the observable evidence that's points towards the creation story? I can't wait to hear this one.
Let me grab some popcorn.
#15, Pat, Unknown, 17 November 2006. Reply to this.
Willem:
> Actually, Lewis, atheism is just another religious view, and is therefore no different to any other religious view, such as Budhism, Islam, Confucianism, Hinduism, Christianity.
You could expand the definition of religion to cover just about anything. Go to the loo every day? That could be a religion. Brush your hair? Religion. Eat? Religion.
But just because you could do that doesn't mean you should. Atheism is the absense of belief in any god. Atheists share nothing beyond that. There is no common belief system or ethos or agenda among atheists.
Religion is defined usually as including belief in a supernatural power, traditions, worship and a shared philosophy. Atheism is the lack of belief in a supernatural power, and demands no traditions be observed, requires no worship and includes no shared philosophy.
It is worth noting that many people define Buddhism as NOT a religion, as it lacks the belief in a god.
What you are saying, Willem, is what creationists love to say at every opportunity (I'm not saying you are a creationist) - the aim being to draw comparisons between evolution and creationism and have both regarded as equally valid scientific explanations for the same thing. But as Pat points out, science cannot be based on faith, else it stops being science.
#16, Dave Child, United Kingdom, 17 November 2006. Reply to this.
I find it interesting that neither Pat nor Dave is willing to take up the challenge of testing the evidence to see which model - evolution or creation - fits the evidence the best. Why not apply that test? Isn't science actually the testing of hypotheses to see which hypothesis is the one most likely to be correct?
Dave, I did not say that atheism is a religion; I said it is a religious view. Which it is, because it is, by definition, a view of God.
You also say that science cannot be based on faith. Exactly what do you mean? Evolution is based on the faith that there is no God. Creation is based on the faith that there is. Either could be wrong, so both are faiths.
As I keep on saying, the real question is, what actually happened? How did the place come into being? The question 'Is there a God/ isn't there a God?' isn't the question being discussed. It may be the answer, but it isn't the question. The question is 'What actually happened? How did the place come into being?'
To really get at the answer to this question we need to be able to ask ourselves 'If the atheist/ evolution presupposition is correct, does the evidence fit? And then we've got to also ask ourselves 'If the creationist presupposition is correct, does the evidence fit?
If we are not willing to do that, then we have eliminated one option without examining it, all because we don't believe that it is science! That is a faith based decision! It is certainly not science!
What if the creationists are right and the universe was created, and we just keep on saying 'Huh, that's not science, so we can't examine that. ' We just cut ourselves off from what might be the truth without even examining it! Is that 'science?' To not even examine all options? That sounds more like faith to me!
True science will examine all the options, because that is the only way to get to the truth.
Willem.
#17, Willem, Australia, 17 November 2006. Reply to this.
Willem,
I've tried to respond to what I feel are the important points in your comment:
1. Isn't science actually the testing of hypotheses to see which hypothesis is the one most likely to be correct?
Yes. Now, please come up with a hypothesis and scientific test.
2. I said it is a religious view.
Yes, you did. But you are wrong, it's the lack of a religious view. That might sound like a semantic distinction, but that's because it is - and it's an extremely important one. Atheism is defined as the lack of belief in gods - the lack of the founding part of religions - the lack of the thing that makes religions what they are.
What would you call a lack of belief in Santa Claus or the tooth fairy? A religion? Of course not. It's the same with atheists, only we think of gods in the same way most people think of santa - a nice idea, but without merit.
3. Evolution is based on the faith that there is no God.
No. Evolution makes no claims about any gods, for or against. Their existence is subject to a different debate, outside evolution. Evolution and atheism are not one and the same thing. For example, the Catholic church (not all members, of course, but officially) supports the theory of evolution - but clearly the Catholic church is not formed of atheists.
4. does the evidence fit?
Well, let's run with that, shall we. You want to look at creation in a scientific light, that's fine.
There is no hypothesis for creation. There are a lot of ideas, yes. But no hypothesis in the scientific sense. Scientists require more than a vague overview. Come up with some specifics, by all means. If you can, you'd be the first person to do so.
There are no tests for creation. There are no scientific tests you could propose that would validate a "theory of creation". The reason is that gods are outside of nature. If they exist, they do not obey the laws of nature. Any test that can be conceived could not have the potential, if it had a certain result, to disprove the creation story. And that's where it fails as science.
5. True science will examine all the options, because that is the only way to get to the truth.
Well, sort of. Science is based on the observation of the natural. It says nothing about the supernatural, because it can't. So yes, science will examine all options within the natural world, because that is the world in which science operates.
You, like anyone else, are welcome to believe in the supernatural. Many people don't. Many people that do believe in different supernatural entities. Science limits itself to what we can discover ourselves - science is based on the natural.
Which means that science can examine natural evidence and theories. Anything involving an omnipotent being is by its definition outside the natural world, and based in the supernatural. That doesn't mean you can't believe it, but it does mean that it's not science.
If you are right, then science cannot - by its own definition - tell that you are right. The supernatural is outside the laws of science. We can make educated guesses, based on science and understanding of the world, and we can calculate probabilities of supernatural pehnomena based on natural evidence.
What's interesting is your wording, Willem. You seem to wish to portray me as a scientist. Now, if PHP could determine the existence of gods, I'd be somewhat surprised. But what's interesting is that you've not addressed any of the points made by anyone else. You've repeated yourself (and others) but not responded.
#18, Dave Child, United Kingdom, 18 November 2006. Reply to this.
I'd just like to add, separately to the above, that it is really good to be able to have an open and flame-free discussion about this particular topic. That's something I've seen very little of. As soon as religion (or lack of) is involved, discussions tend to become heated very quickly and descend into slanging matches, but the people contributing here are posting eloquent, considered and interesting comments. Enjoy it while you can - for I fear it will not last much longer.
#19, Dave Child, United Kingdom, 18 November 2006. Reply to this.
Science is knowledge, etymologically speaking. Contrariwise, any system of thought that purports dogmatically something that is not provable is called faith. Atheism, Christianity, Evolution, and Creationism are all forms or parts of faith. The single biggest difference between Atheism and Evolution, and Christianity and Creation is that Christianity and Creation are admittedly faith, while Atheism tries to call itself a simple scientific understanding. It flies in the face of a simple realization that logically speaking, thought not at all imperically, there must be an immaterial first cause. It is easy enough to see in light of energy conservation and entropy that there must be something external to all of this that is responsible for bringing it all about.
