hello gentlemen!
well, it seems that another courageous one is facing the truth! kidding. hang on,
jhnbrbr, if you like to bang your head.
i wanted to let you all know that i didn't feel bad at all when i quit this thread some days ago or bitter either in any way. just a little scared. despite the sometimes quite condescending notes, i really have learned many things. i agree that when one has been interested and studying in a certain field, he likes to share his knowledge, as solid as it can be, with anyone who wants to get started with it. sometimes i myself have the greatest difficulties not to "lecture" youngest people anout music or any other matter of which i'm fond.
Corno: if i had to go back to school, which one would you suggest i choose? any french university? no, they will tell me lies only. maybe i'll have to buy a ticket for the undoubtedly beautiful
Kansas State. i'm only half-kidding here because i'm very attracted by the united states, as a great country to visit.
what follows is a little recapitulating text written by a clearly "anti-creationist" (not me, then).
i find it is a good sumup, though it won't give you all the answers and facts you are fond of. at least, some concepts are explained and detailed. this one guy is too categoric for my taste but i nevertheless and generally agree with what he says.
"People who think creationism is true because that's what the Bible says.
Before I go any further I would like to ask the reader to consider the following questions:
Do you believe that the earth is flat? ( Daniel 4:7-8 )
Do you believe that the sun and all of the other planets and stars orbit the Earth? ( Psalms. 19:1-6; Joshua 10:12-14 )
Do you support slavery? ( Exodus 21:7 and Leviticus 25:44)
Do you kill people who eat shellfish? ( Leviticus 11:10)
Do you kill people who work on Sunday? ( Exodus 35:2)
Do you stone your children to death if they disobey you? ( Deuteronomy 21:18-21 )
If you answered “no” to any of these questions, then it is clear that you do not believe in everything the Bible has to say. You are admitting that the Bible can be wrong. If the Bible can be wrong about so many things, then how do you know that the Bible isn't wrong about creationism?
The Bible was written by MEN thousands of years ago in a time where knowledge and society were completely different from these of today. It is only logical that as our knowledge of science has improved, scientific beliefs once held as true are disproved. Any attempts to support creationism using Biblical quotes are pure hypocrisy.
If one accepts that the Bible is wrong in some instances, then it is illogical and hypocritical for one to claim that it cannot be wrong in other areas.
People who don't know science
Arguments from people who don't know science often attack evolution using one of the following statements:
“But it's just a theory …”
“It cannot be proven …”
“It requires just as much faith as religion …”
“Evolution is a religion …”
The first two arguments reflect a lack of knowledge of basic scientific terms. The non-scientific definition of the term ‘theory' is that of an unproven, untested idea. In science, this is known as a hypothesis. Only when the hypothesis has been supported by numerous, repeatable and peer-reviewed experiments can it be called a Theory. The argument, “It's just a theory”, if accepted against evolution, could be accepted in claiming that the Theory of Gravitation, the Theory of Relativity, the Theory of Electromagnetic Waves, the Theory of Limits and the Germ Theory of Disease are all also false.
Anyone using this argument is either ignorant of or deliberately misusing scientific terms.
The claim that “It can't be proven” also reflects a lack of knowledge in basic scientific principles. There are only two areas of knowledge where a definite “proof” is attainable. Those areas are Mathematics and Logic. Evolution is neither a mathematical concept nor is it a product of strict symbolic logic. Therefore it
isn't possible to “prove” evolution; however, the same applies to all other areas of science. No science can ever be proven. Just because it has not been proven doesn't mean that there is a lack of supporting evidence. As I will discuss below, countless experiments executed and repeated worldwide have provided much supporting evidence to the hypotheses made by evolution. Evolution can even be seen in action through short term experiments (with fruit flies), short term observations (the peppered moth), long term observations (analogous structures, the biochemistry link between humans and primates) and direct digital simulation (Avida and other evolutionary algorithms).
Once again, the claim that “Evolution can't be proved” can only be supported by those ignorant of or deliberately misusing scientific terms.
