• Philosophy and Spirituality
    Welcome Guest
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Threads of Note Socialize
  • P&S Moderators: JackARoe | Cheshire_Kat

Evolution VS Bible

I need to say something here because I feel some assumptions are being made that I am berating people for their beliefs. This truly is not my intent and I apoligize to anyone who may have been offended. This is discussion, evidence is presented, points are made, conclusions are drawn. I know that because religion is a PERSONAL thing, people take it personally, and that belief is as individual as we are. There are no right and wrong answers when it comes to belief or faith. My own beliefs stem from years of both growing up in the church and critical analysis of what I was taught in the church. I came to a crisis of faith in my 20's due to my military service, and asked questions that my faith was unable to answer. I sought answers and didn't care where they came from, science provided answers that faith and belief could not provide. That is my own path, not all of us feel the same way. I don't feel others would be consoled or find any more truth in my path anymore than I would find it in their's. We are left to find our own answers. These are mine.
Back on topic:
The test is not designed to go back to a single progenator, it is designed to follow the traits as far backward as it can. It is logical that populations decrease in numbers as we follow them backward in time. Up until the beginning of the 20th century only 2 billion people had ever enhabited the planet. The term "Mitochondrial Eve" is one chosen for both its relevance and its ability to make it understandable to the lay community.
Ten thousand years is barely far enough back in time to get humans on to the north American continent. As we all learned in 7th grade science class, humans crossed the Bering Strait into North America.This happened during the last ice age when sea levels were lowered by glacial ice sheets consuming large levels of fresh water. It is believed by some scientists that as few as 20 individuals could have made this trek and ended up populating the entirety of North and South America prior to the arrival of Europeans in the 15th century.
The convergences on the Asian and European Continents are FAR further back in time, more like 60,000 years ( and later) back not 6000.
I don't know where you got the idea I was trying to disprove evolution. Quite the contrary. I believe there is a possibilty of advanced extraterrestrial life in the universe. IF they visited man prior to the point where he was able to understand the origin, nature and technology of those extraterrestrial beings, he would have no other explanation than to assume they were some sort of diety. GOD is undoubtedly extraterrestrial and undoubtably far more advanced than humanity can conceive. Do I personnaly believe he is divine? No, just more advanced than we are. Our biggest advantage thus far is that GOD has not exploited the concept of his divinity and enslaved us totally.
Tathra
Perhaps since we both live here in Indianapolis, we should figure out a way to discuss this in more depth. I'm not an atheist, I consider myself more of an informed agnostic. What part of Indy do you live in? I currently live in Avon. I would welcome intelligent discussion.
 
Last edited:
[ Now, that being said, I personally don't think this viewpoint makes much sense. Not because of "scientific" reasons per se but more for philosophical/moral ones.[...]
This objection is basically, if everything is created by a loving God, then why is there suffering? I think the most common explanation for apparent suffering in nature is that it is a curse extending from the original sin of man against God. Although I've heard little discussion of it, it seems to imply that people are co-creating the natural world with God, and that our sin (or unwillingness to love) expresses itself in a world that includes suffering for all creatures. The strange prediction that after sin is gone from the world that even carnivores and their prey would peacefully coexist is at least consistent with this idea.
 
@rantnrave - i got your post mixed up with rachamim's. i'm so used to distinguishing people by avatars, i barely look at names anymore. i realized just now that my post was completley pointless :D

but yeah, pm me
 
Oh, that's not what I'm attacking at all. If you believe in "directed" evolution then you accept evolution, so you're safe as far as the scientific evidence for evolution is concerned. The 'creationism' that requires ignorance and/or stupidity and/or deliberate blindness is the kind holding that life was magicked into existence in more-or-less its present form. Theistic or 'guided' evolution is basically consistent, as far as I know, with the known scientific facts about the history of life on Earth. (It's certainly not "obviously idiotic" the way young-Earth creationism is.)

In a way, i don't see the two as that different. I refer to the excellent classic courtroom drama "Inherit the wind" (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0053946/) in which a question is posed suggesting that the creationism tale as set in the bible is actually metaphorically alligned with evolution and the days in which the earth was created are measured over (potentially) thousands of years. In a way, it does magically occur in so many days, AND in another it does evolve over eons.


[ Now, that being said, I personally don't think this viewpoint makes much sense. Not because of "scientific" reasons per se but more for philosophical/moral ones. To believe the evolution was divinely guided you have to believe that the god or gods wiped out 99+% of all the lifeforms they ever created, that they occasionally destroyed entire branches of life with a mass extinction. You have to believe that they created organisms like Onchocerca volvulus, a tiny parasitical worm which can only live by reproducing inside living humans; when its young migrate to the surface of the eyes, they often leave their victims blind (hundreds of thousands of people are blind b/c of this "river blindness.") Or like the parasitic wasps which lay their eggs inside flies or caterpillars; the growing larvae feed on their unwilling host, eating it from the inside out. But these are really just philosophical arguments against claims of personal, interventionist gods. As far as the scientific evidence goes, you can't rule out theistic evolution, as long as leaves space for natural selection to do some of the work. ]

See, the story analogy applies here. The rules of nature would have to be different for the level of suffering you describe to not exist, thus the bad writing part. Actually, i pose that nothing would have evolved at all should suffering such as these have been interfered with.

You're right that there's no known explanation for the emergence of the first cells.

Despite my loathing of his work on religions, I kinda dig Dawkins suggestion that it could have something to do with crystalised clay. but then maybe i'm just too big a fan of monkey magic ;)

These God-of-the-Gaps arguments have a bad history.
Agreed, but i also think chaos/random in the gaps is just as much a cop out.
 
In a way, i don't see the two as that different. [...]
Hi Impacto,
I do understand that's your position. But what I'm saying is that it's not the position of a lot of people, the 'creationists.' Those people say: no, the Bible/Qur'an/Tanakh/etc clearly tells us how the Earth & mankind were created, and that's how it happened -- we didn't evolve from any monkeys! They would call you a theistic evolutionist, say that you'd been tricked out of seeing the obvious truth of God's special creation by degenerate modern atheistic materialism, and most (the Christians at least) would probably say you had rejected Christ and needed to be saved. I'm not arguing that they're right -- I'm just saying that their position is very obviously not the same as yours. Theirs is what I (and lots of other pro-science folks) are concerned about, and the position(s) that are often referred to as creationism.
See, the story analogy applies here. The rules of nature would have to be different for the level of suffering you describe to not exist, thus the bad writing part. Actually, i pose that nothing would have evolved at all should suffering such as these have been interfered with.
I see what you mean. It seems like you're getting out of these problems by giving up the idea of a personal interventionist god, and making your god a deist god -- a hands-off First Mover who starts a clockwork universe in motion and then lets it unfold. I personally think that's not an unreasonable position, but it doesn't seem to sit very well with Christianity. (After all, if the god refuses to tweak the natural laws to prevent horrendous parasites from appearing, why would he allow himself to tweak those laws to give out orders for dietary restrictions and ritual animal-butchering?)
Despite my loathing of his work on religions, I kinda dig Dawkins suggestion that it could have something to do with crystalised clay. but then maybe i'm just too big a fan of monkey magic ;)
:) Yeah, I've actually seen a lot of clever ideas for this, but AFAIK so far they're all still just clever ideas.