Darwin said himself in his acclaimed work on the subject that the evidence lay necessarily in transitional forms and their fossil evidence (Origins, Chapter 10 [end]). However that has been given up on, in light of a lack of fossil evidence. What we have now is not his graduated equilibrium, but the punctuated equilibrium. The idea that life-forms would give birth to far evolved species that would then go on to breed their newfound traits with another like life. However, that requires a male and female of the new species be present at each genetic turn. It is not reasonable to think that such a thing is so. It is necessary to stretch the imagination and to allow for millions (1,000,000) of years (roughly 4.5 billion [1,000,000,000] by modern estimates) to have passed in order to allow for such an incredible story to be so. I do not mean to be antagonistic when I say that allowing for evolution to happen is tantamount to saying that the moon must be made of green cheese because there is no proof to the contrary.
Here is my hypothesis: Evolution, Romanism, Islam, Christianity, Judaism, atheism, and agnosticism, etc. are all forms of faith. Agnosticism is the most internally consistent of those that do not rely on Scriptures. An agnosticism that allows that there is a God and seeks him is a well-reasoned one. One that says that he is unknowable is nearly as absurd as Atheism, because it again is a statement borne out of ignorance not proof (another faith in scholarly clothes). For my part, I am a Christian and I believe in a literal 6-day creation and a young earth. Why? Because the Bible says so. How foolish is that? This foolish: If I believe it because some other silly Christian says that science and history say it is so, then I am subjecting God's word to the words of men. That is silly. And if I believe it because that day some scientist makes a finding that is in support of the Bible, then I am again subjecting the Word of God to fallible men. I believe the Bible because it is God's Word and says that it is. (Circuitous reasoning - much like atheism.) And while it may seem absurd, it is not more absurd than atheism, rather it is far less, because I don't have to fight against nature to believe there is a God, and I readily admit that there is not enough proof for what I believe, it is faith, but the atheist cannot prove his hypothesis and still says he is in accordance with science (knowledge) which it is not and he is not.
The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. Psalm 14.1a
Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Romans 1:21
#20, David Eldridge, United States, 18 November 2006. Reply to this.
I suppose that it is late to add this, but in keeping with Mr. Child's previous post, I mean to explain a couple of definitons: fool - biblically speaking is anyone who is void of the knowledge of God, so its meaning could almost be equivalent to the word atheist in the ending verses. Though in context I think I only used it of myself, in the more contemporary way. Ignorance above is not meant in its current, derogatory sense, but in the sense of lacking knowledge, from the same root as agnostic, simply meaing without 'gnosis' or knowledge. Science is synonymous with gnosis, both meaning knowledge though generally in different contexts. I included the meaning of million and billion to avoid the UK/US difference between the two. I have here used the US meaning, but expounded in context. I am sorry for the verbose explanation of my verbiage.
#21, David Eldridge, United States, 18 November 2006. Reply to this.
> However that has been given up on, in light of a lack of fossil evidence.
You may want to check that, because it shows your points to be either willfully ignorant or just plain deceptive.
> The idea that life-forms would give birth to far evolved species that would then go on to breed their newfound traits with another like life.
That would be a different theory to evolution, and one that would be unsupported by the evidence. I've not heard of any scientists claiming something as ridiculous as this ever took place.
> moon must be made of green cheese
Atheism is having the same opinion about gods as the moon being made of green cheese - I can't know for certain, but I can be pretty sure that it's not.
> I believe the Bible because it is God's Word and says that it is.
How do you reconcile the massive inconsistencies in it? Let's focus on one - where do you believe Jesus was born? What about the gospels? Those in the bible were arbitrarily chosen from a far larger number of gospels by men. Do you believe them all? They were written by men, based on stories passed through generations. Have you read the original bible or the translations? How do you deal with the mistakes in the translations (made, of course, by men)?
> Circuitous reasoning - much like atheism.
Atheism doesn't need circular reasoning. It goes like this - logically and rationally, the existence of a god makes no sense to me.
> I don't have to fight against nature to believe there is a God
I don't have to fight against nature to believe there is no god. To paraphrase Richard Dawkins, when it comes to Thor, or Zeus or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, you views are atheistic. Do you find that your lack of belief in those gods requires you to fight against nature? I just believe in one less god than you.
> atheist cannot prove his hypothesis and still says he is in accordance with science (knowledge) which it is not and he is not.
Very few atheists would say "I believe there is no god". Most would say "I don't believe there is a god". There is an important distinction there. Most atheists agree it is impossible to disprove god, in the same way it is impossible to disprove the tooth fairy.
Atheism is not a scientific theory or issue - it is a position (or, in fact, a lack of position) on the existence of god.
#22, Dave Child, United Kingdom, 18 November 2006. Reply to this.
If it were the position of every semantically careful atheist to say that they do not believe there is a god, I suppose that could be fair. Suppose. It is a presupposition based in a lack of evidence, however, that there is no God.
But honestly, saying that you don't believe there is a god, with such a careful distinction, sounds more like agnosticism. Atheism is the assertion, positively that there is not a god. Etymologically, "a-" means "no". That is then a positive assertion, so the onus is on the atheist to prove that no god exists.
> You may want to check that [punctuated equilibrium], because it shows your points to be either willfully ignorant or just plain deceptive.
That is a large assertion, it would be worth it to read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuated_equilibrium .
> That would be a different theory to evolution, and one that would be unsupported by the evidence. I've not heard of any scientists claiming something as ridiculous as this ever took place.
While I agree with you that it is unsupported by evidence, I am afraid the same is true of Phyletic Gradualism. I did not dream either up. And while Darwin's theory fails, in light of his ignorance of cellular and molecular biology, and lack of fossil evidence that has so far followed his death, punctuated equilibrium has come alongside to fill the void. The old stance (Phyletic Gradualism) can be found on Wikipedia.org: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phyletic_gradualism
It is not willful deception; rather the contrary is true. Those institutions that suggest that the idea of transitional forms is alive and well are leaving up old straw men. While Darwin's finches and the Pepper Moth are examples of survival of the fittest, they are not examples of beneficial genetic mutation. I will be happy to agree that "survival of the fittest" is not only a viable model but active. However, I don't see any positive changes in the animal kingdom's gene pool, only negative: sickle cell anemia, Down's syndrome, cancers, etc.
About the Bible: You said let's focus on one issue. But you listed out many (unless you meant that the Bible is one issue). I suppose we could try to argue many, point by point, but that is going to be a while in coming. I will argue that the Bible and the Calvinism that logically results are both internally consistent, and without flaw. However, if either has a fault, it would be my understanding first, and Calvinism second, the Bible remains true. My willingness to maintain that this is so, in light of the seeming contradictions may seem irrational, (and maybe it is). But I would argue that it is faith, which the Bible lauds. However, to hold fast to atheism despite the transcendent nature of the order of our creation, etc. is also based on a lack of evidence, but is never called faith, rather is strangely and gleefully termed "infidelity", and while it is, it is still a form of presupposition. There is still a lack of evidence.
By the way, while I know this is not the forum for it, I really dig your cheat sheets for CSS, HTML, PHP, etc. Thanks for the hard work.