The last two arguments are ridiculous in both their inspiration and execution. Their idea is that in order to believe in evolution you also need faith, so evolution is similar in its support to creationism. In reality, nothing could be further from the truth. Remember that Creationism has no evidence whatsoever, and relies
exclusively on faith. In contrast the theory of evolution was based
strictly on observed evidence. There is no aspect of evolution that is not supported extensively by scientific observation. The basic premise of all science is that only ideas which are supported by
fact, rather than
faith, can be considered a theory.
Any attempt to claim that faith is required to accept evolution is a desperate attempt to discredit evolution by those without the most cursory knowledge of the scientific method.
People who don't know evolution
There is a myriad of arguments against evolution that are based on a fallacious understanding of what the Theory of Evolution is or false scientific knowledge. I will not attempt to summarize them all here but will examine them one by one.
Argument 1:
Because we haven't found any transitional fossils (“missing-links” to the uninformed) the Theory of Evolution is wrong.
This argument is wrong in two separate ways. First is the claim that no transitional fossils have been found. In fact,
21 cases of transitional fossils have been found. Any individual pushing this sort of “argument” is conveniently ignoring an overwhelming body of scientific evidence. Secondly the deduction that the entire Theory of Evolution is based on the finding of missing-link fossils is one based on an incredulous lack of knowledge about paleontology and the theory of evolution. According to the punctuated equilibrium model of evolution, change is not gradual. Rather, it happens in bursts, with entire new species forming in time period of perhaps 100 generations. Now the fossil record is clearly incomplete; only 7 tyrannosaurus rex skeletons have been found, and this species existed for approximately 20 million years. Therefore it is only logical that there are many transitional species that didn't exist long enough to form fossils. In fact the presence of the transitional fossils that we have found indicates that transitional species are actually extremely common.
Argument 2:
Microevolution is different from macroevolution
This is the standard type of argument made after dogma has been ripped to shreds by both logic and scientific evidence. In effect, this argument attempts to draw a mysterious line between “micro” and “macro” evolution, claiming that microevolution is true but rejecting macroevolution. This argument is a classic example of the
ad hoc fallacy where an argument is added in order to explain obvious mistakes in an original argument. In this case the original argument is that evolution doesn't happen at all. As it became painfully obvious that evolution does happen, this ad-hoc explanation was added. Even so, this ad-hoc argument still fails the test of logic and science.
If one uses the biological term describing macroevolution then this argument is patently false. Biologists define macroevolution as being a synonym with speciation, that is, the evolution of a new species. Speciation has been documented
hundreds of times in the past 100 years. If a single century of scientific observation can show hundreds of new species evolving then it is absurd to claim that the diversity of life we see today cannot be the product of
billions of years of evolution.
In order to avoid the obvious error highlighted above creationists have came up with their own definition of the word macroevolution. This definition works out to be evolution to an extent great enough that it has not been observed yet. Even if the clear ad-hoc nature of this argument is ignored, there is still a clear logical reason why massive evolutionary changes have yet to be observed: Evolution takes time. It makes no sense to expect dramatic changes (creation of entirely new orders of species) in a few hundred years of modern scientific observation. But it makes perfect sense to take the current evidence and conclude that large scale changes have happened in the past. Small changes have been observed, and there is absolutely no reason, logical or scientific, why small changes accmulated over time cannot become large changes. Secondly, analysis of the fossil record, physiology, biochemistry and DNA all point to the same nested tree hierarchy of species that is exactly as evolution predicts.
This list could get a lot longer, but there really is no point to pointing out the same errors in logic and scientific evidence again and again. Any more arguments for creationism or against evolution that are emailed to me will be posted, along with my response.
People who think creationism is science
Ever since the 1960's, there has been a surge in support for so called “creation science” or “intelligent design theory”. I will attack these mockeries of science in two manners. First I will discuss the general validity of calling any form of creationism as science. Then I will examine particular claims made by proponents of both ideas.
For those who believe that creation science or intelligence design theory is not just religion given a false coating of science, I ask you to consider the following list of facts:
• No scientific evidence for creation science or intelligent design theory has
ever been published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal.
• All “creation-scientists” happen be Christian
• All organizations supporting creation-science are Christian organizations
• Those same organizations force all of their members to sign pledges that say they will believe in Biblical creationism even if the evidence is against them.