On a side note -- I'm always a little baffled about the loathing many people display for Dawkins. To be fair, I haven't read any of his book(s?) on religion, just excerpts; but I have read some of his other books and heard him speak. And to me, he's always come off as a perfectly reasonable, measured person; his criticism of religion comes off as a confident intellectual argument, not as screaming anger or frothing hatred. Even the most negative review I read of his God Delusion book didn't criticize his arguments per se, but just complained that he was only critiquing the "primitive" idea of a personal, historically-acting, evil-smiting/prayer-answering god (i.e., the kind 90% of theists believe in), not the more abstract conception favored by, e.g., liberal divinity-school professors. So I'm a bit baffled by how much in vogue it is for "sensible" people to denigrate him. I can only assume that, as the most well-known public atheist around, he functions as a stand-in for every shrill, obnoxious, insulting, religious-loathing atheist they've ever met (of which there are certainly some) -- even though he doesn't fit the bill at all himself.

Do you think that's what's going on, IP? Or if not would you explain to me the reason why you loathe Dawkins himself & his work (rather than just "obnoxious atheists" in general?)
Agreed, but i also think chaos/random in the gaps is just as much a cop out.
I guess so, but is there anyone who ever invokes a "chaos in the gaps"-type explanation? Someone whose response to the open question of "how did the first cell originate" is just to assert "it randomly formed that way by chance"? I've never heard of anyone like that (outside of creationists' imaginations, that is :)).

(It's common to hear people attacking evolution for saying "everything just came about by chance." But in reality pure chance is not a large part of the theory of evolution. Evolution is largely about highly non-random processes such as adaptation and natural selection.)
 
Zorn Educates Rachamim

Zorn: "Had Rachamim read the earlier posts...": I do not always do so BUT when THAT is the case I carefully note it at the beginning of any post. In this case I DID read the thread in its entirety.

"But had Rachamim done so, he would know that Zorn was defining 'Creationism' in a specific manner.": I appreciate your cohesively defining it in a nutshell but it does not change my response. Humankind has no real idea how old the planet is OR the scheme in evolutionary flow/flow of existence. Positing that all life forms descend from a single one-celled organism is as much a grasping of straws as any other current outlook.


I love it when people go at it hard in defence of Evolution but never talk about how, according to Darwin, blacks are a lesser form of humanity. All the while they are telling people that the truth (in Evolution) is so self evident.


"Rachamim appears to be a fundamentalist/literalist Jew.": Hahahah, hold on, I am finishing my pork chop and milkshake...There! Hmm hmm good! In seriousness, I am afraid you do not have enough knowledge of Judaisim, at all, to even consider what I believe, or do not believe. Jews are not Christians. Maimonides , 1000 years ago, was preaching against taking a single world of Jewish Scripture in literally human terms.

I would kindly ask you to study very basic Judaic principles before beggining to make assumptions about any Jew, least of all me.


I have never heard of a single religious Jew who would ever imagine themself able to understand Scripture in purely human terms. When we are taught that G-D created the world in 7 days we are not taught that G-D dealt in 24 hour "days."

"Rachamim followers the wackier Jewish Laws.": Pushing aside the very real urge to laugh (again), what Laws would "they" be? Jewish Law is not a buffet table, to pick and choose at will. I follow Jewish Law, not "wackier" or "sane" laws. Since you have demonstrated, via usage of the word "literal" and "fundamentalist" that you have no real knowledge of even the most basic of Judaic concepts, perhaps you ought to follow my advice and start at the very beginning.

Fact is, most religious Jews refuse to deal with non-religious Jews, let alone non-Jews. Most non-Jews forget that ALL the Christian Disciples happened to be Jewish, hence "Casting pearls amongst swine" is actually a Jewish adage. Most are also unaware that the Sufi adage about "One needs to learn HOW TO LEARN before they can actually begin learning" was directly cadged from the Talmud.

The point being, religious Jews do not debate belief, they do not serve teachings to uninitiated people. Ergo, you could not possibly know what teachings are "wacky" (meaning not accepted by the majority). Take a second, how many Jews have you ever seen debating the subject of Evolution? You really have not even begun to understand the Jewish take on it and yet you see fit to pigeonhole me based upon Judaic mores, very presumptuous to say the least.

THEN you have the gall to talk about just why people view "Creationists" in certain ways, once again making blanket judgements.

"Zorn notes (2 times) that Rachamim is proving Zorn's point.": I am not sure why you would think that, given the clear evidence that you do not have the faintest idea about me or about my beliefs. All you have in this thread, thus far, is my taking great exception to your stock generalisations and stereotyping.

"Zorn educates Rachamim as to the differences between idiomatic and scientific definitions for the word 'Theory'.": And in both your definitions YOU will note that YOU did not once mention "definative qualification." Ergo, play the semantics game somewhere else. English is like my 7th language and even I recognise the nonsense you are pushing. I really feel bad about coming down on you so hard but I have to call it as I see it. You mount a soapbox, casting these hugely sterotypical judgements, and then hide behind word games. "THEORY" in ANY SENSE of the word can be broken down to its very basic essence and what exactly is that essence? "AN UNPROVEN CLAIM."

Let us cut the cock and bull, is there definative proof that Evolution is a fact? Of course NOT. Neither is their one iota of proof that it is wrong. Ergo, it deals in assumption.

YOU (and others) assume it to be correct and denigrate others who oppose your assumption. That is the jist of it.

I do not deal in assumption as fact. In cases of uncertainty, such as the underlyinfg cause of all existence, I cannot say you are an ignoramus for believing Homo Sapien to be a cousin of a Lemur, though many others certainly think you to be. I merely tell you my BELIEF.I also patiently take the time to explain just why I BELIEVE this. In exchange I am told that I prove your assertion that Creationists are ignorant" to be true.

Tell me, why is it that SOME Evolutionists find it so neccessary to dengirate people whob disagree with them? One of the "wacky Jewish" things I was taught was that IF one is confident in one's belief, there is no need to argue in its defence (Jews do not prostelyse). Perhaps you might consider that for awhile.

(Edited for spelling)
 
Last edited:
Hi Impacto,
I do understand that's your position. But what I'm saying is that it's not the position of a lot of people, the 'creationists.' Those people say: no, the Bible/Qur'an/Tanakh/etc clearly tells us how the Earth & mankind were created, and that's how it happened -- we didn't evolve from any monkeys! They would call you a theistic evolutionist, say that you'd been tricked out of seeing the obvious truth of God's special creation by degenerate modern atheistic materialism, and most (the Christians at least) would probably say you had rejected Christ and needed to be saved. I'm not arguing that they're right -- I'm just saying that their position is very obviously not the same as yours. Theirs is what I (and lots of other pro-science folks) are concerned about, and the position(s) that are often referred to as creationism.

Hi zorn :) (i've always been a fan of your posts),
Oh yeah, my bad. I thought we were having a philosophical discussion, not a sociological one.

Still, I don't think that by applying logical and rational scrutiny to a believer of such extremes is going to be very productive. More on this later....

I see what you mean. It seems like you're getting out of these problems by giving up the idea of a personal interventionist god, and making your god a deist god -- a hands-off First Mover who starts a clockwork universe in motion and then lets it unfold. I personally think that's not an unreasonable position, but it doesn't seem to sit very well with Christianity. (After all, if the god refuses to tweak the natural laws to prevent horrendous parasites from appearing, why would he allow himself to tweak those laws to give out orders for dietary restrictions and ritual animal-butchering?)

Now this is getting interesting. Thanks, I appreciate this chat.

Well, i wouldn't go so far as to say that once the ball was rolling it has been absolutely hands off. There is no harm in applying a touch here and there to keep things moving in the intended direction as long as the touches aren't even or consistent enough to be (frustratingly for us) proveably noticed.
Have you seen the futurama where bender meets god? I've used this before, but that only because it's written so well.
God: Bender, being God isn't easy. If you do too much, people get dependent on you; and if you do nothing, they lose hope. You have to use a light touch, like a safecracker or a pickpocket.
Bender: Or a guy who burns down a bar for the insurance money!
God: Yes, if you make it look like an electrical thing. When you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all.