Very Sincerely, David
#23, David Eldridge, United States, 18 November 2006. Reply to this.
I don't see the point in making fun of either point of view because no one can fully prove their point. I believe in a little of both. Created and then evolved into what we are now, but I do find the cartoons funny.
#24, Branden, United States, 19 November 2006. Reply to this.
Sorry to double post but, I just thought I would add this.
It seems a lot of people get uppity about this issue. I am Christian, but I have many agnostic/atheist friends. No matter what view you have, we are all in this world together, and we all need to get along.
I believe in my religion, but it seems like Church nowadays is just all "BELIEVE OR U GON BURN LOL." It's stupid. So I really don't blame people for staying away from it.
#25, Branden, United States, 19 November 2006. Reply to this.
g'day Dave,
Thanks for your response to my posts.
You said that 'Science is based on the observation of the natural. It says nothing about the supernatural, because it can't. So yes, science will examine all options within the natural world, because that is the world in which science operates.'
When I thought about this, and about some of the other posts on this subject, it seems to me that you are confusing God and creation.
You are quite right when you say that science cannot study God, or the supernatural. But that does not mean that science cannot study the effects of the supernatural in the natural world. In fact, that is exactly what science does, it studies the natural world. So if there is a God and he did create the natural world, then that is what science studies.
Now if you suspend your own beliefs for a moment, and imagine that there is a God and that he did create the world, wouldn't it be a bit silly to say, a priori, that there isn't a God, and that he didn't create the world? Aren't we then making a faith statement about God? Shouldn't science in fact say 'We really don't know whether there is a God, or whether he created the natural world or not, so we really have to examine the evidence to see if the evidence indicates that he did create, or whether it indicates that there is no such thing as creation and we have to look for some other explanation.'?
As to hypotheses to test for creation, that in itself is no more difficult than creating hypotheses for anything else. We have to ask ourselves 'If God did create the natural world, what would we expect the natural world to look like'. When we come up with answers to that question, we create a hypothesis that will test those answers. And there will be many hypotheses to cover different aspects of the natural world.
We could, for instance, ask the question of the fossill record to test whether life was created in distinct forms, or whether they evolved one from another:
Does the fossil record show clear distinctions between different animal groups, or are there many transitional forms between animal groups?'
A hypothesis could state that:
The fossil record shows few if any transitional forms between animal groups, therefore the fossil record shows that animals were created in distinct groups.
An alternative hypothesis might say:
The fossil record shows many transitional forms between animal groups, therefore the fossil record shows that it is likely that animals evolved from one form to another.
I have no doubt that that these hypotheses are pretty basic and need to be sharpened up a lot, but you get the idea.
Then its just a matter of testing both hypotheses to see which fits the evidence the best. That is science working as it should.
So my contention is that if science says 'There is no such thing as God, and therefore no such thing as creation, therefore we won't consider it as a possibility' it has made a faith statement and it is no longer science but faith.
There are many other things in your post to which I would like to respond, but this is enough for now.
#26, Willem, Australia, 19 November 2006. Reply to this.
David:
> But honestly, saying that you don't believe there is a god, with such a careful distinction, sounds more like agnosticism. Atheism is the assertion, positively that there is not a god. Etymologically, "a-" means "no". That is then a positive assertion, so the onus is on the atheist to prove that no god exists.
A common misconception, that one. "a-" means "without". Atheism = without belief. Strictly speaking almost eveyr atheist is an agnostic to some degree. I am - it is impossible to disprove the existence of gods, by their nature. I am also agnostic in the same way about the existence of the flying spaghetti monster.
> Phyletic Gradualism
You are partly right and partly not. Phyletic Gradualism is the theory that all change was incredibly gradual. That is actually incorrect (and IIRC is also something Darwin argued against). Punctuated equilibrium is the theory supported by the evidence.
You misquoted me above. What I was objecting to in your comment was the idea that transition has been "given up on" due to lack of evidence. Punctuated equilibrium is a well supported theory, and has absolutely nothing to do with "The idea that life-forms would give birth to far evolved species". The idea of a pair of cats mating and giving birth to a banana or a fish or a horse is absurd, and such an event would be amazingly strong evidence *against* evolution.
Willem:
> When I thought about this, and about some of the other posts on this subject, it seems to me that you are confusing God and creation.
The two do rather go hand in hand. You can't have creationism without a power to create (and who created that creator?) and almost every belief in a supernatural higher power attributes the unknown to it - including (in the past) the unknown process by which the believers came to be.
> Does the fossil record show clear distinctions between different animal groups, or are there many transitional forms between animal groups?'
That appears to be a "hypothesis" written to fit already known evidence. Hardly scientific. It is, like many supposed religious hypotheses, an argument against the scientific answer for something.
> The fossil record shows many transitional forms between animal groups, therefore the fossil record shows that it is likely that animals evolved from one form to another.
Heh, a nice "hypothesis". That's also exactly what we do see. Most creationists argue that a transitional fossil, to them, would be, for example, half a monkey and half a human. The funny thing is that every time an actual transitional fossil is found ("B" in "A - B - C"), those that ask for them simply point out that there are now twice as many gaps.
#27, Dave Child, United Kingdom, 19 November 2006. Reply to this.
David,
You missed my point. Science is no longer science when it decides, without bothering to test the evidence, that creation is not a possibility. It has then moved from being science, which tests the evidence, to faith, which makes decisions based on a belief system that is not subject to evidence.
My challenge is simple: let science be science, and test the evidence to see where the evidence points, without letting a faith based decision eliminate one point of view from the discussion. My charge is that this is what proponents of evolution have been doing for decades. They have taken a faith based decision to not even consider creation as a possibility, and have to that extent become unscientific. Interestingly, proponents of creation are quite happy for both points of view to be examined scientifically, and are therefore and to that extent more truly scientific than proponents of evolution.
Willem.
#28, Willem, Australia, 19 November 2006. Reply to this.
Before I go far let me say I understand that atheism and evolution are not inextricably intertwined, only often and deeply-affectionate bedfellows. So while I go back and forth between the two I understand that they are not necessarily "symbiotic" or mutually dependent. However, if creation is shown to be untrue, the Bible fails, as it presents the account as an historic not a metaphorical account. So, while dispelling evolution does not keep an atheist from being an atheist, undermining creation ought to undermine a Christian's faith. If they say it does not, then it is an insubstantial faith, not based on the Bible but on their mere ascription to a title "Christian". And their Christ is not the Christ of the Bible but of their own imagination. More than that, if I, God forbid, ever cast off my profession, I am of the mind that evolution is such a thready line of reasoning that I could not commend my frail mind to believe it, though I be the most ardent agnostic.
> A common misconception, that one. "a-" means "without". Atheism = without belief. Strictly speaking almost eveyr atheist is an agnostic to some degree. I am - it is impossible to disprove the existence of gods, by their nature. I am also agnostic in the same way about the existence of the flying spaghetti monster.