So, creation-science has never had a scientific article published and all “creation-scientists” happen to be Christians working for Christian organizations. It doesn't take a great mind to conclude that creation-science is really no science at all. Instead it is a covert attempt to hide religious beliefs as science. Further more creationism cannot possibly be considered a scientific theory. A scientific theory is an explanation of observed occurances through a process using natural laws that can make positive predictions supported by evidence. Creationism does not explain using natural laws, nor does it make any positive predictions. Therefore it cannot be considered a scientific theory.
Although it is quite clear that the whole idea of “Creation-Science” is ridiculous I will examine several of their arguments for creationism and against evolution in detail:
Argument:
“Humans are fundamentally different from other animals”
Again, this argument is wrong in multiple ways. I will look at the claim of human “uniqueness” in three different ways; the descent from apes, the mental capacity of humans and the morality aspect.
Claim 1
It is ridiculous to believe that humans, who are so different from other animals could have descended from a common animal ancestor.
Not only is this argument a text-book example of the
argument from incredulity fallacy it is also entirely incorrect. Humans share 99% of our DNA with chimpanzees and 98.4% of our DNA with gorillas. The entire difference in genetic code is accounted for by the functional parts of our DNA. The non-functional pairs of our DNA segments are
exactly the same. The only way that this similarity could exist is if all three species share a common ancestor.
Claim 2:
Humans are the only species capable of language, tool-using, self-awareness, creativity, etc.
There is only one word that describes this claim:
WRONG
I'll go through each of the components of the claim individually and point out the error:
Language: chimpanzees and gorillas are both capable of learning the English language. However, their vocal ability is limited and so they communicate through either sign-language or the arrangement of letters and words on a computer screen or magnetic board. However they demonstrate full understanding of grammar and composition and even teach language to their children.
Tool-using: In the wild, chimpanzees use a complicated technique involving shaped twigs to catch termites. This behavior is not instinctive, and is in fact taught by parents to children in the wild. Secondly, chimpanzees have been taught to construct stone tools and use them to cut ropes.
Self-awareness: All language using primates are self-aware and can identify themselves in photographs and categorize themselves separately from all others of the same species.
Creativity: Chimpanzees, gorillas and elephants all show clear elements of creativity through their paintings. In particular, gorillas paint differently based on their mood and are capable of painting landscapes that are products of their imaginations.
Claim 3:
Humans are the only species on Earth capable of morality.
Again this claim completely ignores a wide body of scientific evidence. There is much evidence to show that other species, especially primates do in fact have morality. In one experiment chimps were given a task, then rewarded with a cucumber slice. However, if they witnessed another chimp doing the same task but getting a grape instead (a better treat) they would refuse the cucumber slice and even throw the cucumber at the researchers. In another experiment a group of young chimps held up the feeding of the whole pack of chimps. The next day, that group was attacked by the rest of the pack, in apparent retribution. Morality is a trait that is evolutionarily advantageous for any social animal, because it allows members of a group to co-operate more effectively. Therefore it is only logical that such morality has evolved over time in a variety of species.
Argument:
The odds of life forming randomly are 1 in 10^(50,000) . Based on this number, a Creator must be involved.
In these types of calculations there are often elementary errors. Some common ones are:
• Assuming that the simplest life today (bacteria) are identical to the very first life. This is ridiculous, bacteria today are products of billions of years of evolution. A similar analogy would be examining a modern day fighter jet, claiming that its too complicated to be designed all at one time and then claiming that its miraculous appearance could only be attributed to divine intervention.
• Assuming that the current form of life is the only form of life. An example of this sort of calculation is someone claims that to form a 20 amino-acid protein the odds of forming it are one in 20^20 . While the odds of forming a particular sequence are in fact 1 in 20^20, this has no relation at all to the odds of life forming. There are many different arrangements of amino acids that would result in a functional protein.
Conclusion
Creationism is not science. It is not supported by evidence. It is not supported by logic.
Evolution is the product of the scientific process that has ushered in our current age of information and discovery. Evolution is supported by the overwhelming majority of scientific evidence. Evolution is the logical outcome of
open-minded thinking.
People who insist on supporting creationism despite all the evidence against it are those who are left blind and ignorant by their religious beliefs.
I'd love to hear any arguments for or against evolution and/or creationism. (
[email protected])
PEACE, take care, whatever you think.