On a side note -- I'm always a little baffled about the loathing many people display for Dawkins. ... I can only assume that, as the most well-known public atheist around, he functions as a stand-in for every shrill, obnoxious, insulting, religious-loathing atheist they've ever met (of which there are certainly some) -- even though he doesn't fit the bill at all himself.

Do you think that's what's going on, IP? Or if not would you explain to me the reason why you loathe Dawkins himself & his work (rather than just "obnoxious atheists" in general?)

I have never met anyone displaying anywhere near dawkin's apparent level of arrogance or hypocrisy in either atheists or theists.
I think there is a good coverage of this in the superbly titled thread:
richard dawkins going apeshit
In summary I think he does more damage to the debate than anything else. To be as intentionally provocative as he is, (if the title "the god delusion" isn't provocation, I don't know what is) I can't see how anyone would expect anything but an emotional reaction, and this is hardly the state to discuss anything.
Now, really, what drives the concern shown by atheists to christians? Really what does it matter that they believe the earth was made in days and that the rest of us are going to burn forever? In your daily life what difference does it really make? Conservationists go to great expense and pains to try (sadly with a lot of futility) to maintain old cultures from becoming extinct. So why the drive to destroy this culture? If it is a matter of education, well that is no different to their attempts to convert others.
In the end of the day, neither will have enough to convert the other. In the end of the day it matters not who is even right or wrong (if there is such a thing). What matters is that we get along. We need to get along with respect of each other and the beliefs and cultures therein. Then, and only then would there be any chance at progress and actual open dialogue.

It seems to me that people like dawkins are frustrated with the political game which, by its very nature, moves really slowly. People resist sudden change, that is why the drug laws are still archaic. That is why you can't just declare organised religion as meaningless. People won't stand for any attempt at such a significant and sudden paradigm shift. Strong resistance is inevitable. People simply don't work that way.

At least, this is what i think is happening. :)


I guess so, but is there anyone who ever invokes a "chaos in the gaps"-type explanation? Someone whose response to the open question of "how did the first cell originate" is just to assert "it randomly formed that way by chance"? I've never heard of anyone like that (outside of creationists' imaginations, that is :)).

Although I haven't any examples off hand, I have had this very impression a few times, actually.

(It's common to hear people attacking evolution for saying "everything just came about by chance." But in reality pure chance is not a large part of the theory of evolution. Evolution is largely about highly non-random processes such as adaptation and natural selection.)

I'd say that the "chance of random mutation" element is pretty integral to the whole shebang.
 
Zorn At The Lectern Once Again

Zorn Part II...

"Rachamim is CLEARLY IGNORANT of the difference in definitions for the word 'theory'.": I pretty much dealt with this in the closing of my first reply to you but your choice in language and tone tickles my fancy. Again, how do you know WHAT I think, or "know" if you do not engage me in dialogue and instead denigrate me? I am interested in how you will answer this.

You then go on and on in the epitome of arrogance ("Now there is nothing shameful about not knowing..." "Most non-scientists are..."). IF YOU HAD BOTHERED TO READ MY REPLY, and had refrained from turning this into some sort of "cyber pat on the back to Zorn" slash "faux intellectual pis*ing contest" you might have retained that one iota of info. where I volunteered that I am a degreed Botanist as in, "I have a science degree."

Oh, and I post under my actual name, all my particulars are on this site so that if you cared to, you can easily verify it. I do hope that my volunteering this, and reiterating it in this post, can negate the nonsense and lead to actual dialogue on this subject as opposed to the usual, "Oh you are full of shi* because -fill in the blanks, in this case SCIENTISTS- never..."

"Scientists" happen to run the gamut of viewpoints on these issues. Assuming most agree with your viewpoint is ridiculous.

"Zorn is not sure just why Rachamim has an issue with Zorn generalising. After all, Zorn IS talking in broad strokes.": Hahaaha, precious. OK, ln the sense that I always answer any question posed with civlity, I will answer you. Unless you are working within some kind of scientific framework (as in Poll Science though I would love to tear that one down), it is completely counter-intuitive to generalise. Who are you to draw broad strokes? People are individuals and as such have their own singular points of view.

By simply adding the word "probablly" as in, "Most scientists PROBABLLY consider," you would have made an intelligent point. Instead, denigrating an entire class of people (in this case you denigrated all Creationists -as if they are some monolithic entity in and of themselves, non-scientists, and religious fundamentalists) you merely propagated the very same "ignorance" you railed about.

"The question IS, whether-or-not Zorn's generalisations were accurate...": NO generalisation is accurate. Using generalisations is an exercise in ignorance. Surely, if you knew half as many "scientists" as you say you do, you would be well aware of this.

You need to offer some sort of qualification. "The absence of any serious vehichular accidents in Orange County for the last 6 months of 1999 denotes an increase in motorist awareness and proactivity on the part of law enforcement and educators..." That is a generalisation that is completely uinqualified and yet is at least supported by a hypothesis. All you are doing with YOUR generalisation is telling us some nonsense. "Most scientists think..."

Listen, if I know what I think 7 days a week things are going great. I will be damned if I sit here acting like I know what others think! Action, or lack there of, can offer a supportive framework but that has absolutely no bearing on your statement (and your statement is nothing but supposition clothed in arrogance).

'Scientists agree on an immense set of facts...": You mean like..."Out of Africa?" Or "Pekling Man?" Do you mean the "Peopling of The Americas?" "Clovis?" "Bering Bridge?" "Kennewick Man?"

You would (OBVIOUSLY) be suprised at the variation within academia. An abudance of similarity, even consensus does not equal fact. At one time the consensus of academia held that G-D created the universe in 7 literal days. Now you offer that because (you incorrectly assume) a extant consensus on Orthadox Evolutionary Theory exists in academia, that this now translates into "established fact." Interesting, but also VERY telling.

Hahahah, look, then you ADMIT that "Out of Africa" is debatable. Yet you then tell us that "atoms" are "established fact." Do you even know the first source for basic atomic theory? Give you a hint, Classical Greece. However, noone has ever seen an atom, nor proved its existence outright. It only posseses a high level of plausability and is therefore accepted by academic consensus, UNLIKE Evolution per se (Evolution, unlike Atomic Theory, is very diverse and as such not subject to blanket acceptance. Basic Evolutionary Tehory, as in Theory of Adaptation Is accepted by conseus where as other components certainly ARE NOT).

"Einstein was an atheist, which can be verified by Wiki...": You are talking down to people and you use Wiki as a source? Hahahahhahahhaha. Here is hint: Consumer Generated Content sans Real Editorial Oversight is absolutely worthless. Read a few bigoraphies and get back to me. Einstein was a theist, he saw the mark of the Creator all around him. He was not "religious" in any traditional sense of the word but he clearly believed in a Higher Power, and said so often.

You know, anyone who spends 15 seconds registering at Wiki can re-edit or even compose pieces on the site. Indeed, I have authored a couple of dozen. The fact that you flaunt the site as a source is the epitome of irony since you dismiss what I say out of hand. In other words, Rachamim is incorrect but some anonymous web denzien who offers 3 annotations (which of course YOU never verified or researched in depth) is inviolable to you. Niiice.

Hahaha, then you add "Oh Einstein threw around the name of G-D but he..." You certainly are adept at ESP, but then how is it that you failed to discern what ignorant Rachamim thought?