That common misconception is held by some dictionary writers, like my favorite, UK-native Oxford. Atheism: a - without, theos - god; no god. agnosticism: (again) a - without, gnosis - knowledge; without (complete) knowledge. Infidel (or infidelity) seems to be the best fit for what you describe. There is no moral or Bible dig when I say that: Infidel: in - no; fide[l] - belief. I don't say that to be pedantic, but these distinctions are clearly important, which is clear by the fact that we keep coming back to them.
I think the spaghetti monster is a poor representation of the God "hypothesis". However, I do not think God can be proven (nor can creation). If He could then the Bible is untrue, for it says, "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen" (cf. Hebrews 11.1-ff). While I rely on the Bible and not science as the only (not primary) pillar of my understanding (and faith more specifically), I know that others do not. Even so, your own so-called science, bears witness against the idea that we are of a composition that has spiritual (immaterial) beginnings. I don't mean to say that this proves that there is a God in a way that is Biblical, is necessary to please God, or is substantive, but that science in all of its inadequacy bears witness to an immaterial first cause. I don't need anyone to call that God, but there was something that is beyond tangibility and scientific/empirical understanding.
Lord Kelvin understood the three laws of thermodynamics, of which we "know" that all things in a closed system (a system which has no external energy source) tend toward chaos - which is generally called entropy. This shows a necessary beginning to this system, because a system that is left without energy will slip into a diffuse, cold, gray, mess of atoms or sub-quarkish material. If you say that there is something larger than the universe that is piping energy into it, then that becomes a part of the closed system, like our sun, and there is still an end to that energy source. The fact that we are not in a state of utter disorder shows that we have not been around for an infinite period.
Which leads in part another of those laws, energy conservation, which says that matter cannot be created, nor destroyed, only converted to energy, and energy cannot be destroyed, only diffused. This shows that there had to be something outside of matter that created all of it, because (at least in our western cause-and-effect understanding) all things have come about as a result of something else. However, if matter cannot be created, whence did it come?
It is possible to say that Kelvin was a crack or a loon and his laws should not have been understood to be laws, like the "fool" that decided the world is flat. However, two problems lie in that: Darwin's theory is still a theory, and even our current laws in science will be subject to the same scrutiny in the future, and nothing is really able to be known. So none of it is worth knowing. I am getting a post-modern headache.
For me, I don't care about science. It is fallible, it gives us medicine that often kills us, theories that sometimes lead to further godlessness, and computers (and we know what a mess they have become). And it is built on minds as incapable as mine, so I know it cannot be trusted. People become tired and are bought by money, etc. I don't rely on this argumentation, because the Bible in all of its seeming fallibility is a much more sure law or word of truth than any silly, scientific hypothesis or law will ever be.
On the subject of Punctuated Equilibrium (PE):
> You misquoted me above.
I am sorry if I did, please forgive me.
While PE is more gradual than my hyperbolic, spaghetti-monster-style analogy may have alluded to, it does not take long to realize that if all of the "gradual changes" take place in PE that are asserted, they lead to a new lifeform that is no longer of the same species and no longer able to mate with others within its species. It is then necessarily imperative that at any time there is a substantial 'upgrade' which in software terms would merit a new version number but in biological terms would merit a new species, that there is member of the complementary gender born in the same generation, so that all of that great new genetic information is not lost. That makes it amazingly difficult to continue these new species since the "odds" of these substantive and positive mutations appearing not only in one specimen, but in two contemporaneous and sexually complementary specimens is impossibly ridiculous. There is an understanding within the scientific title species that you cannot cross-breed unto viable offspring outside of a species, i.e. the mule (horse and donkey), etc.
I think it is valuable to note that mutation is a word with a negative connotation. While mutation only alludes to the fact that something has changed, it usually assumes that it is for the worse. We have not yet documented beneficial mutation in the animal kingdom through our own experience. We only assume that it is possible, in order to offer a crutch to the ailing evolution. So then, mutations are not so far able to produce anything helpful, rather our records have only proven that these changes are harmful (as before, cancers, Down's syndrome and other genetic/chromosomal disorders, etc.), while I understand that there remain exceptions to that rule outside of the animal kingdom, namely among bacteria and viruses. My point: mutations always work out for the worse in our records, it is only in the minds of hopeful evolutionary priests (and their unfortunate parishioners) that it holds hopes of new species more capable than their ancestors.
Dave, I am a full-time student with a lot of webs to build, an internship (co-op sort of), and another part-time job, to boot. I am sure we will both benefit if I leave off here, because I cannot afford to put so much time into this dialog. But I really appreciate your prompt and thoughtful responses.
Sincerely, David Eldridge
#29, David Eldridge, United States, 20 November 2006. Reply to this.
These comments are getting bigger and bigger! :)
> This shows a necessary beginning to this system
The first law of thermodynamics makes the origins of the universe tricky, yes. My understanding is that science has some ideas on the beginnings of the universe, some more complete than others, but that we don't (and possibly can't) know exactly how it all happened. Does that imply the existence of a god or gods? For some people, yes.
> We have not yet documented beneficial mutation in the animal kingdom through our own experience.
Most mutation is actually neutral, but scientists have observed positive mutation. Read http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB101.html for more.
> I don't care about science.
That's your choice, of course. Much of what you have written implies a loose understanding of evolution and a clear understanding of the oft-trotted out arguments against it. That would seem to match well with your opinions of science. If you ever decide to look at this issue again, I would suggest starting with a book like The Blind Watchmaker, that explains many of the finer points of evolution scientifically.
> evolutionary priests
Heh. I can't help but wonder sometimes why the religious spend so long trying to turn science (and even individual theories) into a religion.
> Sincerely, David Eldridge
It's been a pleasure talking about this with you - not many of these types of discussion avoid descending into flame wars!
Willem:
> You missed my point.
No, I didn't. When evolution was first proposed most people in the UK or US were Christian. The scientists of the time were Christian. They examined, tested and debated evolution themselves, and still do, and found that creation didn't match the evidence and evolution did.
The new breed of creationist seems to want to put creation on an even footing with evolution and more specifically to have it taught in schools as an equally valid scientific theory. However those people also expect creation to be allowed to do this without passing the same level of scientific scrutiny that evolution has and continues to.
#30, Dave Child, United Kingdom, 20 November 2006. Reply to this.
An interesting post on just this topic: http://www.beliefnet.com/story/203/story_20334_1.html
#31, Dave Child, United Kingdom, 20 November 2006. Reply to this.
David,
Your comment:
>> expect creation to be allowed to do this without passing the same level of scientific scrutiny that evolution has and continues to.<<
is simply not true. Creationists are more than happy to to have creation theory pass the same level of scientific scrutiny that any other sicience is subject to. Reputable creationists are always ready to have their theory tested under scientific conditions.
If you are under a different impression then someone has misled you.
I ask the question - Why are the proponents of evolution so scared of creation that they will not even examine the evidence? What's the problem guys? I evolution is right, you have nothing to fear! But the problem is of course that it might be wrong, and creation right. What then? Then you would have to admit there is a creator! Is that the reason for your fear?
David, your claim that:
>>The scientists of the time were Christian. They examined, tested and debated evolution themselves, and still do, and found that creation didn't match the evidence and evolution did.<<
is also not true. Isaac Newton did not accept evolution. Nor did Pascal. Nor did most of the scientists of the day. It was mainly churchmen, not scientists, who accepted it. And not even all of them accepted it. There were very many who did not. And there are very many reputable and qualified scientists today who do not accept evolution and who do accept creation. To claim otherwise is simply wrong.
My challenge and my charge remain. Test the evidence to see which theory of origins best fits the evidence. That's my challenge. My charge is that evolution has been unwilling to do this for decades and is therefore and to that extent unscientific.
Willem.
#32, Willem, Australia, 20 November 2006. Reply to this.
>Reputable creationists are always ready to have their theory tested under scientific conditions.
Feel free to point to one scientist who has actually proposed a scientific theory of creation - you know, where we can actually see the theory.
It's been said before - if you want to play in the pool, bring your own trunks - don't just point to the holes in other peoples and claim that you don't need your own.
> Is that the reason for your fear?
Heh. Always with the fear, the religious.
Scientists aren't afraid of creation (though some rightly fear some of the actions of religious people). Scientists don't pay creation any real attention. In 1985, a study was done (IIRC) following complaints from creationists that their work was being rejected by scientific publications. That study looked at the submissions to those publications and found that only 18 out of 135,000 could be said to advocate creation.
The evidence is abundantly clear - creationist "scientists" aren't interested in doing the science bit - they focus on picking holes on competing theories, often where none exists. Scientists aren't "stuck" on evolution - it is always being tested, partly because it is the most controversial scientific theory of our time.
However, to promote an opposing theory first requires the oposing theory be created. In fact, it would start as a hypothesis. That hypothesis would be tested. If the tests and evidence supported it strongly enough, it would be considered a theory.
The road to "theorydom" is well travelled. Nobody is blocking it. Creationist "scientists" are not being stopped from treating creation as science. They're just, apparently, not bothering to.
I am sure you will claim that they are, Willem, and I might well do the same in your position - so I will save myself a reply here - if you believe differently, please show me your sources - show me where the scientists are putting forward a theory of creation, and not just picking holes in other theories.
> Isaac Newton did not accept evolution. Nor did Pascal.
Dude, Isaac Newton and Pascal lived before Darwin. They would have been unaware of the concept of evolution. Hardly shocking that they didn't accept it. Most of the scientists of the day were also Christians and quite, like yourself, sceptical of anything that seemed to challenge what their holy book had told them.
> there are very many reputable and qualified scientists today who do not accept evolution
Often claimed and rarely backed up. The evidence (Gallup polls for example) shows the percentage of scientists who reject evolution to be vanishingly small. Feel free to quote your sources. There are a larger number of scientists who are religious and believe in a god, but remember that that is different to rejecting evolution.
#33, Dave Child, United Kingdom, 20 November 2006. Reply to this.
G'day Dave,
I have included a list of scientists with doctorates in a science related field who do take a creation point of view. I'm sorry the list is lengthy and takes up a lot of space on your blog, but there it is. The list is not exhaustive. Please note also that there is a wide range of disciplines represented.
Dave, you accuse me, without a shred of evidence, of being 'sceptical of anything that seemed to challenge what their holy book had told them.'
So I question you. Have you ever seriously enterained the idea of creation? Is your mind open enough to consider that the world might well have been created? Or is it so closed that you can only accept evolution as a possibility?
For the record, I have examined both theories (if we may call them that), over a lengthy period of time, and for quite a long time was open to both.
So, Dave, I have approached the problem with an open mind. Have you?
Willem
Note: Individuals on this list must possess a doctorate in a science-related field.
Dr Paul Ackerman, Psychologist
Dr E. Theo Agard, Medical Physics
Dr James Allan, Geneticist
Dr Steve Austin, Geologist
Dr S.E. Aw, Biochemist
Dr Thomas Barnes, Physicist
Dr Geoff Barnard, Immunologist
Dr Don Batten, Plant physiologist, tropical fruit expert
Dr John Baumgardner, Electrical Engineering, Space Physicist, Geophysicist, expert in supercomputer modeling of plate tectonics
Dr Jerry Bergman, Psychologist
Dr Kimberly Berrine, Microbiology & Immunology
Prof. Vladimir Betina, Microbiology, Biochemistry & Biology
Dr Raymond G. Bohlin, Biologist
Dr Andrew Bosanquet, Biology, Microbiology
Edward A. Boudreaux, Theoretical Chemistry
Dr David R. Boylan, Chemical Engineer
Prof. Linn E. Carothers, Associate Professor of Statistics
Dr David Catchpoole, Plant Physiologist (read his testimony)
Prof. Sung-Do Cha, Physics
Dr Eugene F. Chaffin, Professor of Physics
Dr Choong-Kuk Chang, Genetic Engineering
Prof. Jeun-Sik Chang, Aeronautical Engineering
Dr Donald Chittick, Physical Chemist
Prof. Chung-Il Cho, Biology Education