Einstein's belief in a transcendent power ...is...guess what? A BELIEF... IN... G-D. Your failing is ion only viewing G-D as some sort of stuffy Judaic/Christian/Islamic concept when the truth of the matter is, G-D can be represented in something as mundane as basic mathamatics. Ever look at a snowflake under a microscope? The universe, as Einstein knew very well, does not operate by chance. It has real rules, parameters, and Einstein realised early on that these rules represent a Higher Intelligence.

Religion is man's inability to comprehend that which transcends everything human. Judaism (in my and some others' estimation) represents the most opportune manner with which to approach this transcendance but it is not a full communion. G-D is beyond anything we can fathom, and yet we can easily see (IF we look) the proof of HIS existence all around us. Einstein used the word because he realised this, as he himself took time to explain. You though (apparently), are caught up in some sort of child like concept of G-D as a white bearded shooter of lightning bolts, and clearly thinlk everybody approaches the subject the same way.

(Edited for spelling)
 
Last edited:
Ranting With Rant...

Rant: "Religion causes more wars than anything else.": A very popular misconception. Totally incorrect. Virtually every war in history has been caused by the appropriation of natural resources, from water to diamonds. Religion merely provides the most conveient vehichle for cohesiveness. Nothing riles the common human more than religion.

"Evolution is no longer a theory but proven fact via DNA and modern genetic science.": Absolutely wrong.

"300,000 people were tested for genetic markers." Yep, it is called the "Human Genome Project" and has nothing at all to do witrh Evolution. Its goal, and utility, is in tracing migratory routes of humans.

(Edited for spelling)
 
Jewish Law is not a buffet table, to pick and choose at will. I follow Jewish Law, not "wackier" or "sane" laws.

since you follow jewish law, does that mean you still sacrifice animals, as per dueteronomy and numbers, and sacrifice extra for Azazel?

its the law, after all. unless those two books of law in the torah are total bullshit... but then, you're eating pork, so you obviously dont follow much jewish law. also, do you make you girlfriend sit outside of camp for a week after she menstrates as well?

but then, i'm ignorant as to whether or not all this changed after 70 ad, after the second temple was destroyed. etiehr way, whats in the torah is jewish law, right? so it shouldnt matter what happened after the torah was written.
 
Last edited:
"Evolution is no longer a theory but proven fact via DNA and modern genetic science.": Absolutely wrong.

"300,000 people were tested for genetic markers." Yep, it is called the "Human Genome Project" and has nothing at all to do witrh Evolution. Its goal, and utility, is in tracing migratory routes of humans.

(Edited for spelling)
Do you mean micro evolution (adaptation of species) or macro evolution (one species begetting another)? I would think the evidence for micro evolution would be enough to convince anybody, especially since it is the logical outcome of having mortality and mutation.
 
"Einstein was an atheist, which can be verified by Wiki...": You are talking down to people and you use Wiki as a source? Hahahahhahahhaha. Here is hint: Consumer Generated Content sans Real Editorial Oversight is absolutely worthless. Read a few bigoraphies and get back to me. Einstein was a theist, he saw the mark of the Creator all around him. He was not "religious" in any traditional sense of the word but he clearly believed in a Higher Power, and said so often.
Einstein was a platonic realist(like many other mathematicians). He prescribed to the idea of a transcendental hierarchy of "ideas", but he was skeptical of a personal God's existence. This puts him in both camps. He was a mystic, and an atheist/agnostic.

I'll be back to chime in on Dawkins later.
 
Last edited:
Rant: "Religion causes more wars than anything else.": A very popular misconception. Totally incorrect. Virtually every war in history has been caused by the appropriation of natural resources, from water to diamonds. Religion merely provides the most conveient vehichle for cohesiveness. Nothing riles the common human more than religion.

"Evolution is no longer a theory but proven fact via DNA and modern genetic science.": Absolutely wrong.

"300,000 people were tested for genetic markers." Yep, it is called the "Human Genome Project" and has nothing at all to do witrh Evolution. Its goal, and utility, is in tracing migratory routes of humans.

(Edited for spelling)
Yeah, yeah, yeah, virtually thats bullshit, I'm MOST certainly not incorrect, religion is at the heart of EVERY conflict that has been fought in the holyland. Throughout human history there has been VERY few periods of prolonged lasting peace in the holyland. Every conflict throughout the 8000 years of recorded history that has arisen in what is now called the State of Israel and it's surrounding states has been because the three major religions of the world all claim one section of land as their holy places. So for nearly the entirety of recorded history we have been fighting religious wars in that section of the world. When is that bullshit gonna stop? SOLVE THE PROBLEM! Make the world holy sites U.N. WORLD HERITAGE SITE, open to all and politic free. Resolve the current conflicts with a two state solution in Israel/Palestine. STOP BOMBING EACH OTHER!!!! Israel with planes and artillery and the Palestinians with suicide bombers. An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind. The biggest problem here is that niether side recognizes the others right to exist on the planet. But we all DO exist on the planet, and so use the BRAIN that your GOD gave you and LEARN to STOP BLOWING EACH OTHER UP!

I am not anti-Semitic or pro-Israel, I'm not anti- or Pro-Palestinian. I'm ANTI-WAR!
Human kind will never be able to call itself "EVOLVED" until we learn to stop killing each other.

I HATE THIS! WHEN THOSE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE PERPETUATION OF HATE, WON'T TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR IT!!! IT'S POSITIVELY MADDENING. One of these days were going to realize were all in the same boat and that we all have to live with each other instead of killing each other. But, go ahead, denial is your best weapon.

And sayng DNA research and the Human Genome Project has nothing to do with evolutionary science is like saying telescopes have nothing to do with Cosmology or Astronomy. DUH!

No GOD I would ever want to worship would put up with his "children" killing each other in his own name.
IF there is a God, and thats a BIG if, we should sue him for ABANDONMENT. Some father.
 
Last edited:
Hi zorn :) (i've always been a fan of your posts),
Oh yeah, my bad. I thought we were having a philosophical discussion, not a sociological one.
Thanks! I don't mean to get all sociological, I'm just saying that's why I wouldn't call you a 'creationist.' I'd guess that probably most people who you hear attacking creationists wouldn't include you; certainly lots of people who attack creationism go out of their way to point out that evolution doesn't imply atheism. It's the large chunk of self-identified creationists who reject evolution that I really object to.
Well, i wouldn't go so far as to say that once the ball was rolling it has been absolutely hands off. There is no harm in applying a touch here and there to keep things moving in the intended direction as long as the touches aren't even or consistent enough to be (frustratingly for us) proveably noticed.
Have you seen the futurama where bender meets god? I've used this before, but that only because it's written so well.
No, I've never seen that one, but I've probably got it lying around -- will dig it up if I get the chance sometime. That idea sounds possible to me, in the sense it can't really be disproven, but extremely unnatural. It's very weird to imagine that there's an anthropic creator who insists on his actions "not being noticed" by living beings -- especially since the majority of people are missing the point entirely (they think the evidence clearly demonstrates that either there is or isn't a god(s).)
I have never met anyone displaying anywhere near dawkin's apparent level of arrogance or hypocrisy in either atheists or theists.
I think there is a good coverage of this in the superbly titled thread:
richard dawkins going apeshit
In summary I think he does more damage to the debate than anything else. To be as intentionally provocative as he is, (if the title "the god delusion" isn't provocation, I don't know what is) I can't see how anyone would expect anything but an emotional reaction, and this is hardly the state to discuss anything.
I'll take a look at that thread. So is one of your main objections just that he is provocative in saying religion is false? I have to disagree in that I don't think there's anything wrong with that. I agree with you that it's not the best way to convince anyone of anything.