Dr John M. Cimbala, Mechanical Engineering
Dr Harold Coffin, Palaeontologist
Dr Bob Compton, DVM
Dr Ken Cumming, Biologist
Dr Jack W. Cuozzo, Dentist
Dr William M. Curtis III, Th.D., Th.M., M.S., Aeronautics & Nuclear Physics
Dr Malcolm Cutchins, Aerospace Engineering
Dr Lionel Dahmer, Analytical Chemist
Dr Raymond V. Damadian, M.D., Pioneer of magnetic resonance imaging
Dr Chris Darnbrough, Biochemist
Dr Nancy M. Darrall, Botany
Dr Bryan Dawson, Mathematics
Dr Douglas Dean, Biological Chemistry
Prof. Stephen W. Deckard, Assistant Professor of Education
Dr David A. DeWitt, Biology, Biochemistry, Neuroscience
Dr Don DeYoung, Astronomy, atmospheric physics, M.Div
Dr Geoff Downes, Creationist Plant Physiologist
Dr Ted Driggers, Operations research
Robert H. Eckel, Medical Research
Dr André Eggen, Geneticist
Prof. Dennis L. Englin, Professor of Geophysics
Prof. Danny Faulkner, Astronomy
Prof. Carl B. Fliermans, Professor of Biology
Prof. Dwain L. Ford, Organic Chemistry
Prof. Robert H. Franks, Associate Professor of Biology
Dr Alan Galbraith, Watershed Science
Dr Paul Giem, Medical Research
Dr Maciej Giertych, Geneticist
Dr Duane Gish, Biochemist
Dr Werner Gitt, Information Scientist
Dr D.B. Gower, Biochemistry
Dr Dianne Grocott, Psychiatrist
Dr Stephen Grocott, Industrial Chemist
Dr Donald Hamann, Food Scientist
Dr Barry Harker, Philosopher
Dr Charles W. Harrison, Applied Physicist, Electromagnetics
Dr John Hartnett, Physicist and Cosmologist
Dr Mark Harwood, Satellite Communications
Dr Joe Havel, Botanist, Silviculturist, Ecophysiologist
Dr George Hawke, Environmental Scientist
Dr Margaret Helder, Science Editor, Botanist
Dr Harold R. Henry, Engineer
Dr Jonathan Henry, Astronomy
Dr Joseph Henson, Entomologist
Dr Robert A. Herrmann, Professor of Mathematics, US Naval Academy
Dr Andrew Hodge, Head of the Cardiothoracic Surgical Service
Dr Kelly Hollowell, Molecular and Cellular Pharmacologist
Dr Ed Holroyd, III, Atmospheric Science
Dr Bob Hosken, Biochemistry
Dr George F. Howe, Botany
Dr Neil Huber, Physical Anthropologist
Dr Russell Humphreys, Physicist
Dr James A. Huggins, Professor and Chair, Department of Biology
Evan Jamieson, Hydrometallurgy
George T. Javor, Biochemistry
Dr Pierre Jerlström, Creationist Molecular Biologist
Dr Arthur Jones, Biology
Dr Jonathan W. Jones, Plastic Surgeon
Dr Raymond Jones, Agricultural Scientist
Dr Felix Konotey-Ahulu, Physician, leading expert on sickle-cell anemia
Prof. Leonid Korochkin, Molecular Biology
Dr Valery Karpounin, Mathematical Sciences, Logics, Formal Logics
Dr Dean Kenyon, Biologist
Prof. Gi-Tai Kim, Biology
Prof. Harriet Kim, Biochemistry
Prof. Jong-Bai Kim, Biochemistry
Prof. Jung-Han Kim, Biochemistry
Prof. Jung-Wook Kim, Environmental Science
Prof. Kyoung-Rai Kim, Analytical Chemistry
Prof. Kyoung-Tai Kim, Genetic Engineering
Prof. Young-Gil Kim, Materials Science
Prof. Young In Kim, Engineering
Dr John W. Klotz, Biologist
Dr Vladimir F. Kondalenko, Cytology/Cell Pathology
Dr Leonid Korochkin, M.D., Genetics, Molecular Biology, Neurobiology
Dr John K.G. Kramer, Biochemistry
Prof. Jin-Hyouk Kwon, Physics
Prof. Myung-Sang Kwon, Immunology
Dr John Leslie, Biochemist
Prof. Lane P. Lester, Biologist, Genetics
Dr Jason Lisle, Astrophysicist
Dr Alan Love, Chemist
Dr Ian Macreadie, molecular biologist and microbiologist:
Dr John Marcus, Molecular Biologist
Dr George Marshall, Eye Disease Researcher
Dr Ralph Matthews, Radiation Chemist
Dr John McEwan, Chemist
Prof. Andy McIntosh, Combustion theory, aerodynamics
Dr David Menton, Anatomist
Dr Angela Meyer, Creationist Plant Physiologist
Dr John Meyer, Physiologist
Dr Albert Mills, Reproductive Physiologist, Embryologist
Colin W. Mitchell, Geography
Dr John N. Moore, Science Educator
Dr John W. Moreland, Mechanical engineer and Dentist
Dr Henry M. Morris, Hydrologist
Dr John D. Morris, Geologist
Dr Len Morris, Physiologist
Dr Graeme Mortimer, Geologist
Stanley A. Mumma, Architectural Engineering
Prof. Hee-Choon No, Nuclear Engineering
Dr Eric Norman, Biomedical researcher
Dr David Oderberg, Philosopher
Prof. John Oller, Linguistics
Prof. Chris D. Osborne, Assistant Professor of Biology
Dr John Osgood, Medical Practitioner
Dr Charles Pallaghy, Botanist
Dr Gary E. Parker, Biologist, Cognate in Geology (Paleontology)
Dr David Pennington, Plastic Surgeon
Prof. Richard Porter
Dr Georgia Purdom, Molecular Genetics
Dr John Rankin, Cosmologist
Dr A.S. Reece, M.D.
Prof. J. Rendle-Short, Pediatrics
Dr Jung-Goo Roe, Biology
Dr David Rosevear, Chemist
Dr Ariel A. Roth, Biology
Dr Jonathan D. Sarfati, Physical chemist / spectroscopist
Dr Joachim Scheven Palaeontologist:
Dr Ian Scott, Educator
Dr Saami Shaibani, Forensic physicist
Dr Young-Gi Shim, Chemistry
Prof. Hyun-Kil Shin, Food Science
Dr Mikhail Shulgin, Physics
Dr Emil Silvestru, Geologist/karstologist
Dr Roger Simpson, Engineer
Dr Harold Slusher, Geophysicist
Dr E. Norbert Smith, Zoologist
Dr Andrew Snelling, Geologist
Prof. Man-Suk Song, Computer Science
Dr Timothy G. Standish, Biology
Prof. James Stark, Assistant Professor of Science Education
Prof. Brian Stone, Engineer
Dr Esther Su, Biochemistry
Dr Charles Taylor, Linguistics
Dr Stephen Taylor, Electrical Engineering
Dr Ker C. Thomson, Geophysics
Dr Michael Todhunter, Forest Genetics
Dr Lyudmila Tonkonog, Chemistry/Biochemistry
Dr Royal Truman, Organic Chemist:
Dr Larry Vardiman, Atmospheric Science
Prof. Walter Veith, Zoologist
Dr Joachim Vetter, Biologist
Dr Tas Walker, Mechanical Engineer and Geologist
Dr Jeremy Walter, Mechanical Engineer
Dr Keith Wanser, Physicist
Dr Noel Weeks, Ancient Historian (also has B.Sc. in Zoology)
Dr A.J. Monty White, Chemistry/Gas Kinetics
Dr John Whitmore, Geologist/Paleontologist
Dr Carl Wieland, Medical doctor
Dr Lara Wieland, Medical doctor
Dr Clifford Wilson, Psycholinguist and archaeologist
Dr Kurt Wise, Palaeontologist
Dr Bryant Wood, Creationist Archaeologist
Prof. Seoung-Hoon Yang, Physics
Dr Thomas (Tong Y.) Yi, Ph.D., Creationist Aerospace & Mechanical Engineering
Dr Ick-Dong Yoo, Genetics
Dr Sung-Hee Yoon, Biology
Dr Patrick Young, Chemist and Materials Scientist
Prof. Keun Bae Yu, Geography
Dr Henry Zuill, Biology
#34, Willem, Australia, 20 November 2006. Reply to this.