But I think it's also important for a viewpoint to have passionate, clear defenders in the public sphere. For a long time atheism (in the USA) hasn't had much of that. And if you look at things, there's an astonishing level of bigotry/prejudice against atheists in certain sectors. Look at politics for example -- people running for most offices are required to repeatedly publicly affirm a religious faith. It doesn't matter really which one, but God forbid you run as an agnostic or secular person or atheist -- you'd be destroyed. Surveys that ask "who would you not vote for President even if they were otherwise qualified" show atheism is up at the top, way above most of the other options. I think a lot of the reason for this is that, while there's a lot of secular people in the USA, in many contexts they are just not at all open about their belief -- they keep quiet about it. And without exposure to people who make atheism/agnosticism sound like the honest, true position that it is, these vaguely unpleasant attitudes on the part of many people will continue to exist.

(I think something similar was probably true of right-wing political conservatives in the USA in the '50s and '60s and perhaps '70s. Their viewpoints were largely ignored by the consensus in a way that made a lot of them very agree. Now that's completely changed, in part because they became organized & vocal. Just whether or not an articulate, open atheist / conservative is present IMO makes an immense difference to the way religious/political conversations go forward. There are whole sets of careless assumptions that you can't get away with any more, whole new areas of debate that open up, and so on. It matters a lot, just being cognizant of them as reasonable participants in the conversation.

So I think that both sorts are needed. We need people like Dawkins to write books (with unsubtle titles) that say: manmade religions are wrong. Because that's what lots of us believe, and it's crazy to act like it's a shameful belief or something when it's just the truth. And we need people willing to engage others in a nonconfrontational, respectful way. There's room for both kinds, says I. :)

Now, really, what drives the concern shown by atheists to christians? Really what does it matter that they believe the earth was made in days and that the rest of us are going to burn forever? In your daily life what difference does it really make? Conservationists go to great expense and pains to try (sadly with a lot of futility) to maintain old cultures from becoming extinct. So why the drive to destroy this culture? If it is a matter of education, well that is no different to their attempts to convert others.
In the end of the day, neither will have enough to convert the other. In the end of the day it matters not who is even right or wrong (if there is such a thing). What matters is that we get along. We need to get along with respect of each other and the beliefs and cultures therein. Then, and only then would there be any chance at progress and actual open dialogue.
Most of what I wanted to say is above. I do agree that getting along is important. But we're not at risk of banning religion in the USA, so I'm not too worried about that. And it's also very important to keep a degree (preferably much more!) of rationality in the public sphere. The immediate threat with creationism is of course the incessant attempts to gut the teaching of evolution & start the teaching of creationism in the public schools. Over and above that, in practice evolution is just barely even taught at all many places, out of fear of the attacks from fundamenalist creationists. (When I went to HS, in Kansas, it was like that -- despite supposedly being required to teach evolution, the instructor just jumped over it in a couple minutes, out of admitted unwillingness to deal with the attacks from students/parents.) This is a travesty.

And it has worse real-world consequences too. Maybe the best one is how much easier creationism makes it for other pseudo-science and scams to flourish. It's quite clear that there's a connection between creationism and global warming denialism, for starters. Not surprising, since once you've accepted the notion that there's a giant science or media conspiracy to lie about evolution, it's only a small step to believe there's another such conspiracy about climate change. So in a very real way creationism is partly responsible for our failure to take increasingly-urgent action to deal with the problem.

It seems to me that people like dawkins are frustrated with the political game which, by its very nature, moves really slowly. People resist sudden change, that is why the drug laws are still archaic. That is why you can't just declare organised religion as meaningless. People won't stand for any attempt at such a significant and sudden paradigm shift. Strong resistance is inevitable. People simply don't work that way.

At least, this is what i think is happening. :)
:) I don't think he expects people to change all of a sudden; I'd guess he just thinks that a firm, vocal commitment in favor of his position is the best way to advance it. I think he's right. The Christians who make converts aren't those who give sermons saying, "well I don't want to tell you you're wrong, there's a lot of truth to what everyone's saying, here's my personal opinion." They're the ones whose sermons say, "the wages of the world is sin & death, but the way of the truth is God & life. The thing is that they're just stating their beliefs clearly, with confidence, and without apology. When you think about it Dawkins isn't saying anything differently than what religious people say, in books & sermons, constantly -- that their position is right and good, and other contradictory beliefs are wrong and bad. It's just that the religious get a free pass for this (it's just what they believe!), while presenting a new or unfamiliar viewpoint this way will get you attacked as shrill or provocative. But IMHO it's necessary to just do this to eventually reach 'accepted' status.

I'd say that the "chance of random mutation" element is pretty integral to the whole shebang.
Certainly.../ You need mutations as a source of variation for evolution to work with, sure. But it doesn't get you anywhere by itself. It's just the raw input that evolution works with. Most of the important processes of evolution, like natural selection or sexual selection or speciation, are not at all random. They work on variations and move in a specific direction -- towards maximum local fitness. I emphasize this because a lot of people I've talked to really did seem to think that evolution just said that things were all "random" or "just happened by chance," but that's not right at all.

Good discussion!

-zorn
 
Ah, we begin to get somewhere. I'll try to set aside any obnoxious personal attacks and just focus on your (rachamim's) actual claims. Incidentally, since you spend quite a lot of time complaining about my "arrogant" & "denigrating" tone, let me just note -- your posts sound exactly the same to me. :) So it'd certainly be more productive if you'd do the same: less sneers & self-righteousness and more arguments & facts, please.

Anyways, I'm going to organize this as follows -- first address some random errors & claims you made, and then cover the meat of the question. So the most important part of this will be at the end.

First, to get one issue out of the way, I'm not sure why you're going on about your Judaism so much here. The only relevant question -- and the only point I've brought up -- is: do your religious beliefs lead you to any position about how the Earth & its life must have appeared? That is -- are there some ideas about how humans & life on Earth came about which you would reject solely based on religious beliefs? Everything you've said at first suggested that you're a fundamentalist Jew (presumably one of the ultra-Orthodox sects?) and so you probably do, which is typical for creationists. (It's telling that you find people of diverse religious beliefs -- atheists, observant Muslims, Jews, Christians, etc. -- who accept the evidence for evolution; yet creationists are almost invariably wedded to extremely conservative/fundamentalist religious views which require them to adopt a creationist position.)

If that's not the case for you, just say so -- we'll happily take your word for it. There's no need to be coy. :D
I love it when people go at it hard in defence of Evolution but never talk about how, according to Darwin, blacks are a lesser form of humanity. All the while they are telling people that the truth (in Evolution) is so self evident.
WTF? What in the world could this have to do with the truth of evolution? Darwin could have made a habit of molesting and murdering homeless Palestinian orphan boys and that wouldn't have any bearing on the truth of the theory of evolution. The truth of evolution is based on the vast evidence for it (see below), not anything to do with Darwin at all. Indeed, while Darwin is considered a great scientist because he discovered some important things which turned out to be true, many of his ideas turned wrong. You'd be laughed out of the room if you tried to suggest to biologists today that should believe XYZ just because Darwin did. And I'm not sure what his moral beliefs should have to do with anything! Honestly I have a hard time understanding the thought processes of anyone who actually believes this is a reason to accept/reject evolution -- you do in fact realize the its utter irrelevance, don't you?

(Incidentally you should know that in fact Darwin was a committed abolitionist, and, while not rejecting the standard assumption of racial inequities, quite progressive on race compared with his extremely racist time. But again, this is of course totally irrelevant!)

Also, why would you come up with the notion that I think the truth of evolution is "self-evident"? Evolution should be evident to most anyone who is familiar with the vast evidence for it. Most people aren't; you can often even get through college bio classes without ever hearing much about it (at least here in the US.)
And in both your definitions YOU will note that YOU did not once mention "definative qualification." Ergo, play the semantics game somewhere else. English is like my 7th language and even I recognise the nonsense you are pushing. I really feel bad about coming down on you so hard but I have to call it as I see it. You mount a soapbox, casting these hugely sterotypical judgements, and then hide behind word games. "THEORY" in ANY SENSE of the word can be broken down to its very basic essence and what exactly is that essence? "AN UNPROVEN CLAIM."
No, again, this is just wrong. I'm not sure why you just keep stamping your foot & repeating your original assertion when I've shown it's wrong. Perhaps a dictionary entry will help?

The OED -- which is widely considered the most comprehensive&authoritative dictionary on the English language BTW -- lists the standard colloquial definition as meaning #6 and the scientific definition as:
http://dictionary.oed.com/cgi/entry/50250688?query_type=word&queryword=theory
4. a. A scheme or system of ideas or statements held as an explanation or account of a group of facts or phenomena; a hypothesis that has been confirmed or established by observation or experiment, and is propounded or accepted as accounting for the known facts; a statement of what are held to be the general laws, principles, or causes of something known or observed.[/url]
Not, as you see, meaning "unproven." ;) Alternatively, you can look at the various dictionary entries at http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/theory . The science dictionary says "A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena. Most theories that are accepted by scientists have been repeatedly tested by experiments and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena," and the American Heritage and Random House there both list both definitions, with only the colloquial one having an implication of "unproven." Indeed, the first dictionary (Random House) even notes:
Theory, hypothesis are used in non-technical contexts to mean an untested idea or opinion. A theory in technical use is a more or less verified or established explanation accounting for known facts or phenomena: the theory of relativity. A hypothesis is a conjecture put forth as a possible explanation of phenomena or relations, which serves as a basis of argument or experimentation to reach the truth: This idea is only a hypothesis.
You could also look at some of the excerpts from evolutionary bio texts here:
A few words need to be said about the "theory of evolution," which most people take to mean the proposition that organisms have evolved from common ancestors. In everyday speech, "theory" often means a hypothesis or even a mere speculation. But in science, "theory" means "a statement of what are held to be the general laws, principles, or causes of something known or observed." as the Oxford English Dictionary defines it. The theory of evolution is a body of interconnected statements about natural selection and the other processes that are thought to cause evolution, just as the atomic theory of chemistry and the Newtonian theory of mechanics are bodies of statements that describe causes of chemical and physical phenomena. In contrast, the statement that organisms have descended with modifications from common ancestors--the historical reality of evolution--is not a theory. It is a fact, as fully as the fact of the earth's revolution about the sun. Like the heliocentric solar system, evolution began as a hypothesis, and achieved "facthood" as the evidence in its favor became so strong that no knowledgeable and unbiased person could deny its reality. No biologist today would think of submitting a paper entitled "New evidence for evolution;" it simply has not been an issue for a century.

- Douglas J. Futuyma, Evolutionary Biology, 2nd ed., 1986, Sinauer Associates, p. 15


It's not surpsising you'd make this mistake, it's very common since most people are just familiar with the colloquial definition. But, as you should now realize, the fact that it's often referred to as the 'theory' of evolution by no means implies doubt about it, just as the 'theory' of gravity doesn't mean gravity is "up in the air," so to speak.
"Zorn is not sure just why Rachamim has an issue with Zorn generalising. After all, Zorn IS talking in broad strokes.": Hahaaha, precious. [...] By simply adding the word "probablly" as in, "Most scientists PROBABLLY consider," you would have made an intelligent point. Instead [..] you merely propagated the very same "ignorance" you railed about. [...] NO generalisation is accurate. Using generalisations is an exercise in ignorance. Surely, if you knew half as many "scientists" as you say you do, you would be well aware of this.
I'm really unclear what your problem is? Obviously some generalizations are accurate: men tend to be taller than women. Very few women have stronger arms than the average men. Etc. I don't really see any point in arguing about that. As to my statements, as you should have noticed, when I'm speaking in broad strokes I sprinkle them liberally with qualifiers. If I happen to leave one out someplace, you should just insert it yourself, rather than freaking out about it! It's really not that hard to understand what I'm saying.
"Einstein was an atheist, which can be verified by Wiki...": You are talking down to people and you use Wiki as a source? Hahahahhahahhaha. Here is hint: Consumer Generated Content sans Real Editorial Oversight is absolutely worthless. Read a few bigoraphies and get back to me. [...]You know, anyone who spends 15 seconds registering at Wiki can re-edit or even compose pieces on the site. Indeed, I have authored a couple of dozen. The fact that you flaunt the site as a source is the epitome of irony since you dismiss what I say out of hand. In other words, Rachamim is incorrect but some anonymous web denzien who offers 3 annotations (which of course YOU never verified or researched in depth) is inviolable to you. Niiice. [...] You certainly are adept at ESP, but then how is it that you failed to discern what ignorant Rachamim thought?
Oh, I suggested Wikipedia as a convenient source; Einstein's religious views are well-known and you can find them many places. No ESP is necessary to know what Einstein believed, since he made it clear on a number of occasions. For example, here's a site that collates some of the sources for his views, or look at the New Scientist's take. You could also look at any decent bio of him, if you really find these too untrustworthy. Since the question is whether we should call Einstein himself a "theist," I'll just quote him directly on the topic:
My position concerning God is that of an agnostic. I am convinced that a vivid consciousness of the primary importance of moral principles for the betterment and ennoblement of life does not need the idea of a law-giver, especially a law-giver who works on the basis of reward and punishment.
— Letter to M. Berkowitz, October 25, 1950; Einstein Archive 59-215

... The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this. .... For me the Jewish religion like all other religions is an incarnation of the most childish superstitions.
— Letter to Eric Gutkind, January 3, 1954
(Einstein's belief was in the mystery & underlying rational order of the universe, or Nature, and a feeling of awe before it. It's pretty interesting actually, and anyone who wants to know more about it should look, as I suggested before, at the pretty good Wikipedia article on the topic or on some of the other links here.)

Anyways, it's deeply ingenuous at best (and outright false/deceptive at worst) to claim Einstein was a "theist" (when he himself said differently!) without explaining his clear rejection of what many (most?) people would consider 'belief in god' ("I cannot conceive of a God who rewards and punishes his creatures, or has a will of the type of which we are conscious in ourselves..." and "It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal god and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.") In any case, I'm not sure why you brought this up in the first place -- or did you actually want to claim Einstein was a creationist? (Hint: no.)
Hahahah, look, then you ADMIT that "Out of Africa" is debatable. Yet you then tell us that "atoms" are "established fact." Do you even know the first source for basic atomic theory? Give you a hint, Classical Greece. However, noone has ever seen an atom, nor proved its existence outright. It only posseses a high level of plausability and is therefore accepted by academic consensus,
No, no, this is totally wrong. First, I'm not sure what in the world Greek philosophers have to do with the question; you seem to suffer from some weird variant of the etymological fallacy -- where if some guy dreamed up an idea x thousand years ago, any similar or similarly-named idea today is "really" that dude's idea. In fact, modern atomic theory only very loosely resembles what Democritus speculated about (which he of course had no evidence for.)