Willem,
A small list of names of 185 scientists who have stated over the last 10 (at least) year that they believe in creation doesn't constitute "very many reputable and qualified scientists". It constitutes "a few people over a decade i a list lifted from another website". I can find that many people who'll go on record as saying they believe in the flying spaghetti monster and it would mean the same.
> Dave, you accuse me, without a shred of evidence, of being 'sceptical of anything that seemed to challenge what their holy book had told them.'
My apologies. You have made several comments on this blog indicating you are skeptical of evolution. You have trotted out the very standard list of creationist arguments against evolution without backing up your claims in any substantial way. You have avoided replying to answers to your questions when possible, and have consistently failed to maintain a coherent point of view. You have ignored replies and questions and repeated yourself constantly.
You have not said you are a creationist, however you have given that impression. Perhaps you could clarify your position if that is in fact incorrect.
> So I question you. Have you ever seriously enterained the idea of creation? Is your mind open enough to consider that the world might well have been created? Or is it so closed that you can only accept evolution as a possibility?
Wow, there's lots of questions there, and once again some pretty standard misconceptions. Evolution has nothing to do with the creation of the world. Evolution is a theory explaining the diversity of life and the progressive changes observed in life over time.
I have seriously entertained the idea of creation. I was brought up a Christian. I found the whole idea ridiculous, personally, from a very early age.
> For the record, I have examined both theories (if we may call them that), over a lengthy period of time, and for quite a long time was open to both.
I find that very hard to believe given that your knowledge of evolution appears to be limited only to arguments against it based on a lack of knowledge.
Finally, you managed to completely avoid addressing the issues in my last comment. Allow me to put them in clearer terms:
1. Please point out a scientific theory of creation. I want to see the actual theory.
2. Please explain why you decided that people who died before evolution was proposed as a theory are relevant to the debate.
3. Please provide evidence of the "very many" scientists who reject evolution. I've already pointed out that there are scientists who do so and they are in a huge minority - no need to reiterate that for me.
#35, Dave Child, United Kingdom, 20 November 2006. Reply to this.
Dave,
I don't know what you want when you ask for a 'scientific theory of creation'. There is a significant body of scientific creation work that has been done and that is freely available to you and to anyone who cares to look. Perhaps I could refer you to this site:
http://www.trueorigin.org/creatheory.asp
but you could just as easily have found it yourself if you cared to look.
BTW, can you tell me what the 'scientific theory of evolution' is?
But you have never really answered my question - why do the proponents of evolution not even want to entertain the idea of creation? You say that you have seriously considered it, but from your own comments you indicate that from a very early early age you found the idea ridiculous, so I wonder if you really have. But proponents of evolution do not want to submit the evidence to both possibilities. Given that the presuppositions of both creation and evolution are unprovable, to eliminate one without testing it with the evidence is an act of faith. So why do proponents of evolution avoid submitting the evidence to testing?
Willem
#36, Willem, Australia, 21 November 2006. Reply to this.
Hmmm. An interesting if predictable read, that unfortunately contains no hint of a scientific theory of creation. It appears to contain a table containing common creationist arguments and miconceptions (all of which have been repeatedly debunked) and some justification for calling that a theory.
I even had a look at some of the content on the rest of the site. Surprisingly, it was primarily the same old baseless arguments and misconceptions. The "significant body of scientific creation work" you mentioned certainly doesn't appear to be on that site.
> But you have never really answered my question - why do the proponents of evolution not even want to entertain the idea of creation?
You'd have to ask them individually, I think. For me personally I think the overwhelming body of evidence shows that creationist superstitions and stories have no basis in fact, and I would imagine the same applies to most scientists.
As to why scientists now appear to you to reject creationism, it is (once again) because creationism is not scientific - it fails to meet the basic requirements for something to be considered science - for example it cannot, and does not, make falsifiable predictions, a requirement for any scientific hypothesis or theory.
I'm not going to ask you again to answer my questions - instead I'll have a go at guessing the answers for you:
> 1. Please point out a scientific theory of creation. I want to see the actual theory.
You can't because for creationists the theory is in a book and has never really been elaborated on. Evidence found that contradicts the story has been ignored, or twisted logic used to try and fit it in. For example, the fossil record, according to creationists, is a result of the flood.
> 2. Please explain why you decided that people who died before evolution was proposed as a theory are relevant to the debate.
Because you are basing your arguments and thoughts on the words of others, not your own research and didn't bother to check your information? Because, for you, your holy book HAS to be true, regardless of the evidence? (Maybe (and this is merely conjecture on my part) even because you find your faith shaken and must therefore be as vocal in support of your chosen religion as you can as a way to convince yourself that you really do still believe?)
> 3. Please provide evidence of the "very many" scientists who reject evolution. I've already pointed out that there are scientists who do so and they are in a huge minority - no need to reiterate that for me.
You can't because although scientists who are also creationists are out there they are in a huge minority (in the region of 1% or less according to the last poll I read, though I can't now find the link). Note, that's different to scientists who believe in a god - belief in a god does not require belief in any of the various creationist stories.
I'll leave you with one more question. Is there any amount of evidence that could actually convince you that evolution has been happening for millions of years?
#37, Dave Child, United Kingdom, 21 November 2006. Reply to this.
Gentlemen,
I came looking for some cheat sheets and stumbled on this blog and had to offer my own opinion and that is all it is.
You all seem to have "points of view" regarding the possibility of creation vs evolution however let me put it to you all in a different, and perhaps more important light - Creation or Evolution aside, do you believe in the possibility of life after death? I don't want to sidetrack anyone from the original debate but the real question we all seem to want answered is just that.
It seems that forever Man has debated the possibility/reality of the creation as opposed to evolution and regardless of whatever religion/lack of religion you "support"(I too am a Christian) you must ultimately wonder why are we here and what happens when we die? I have made my choice based on the evidence I've heard to date over my lifetime, including the possibility of the Creation or evolution and ultimately one thing has directed my faith which makes both of those topics seem irrelevant.
If, in fact, Christianity is the one truth in the universe then I shall have the priviledge of spending eternity, once again ETERNITY, in a wonderful relationship with Jesus Christ and all those who choose to follow the Word, for ALL time. If I am wrong, is there anything fundamentally wrong with doing what we are asked to do in the Bible? Is loving all of mankind a bad thing? Is helping those who cannot help themselves a crime? Or how about giving of yourself as opposed to pursuing your own selfish ambitions like so many people today, myself included, I never said I was perfect? I choose to live my life this way in fear of an awesome God, who promises that all who believe in God and follow the Word(Jesus Christ) we shall have eternal life. If I am wrong than I have lived a good life and can die knowing that I did but if you are a non-believer, ask yourself...Can you really afford to be wrong? It's your call. Go Creation Go! ;-)
"15 Do not love the world or anything in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him. 16 For everything in the world?the cravings of sinful man, the lust of his eyes and the boasting of what he has and does?comes not from the Father but from the world. 17 The world and its desires pass away, but the man who does the will of God lives forever." 1 John 2:15-17 NIV
I hope I didn't upset anyone with my interlude but I had to get in on this one. Cheers!