Moving on, you're a century or so behind in your conception of atomic theory. :D That description would have been valid ca. the late 1800's, when the chemical evidence was the major support for atomic theory. But we're way past that now. Maybe the easiest way to see that is to note that modern imaging & manipulation methods easily let us manipulate and image individual atoms; indeed, experimentalists regularly manipulate individual subatomic components. I'm surprised you haven't seen this iconic picture, among other things! Or check out the current thread in S&T with a photo of an individual molecule. (They're scamming a little bit with the claim of the "first", I suspect they mean they were the first to start with just 1 molecule of something and then find & image it.)
'Scientists agree on an immense set of facts...": You mean like..."Out of Africa?" Or "Pekling Man?" Do you mean the "Peopling of The Americas?" "Clovis?" "Bering Bridge?" "Kennewick Man?"
You seem to be making a common error: thinking that because we don't know everything, therefore we don't know anything. But, obviously, it doesn't work like that! Someone could know the Earth is round, but not its precise mass & composition. Similarly, we know that life on Earth evolved, without knowing every detail of when/where/how each species changed.

That's how science works -- we gradually build up a series of observations & theories relating them. Those things on the edge, supported by only a few observations, are the subjects of active research -- up in the air, debatable to a greater-or-lesser extent. Many of those edge ideas turn out to be wrong. But as you move further "inward," you get to theories that have been supported by more and more evidence and 'cross-checks.' It's actually extremely rare for a well-supported theory like that to turn out to be wrong. (Try and name some! I will bet you that any you can think of will still have been fairly speculative at the time!) Eventually you get to the point where there's just an overwhelming about of data in favor of something -- where the facts and detailed predictions just get so tight that there's no way out of them. In those cases, you have facts. That's where the round Earth, gravity, atomic theory, evolution (see below), and so on are.
At one time the consensus of academia held that G-D created the universe in 7 literal days. Now you offer that because (you incorrectly assume) a extant consensus on Orthadox Evolutionary Theory exists in academia, that this now translates into "established fact." Interesting, but also VERY telling.
No, again, this is wrong. There was never any scientific consensus around 7-day creation! There simply wasn't any real historical science of the Earth & its life until the birth of modern geology in the 18th & 19th centuries. Prior to that, the standard Christian position was 7-day creationism, but it ran into problems from the newborn geology almost from the very beginning.


Anyways, we at last get to the real meat of the issue -- is there a scientific consensus that evolution is a fact? And is there overwhelming evidence that evolution is a fact? (Yes and yes.) But I'll put this in another post, since this one's already unwieldy.
 
Humankind has no real idea how old the planet is OR the scheme in evolutionary flow/flow of existence. Positing that all life forms descend from a single one-celled organism is as much a grasping of straws as any other current outlook.

Let us cut the cock and bull, is there definative proof that Evolution is a fact? Of course NOT. Neither is their one iota of proof that it is wrong. Ergo, it deals in assumption.

"Scientists" happen to run the gamut of viewpoints on these issues. Assuming most agree with your viewpoint is ridiculous.

You would (OBVIOUSLY) be suprised at the variation within academia.

It only posseses a high level of plausability and is therefore accepted by academic consensus, UNLIKE Evolution per se (Evolution, unlike Atomic Theory, is very diverse and as such not subject to blanket acceptance. Basic Evolutionary Tehory, as in Theory of Adaptation Is accepted by conseus where as other components certainly ARE NOT).

Here are the real claims rachamim wants to make. All of these are wrong. (As we'll see.) They fall into two basic assertions: 1) there is no scientific consensus that evolution occurred, and 2) there's not overwhelming evidence evolution occurred. In order:

1) There is no scientific consensus that evolution occurred (false).

In this case it's not difficult to find out what the scientific consensus is about evolution, even without the opportunity to talk to a wide cross-section of scientists about it. I've already provided some evidence that it's wrong to think there's significant doubt among researchers about evolution -- note the numerous surveys of scientists I linked to in my earlier post. Those show that ~95% of scientists believed that life came about through evolution, even when 'scientist' was defined in a very loose manner (in some of these surveys, for example, someone who went to college, got a botany degree, and then became say a preacher would still be considered a scientist.)

How else can we tell what the scientific consensus might be? One way would be to just go and ask some local scientists. I always suggest this (but I don't anyone has ever done it.) Go to your local research university, randomly pick a few biology profs, ask ask them about it. Say, "I've heard this debate about evolution vs. creationism, is there really convincing evidence that species evolved from a common ancestor? Or is it just a guess, and maybe they just appeared after all?" See what they tell you. As long as you don't go to Jerry Falwell's fundie university (or its Jewish equivalents!) I can pretty much guarantee what answer you'll get. But you don't have to take my word for it; give it a try!

Alternatively, we could look at the statements of professional scientific associations, like the National Academies of Science, the American Physical Society, etc. Most such groups issue position statements on important scientific topics where the public might want to know what they think -- every one about evolution says the same thing I am. Here's just a few:

Statements of scientific societies on evolution:
American Association for the Advancement of Science: http://archives.aaas.org/docs/resolutions.php?doc_id=443
American Geophysical Union: http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/policy/positions/evolution.shtml
National Academy of Sciences: http://newton.nap.edu/html/creationism/index.html
67 (!) national academies of science: http://www.interacademies.net/Object.File/Master/6/150/Evolution statement.pdf
American Geological Institute: http://www.agiweb.org/gapac/evolution_statement.html
British Royal Society: http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/news.asp?id=4298
Geological Society of America: http://www.geosociety.org/aboutus/position1.htm
The Paleontological Society: http://www.paleosoc.org/evolutioncomplete.htm
American Astronomical Society: (google it, BL won't let me post it for some reason)
American Physical Society: http://www.aps.org/statements/99_5.cfm

(the links are old, so some may have changed!)

Just to give one example, from the NAS -- (the NAS and Royal Society are probably the two most prestigious scientific organizations around) -- from their brief pamphlet about evolution & creationism online.
Is evolution a fact or a theory?

The theory of evolution explains how life on Earth has changed. In scientific terms, "theory" does not mean "guess" or "hunch" as it does in everyday usage. Scientific theories are explanations of natural phenomena built up logically from testable observations and hypotheses. Biological evolution is the best scientific explanation we have for the enormous range of observations about the living world.

Scientists most often use the word "fact" to describe an observation. But scientists can also use fact to mean something that has been tested or observed so many times that there is no longer a compelling reason to keep testing or looking for examples. The occurrence of evolution in this sense is a fact. Scientists no longer question whether descent with modification occurred because the evidence supporting the idea is so strong.

http://www.nap.edu/html/creationism/appendix.html
(read the whole thing; they make it clear that they're speaking about the common descent with modification of life on Earth -- not just minor change within a species.)


Thirdly, you could go look at any scientific journal, like Science or Nature. Do a search for evolution, and you'll find zillions and zillions of articles discussing how some evolutionary process occured, or discussing a particular mechanism -- but not a single one which doesn't treat evolution itself (common descent) as established fact. Try it! Look at the News&Views and Perspective-type articles. Check out their language. They never say "if humans evolved from primates" or "if macroevolution is actually true" or "if life had a common ancestor," they always treat those as established fact -- because, among researchers, they are! :) What you will see instead is things like "if the human-chimpanzee divergence occurred less than 8 million YA" or "if the archaea are more closely related to the bacteria than the eukaryotes," because those are the open questions in evolution. The only mentions you'll see on creationism are news articles etc lamenting the public's confusion about evolution. Just look.