#38, James, Canada, 22 November 2006. Reply to this.
Hi Joe,
You raise some interesting philosophical questions.
> I came looking for some cheat sheets and stumbled on this blog
Did you stumble from free will ... or was it pre-ordained? ;)
> do you believe in the possibility of life after death?
No. I believe that while we're here, we'd better make the most of it!
> why are we here and what happens when we die?
Heh. I seriously doubt we're going to answer that question here! It is a question that has perplexed civilisations for thousands of years. Most, to answer it, have created religions.
My answer to that - my personal belief - is that we're not here to fulfil a specific purpose. We're here because ... well, because of luck, frankly. Our being here is spectacularly improbable. For me to be here, I believe, every one of my parents, and my parents parents, and my parents parents parents, ad infinitum, managed to avoid being eaten, managed to find enough to eat, and managed to avoid falling off high things. I'm happy to try to keep the chain going.
> If I am wrong, is there anything fundamentally wrong with doing what we are asked to do in the Bible?
Again, an interesting question. This is commonly referred to as Pascal's Wager. The question assumes that belief in any god(s) has no possible negative connotations. The assumption is that the deity (or deities) specified is(are) the "right" one(s).
It is also a question that assumes that if any gods do exist, they are stupid. Apparently, those who follow the school of thought that "might as well believe, no harm" seem to think that their deities will appreciate them playing the odds and reward them for it.
> Is loving all of mankind a bad thing?
No. Though it does seem that the evidence would indicate that religions have a problem with loving anyone not a part of the same group.
> I choose to live my life this way in fear
What kind of god would create people and then insist they live their lives in fear of him?
> Can you really afford to be wrong?
Can you? What if the Muslims are right? The Hindus? The Jews? The Aztecs? The Incas? The Romans? The Greeks? The Omnians? The Jedi?
#39, Dave Child, United Kingdom, 22 November 2006. Reply to this.
Hi Dave, I got that right didn't I, Dave? ;-)
>> I came looking for some cheat sheets and stumbled on this blog
>Did you stumble from free will ... or was it pre-ordained? ;)
Actually a guy I work with named Jeff told me about your site ;-)
>> do you believe in the possibility of life after death?
>No. I believe that while we're here, we'd better make the most of it!
I used to feel the same way but more recently I've had thoughts about existence, in particular my own, go figure, and I've concluded that, as I'm sure someone else has already said "There must be more to life than this!".
I chose to re-examine my early Christian upbringing in more detail and I went searching for answers about this particular faith which I had abandoned at the age of 17(I am 37 now).
I went to several local churches and discovered that not much had changed, same old boring sermons and I practically fell asleep in the pews. Then, perhaps pre-ordained, a friend suggested another church which was about a 45 minute drive from home, and I thought you've got to be kidding me! They insisted that I try it and so one Sunday I did and I found my new home on Sunday mornings.
This particular Church does not promote Christianity as merely a "religion"; as a matter of fact they rebuke the word religion as it merely conjures up images of self-righteousness and holier-than-thou know-it-alls, whew!
They promote that Christianity is not about religion at all but rather it's about establishing and maintaining a right relationship with Jesus Christ. We are thus a non-denominational Christian Church with no enemies, I think?
Anyone can come and join us or even make their views and opinions known either for or against and they will not be persecuted. Our pastor is very passionate and likes to present his material using movie clips which is far more entertaining than listening to some tired old fellow, completely bereft of passion, leaning on his pulpit reciting scripture. We also have a rock band that plays good, driving Christian music, throughout the service. WoW!
I never thought I would like that stuff but it actually is really good. Some really good bands I've recently heard include Lifehouse, Casting Crowns, MercyMe, Payable On Death, Hillsong, and even U2! I'm certain you can find clips of their music online somewhere if you're interested.
>It is also a question that assumes that if any gods do exist, they are stupid. Apparently, those who follow the school of thought that "might as well believe, no harm" seem to think that their deities will appreciate them playing the odds and reward them for it.
I'm certain there are people that follow that train of thought and unfortunately they are probably living unfulfilled lives whether Muslim, Hindu, Jewish, Aztec, Inca, Roman, Greek, Omnian or even Jedi ;@. I do not, I am a firm believer and it is rewarding. I am still learning more as each day passes. Having faith requires a great deal of dedication, personal sacrifice, which I believe is one of the keys as to why "religion" is so misunderstood and why so many people believe IT has failed US. When in fact WE have failed IT, once again regardless of faith. There are not enough people willing to take the time to understand why they have a chosen faith, regardless of the faith or denomination, they do it merely because their parents and their parents parents did. I have made my own choice, and my folks, who are Catholics, thought I had joined a cult because I chose to be baptized and reborn even though I was baptized as an infant and that we don't have 1st or 2nd readings at our church and we don't have a gospel per se, we don't sing hymms and we don't respond to our pastor with the same little sayings at the end of each of his sentences. We don't have communion in church but rather promote the idea of breaking bread(or whatever you feel like, last tuesday we had a real spicy chili!) with our friends, Christian or otherwise with no false pretenses. People don't dress in their "Sunday Best", I usually wear jeans and a tshirt, more recently sweaters because it's getting so damn cold here in Canada as we approach winter. We get together and worship passionately with song, conversation and lots of laughter! Enough about that...
>> Is loving all of mankind a bad thing?
>No. Though it does seem that the evidence would indicate that religions have a problem with loving anyone not a part of the same group.
This is so true...if only, ONLY, everyone could figure that one out for themselves and realize we are all part of the same family, the human family...pity.
>> I choose to live my life this way in fear
>What kind of god would create people and then insist they live their lives in fear of him?
I use the term fear loosely, perhaps a more appropriate term would be in AWE?
Anyways, nice to weigh in once again, I really need to get back to work, hehe, spending too much time blogging not enough time working, Oh wait, I work in Government, it's all good....
#40, James, Canada, 23 November 2006. Reply to this.
Hi Dave, I must say that I admire your persipacity in following through in this thread. I honestly hope you managed to generate some interest in looking more deeply at the Theory of Evolution for some of the doubters in this thread.
I hold an atheistic world view, but if there was one thing that could shake my non-belief in a god(s), it would be the sheer simplicity yet inspiring breadth of effect on the natural world, that the theory encompasses.
#41, Gun Of Sod, New Zealand, 12 October 2007. Reply to this.