Finally, just for completeness, you can look at some textbooks in the field or statements by well-known biologists. Texts are normally pretty good about acknowledging major uncertainties -- you won't find them telling you we know what dark energy is (or even if it's for sure really real), or that we know how the first cell came about. Let me quote a couple mentioned here:
Let me try to make crystal clear what is established beyond reasonable doubt, and what needs further study, about evolution. Evolution as a process that has always gone on in the history of the earth can be doubted only by those who are ignorant of the evidence or are resistant to evidence, owing to emotional blocks or to plain bigotry. By contrast, the mechanisms that bring evolution about certainly need study and clarification. There are no alternatives to evolution as history that can withstand critical examination. Yet we are constantly learning new and important facts about evolutionary mechanisms.

- Theodosius Dobzhansky "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution", American Biology Teacher vol. 35 (March 1973) reprinted in Evolution versus Creationism, J. Peter Zetterberg ed., ORYX Press, Phoenix AZ 1983

It is time for students of the evolutionary process, especially those who have been misquoted and used by the creationists, to state clearly that evolution is a fact, not theory, and that what is at issue within biology are questions of details of the process and the relative importance of different mechanisms of evolution. It is a fact that the earth with liquid water, is more than 3.6 billion years old. It is a fact that cellular life has been around for at least half of that period and that organized multicellular life is at least 800 million years old. It is a fact that major life forms now on earth were not at all represented in the past. There were no birds or mammals 250 million years ago. It is a fact that major life forms of the past are no longer living. There used to be dinosaurs and Pithecanthropus, and there are none now. It is a fact that all living forms come from previous living forms. Therefore, all present forms of life arose from ancestral forms that were different. Birds arose from nonbirds and humans from nonhumans. No person who pretends to any understanding of the natural world can deny these facts any more than she or he can deny that the earth is round, rotates on its axis, and revolves around the sun.

The controversies about evolution lie in the realm of the relative importance of various forces in molding evolution.

- R. C. Lewontin "Evolution/Creation Debate: A Time for Truth" Bioscience 31, 559 (1981) reprinted in Evolution versus Creationism, op cit.
The theory of evolution is a body of interconnected statements about natural selection and the other processes that are thought to cause evolution, just as the atomic theory of chemistry and the Newtonian theory of mechanics are bodies of statements that describe causes of chemical and physical phenomena. In contrast, the statement that organisms have descended with modifications from common ancestors--the historical reality of evolution--is not a theory. It is a fact, as fully as the fact of the earth's revolution about the sun. Like the heliocentric solar system, evolution began as a hypothesis, and achieved "facthood" as the evidence in its favor became so strong that no knowledgeable and unbiased person could deny its reality. No biologist today would think of submitting a paper entitled "New evidence for evolution;" it simply has not been an issue for a century.

- Douglas J. Futuyma, Evolutionary Biology, 2nd ed., 1986, Sinauer Associates, p. 15


Now, rachamim, I guess you could say that it's all the product of a conspiracy so immense as to dwarf any previous venture in history: that all those scientific societies were secretly taken over by rapid pro-evolutionists who lied about their members' beliefs, that the journals are all (every single one!) run by fanatical pro-evolution atheists who refuse to publish anything that doesn't toe the invented party line, that the huge swathe of doubting scientists is forced into silence (they even have to lie on anonymous polls!)[/b] But you're deep, deep in lunatic territory if you go that route, and I'm afraid I can't help you then. :D Alternatively, you can admit that there really is a scientific consensus on evolution -- that is, the gradual descent with modification of life on Earth from a common ancestor, ca. 4 billion years ago.
 
2) There is not overwhelming evidence that evolution occurred (false).


This will of necessity be a little sketchier, since I've already spent way too much time on this, and because there are many good resources elsewhere that I will point you to.


The BEST place that I know of for an overview is on the web, 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution : The Scientific Case for Common Descent. It's a wonderful basic introduction to just a tiny selection of the evidence that shows us evolution happened (and is happening). It's succinct, in terms that should be understandable, and gives you some idea of the broadness and power of the evidence. I cannot recommend it enough. If you read and understand all that, and you still harbor doubts about evolution, then I want to hear from you because I would be absolutely shocked.

Other good places to look are: http://www.talkorigins.org , http://evolution.berkeley.edu/ , plus http://www.nap.edu/html/creationism/appendix.html for a few online. The abovementioned US National Academy of Sciences pamphlet about evolution & creationism online is also good, but short and doesn't go into detail. There're also plenty of good books, both popular-level accounts and actual textbooks (if you want to really learn evolutionary biology). I can recommend some if you want.

Also, here's a brief summary of a couple of the lines of evidence, from a post I wrote a while back:

What most people mean by 'evolution' is the idea that life on Earth is descended from a common ancestor, and different species arose through the processes of variation and selection. This is actually called the theory of common descent; the theory of evolution is that the properties of species change over time because some traits are inheritable. Outside of science though the two are often conflated.

The basic mechanisms of evolution are now well known, though in Darwin's time many weren't. We know all living things have genes, encoded in their DNA, which are inherited in their offspring. Natural selection means that genes that help make organisms more fit to survive get passed on. Mutation of DNA serves as a source for new variation; there are others as well. We know populations evolve; it's been observed countless times. The question is, does this account for the diversity of life around today?


Evolution says that in the distant past, there was a universal common ancestor, one species of life that would give rise to everything today. At some point, some of these guys got separated from the rest, and the two groups began evolving apart from one another, eventually becoming two different species. Then the same thing happened to one of these two species, splitting it, and so on.

So according to evolution, the history of life looks like a tree, or a river network: beginning with a common ancestor, which divides into branches as time goes on. Species today are the top tips of the branches. Fossils come from older, lower parts of the tree. And there are many lower twigs or whole branches that have been cut short -- gone extinct before now, leaving no ancestors behind. Looks like this:

phylo.gif


^^^ That's called a phylogenetic tree. Those are just the very thickest branches; you can expand each into its a tree of its own. There are millions of different species, so it's an immensely huge thing altogether. eg just the tree of fish has ~20,000 different species.

There's a very cool project to put a big version of the whole thing, with info about each branch, online: the Tree of Life.

There is an incredible amount of evidence that this evolutionary tree does exist. It's even part of our language : we know animals, plants, etc. Animals split into mammals, reptiles, birds, etc. Mammals split into rodents, cats, monkeys, etc, which split into many species. Carolus Linnaeus came up with the hierarchy -- kingdom, phyla, class,... -- and the basic tree over a hundred years before evolution was discovered. There's no other reason why life should be organized this way, but evolution explains it exactly.

And even more, there are many ways to come up with an evolutionary tree for life, and they all match up amazingly well. You can arrange organisms by how similar they look to be; you can do DNA studies and see how 'junk' DNA changes, or how particular genes vary between different organism. And they all agree! Remember how fucking big these trees are. And they match up fantastically, the DNA similiarity tree and the tree from before.

I mean, you can look at an individual gene -- cytochrome c is a popular one -- and trace it through and see the changes. Closely related organisms have identical or near-identical genes. As you move further away on the tree, it starts to change. You can see where on the tree a certain mutation took place: everything that comes from that branch has it and nothing else does. You can see where a gene got duplicated in one branch, and sometimes see how the copy has evolved into doing something new and different. And you can pick any one of the thousands of genes and do this. It's just amazing.

There's a cool method that uses the redundancy of the genetic code. Every 3 letters of DNA codes for an amino acid. There are 64 different DNA codons, but only 20 different amino acids, so there's three or four different ways to code for each one. A gene codes for a lot of amino acids. Since each one can be written in three or four ways, for a typical gene there are 10^49 different sequences of DNA that prodce the exact same thing. That's 10 with 49 zeroes after it.

If we were all created at once we ought to all have the same version, or else there'd be no particular relation between which version we had. But if evolution is true, then mutation will randomly change versions, and the longer since two types of critters had a common ancestor, the more different their versions will be. Guess what? That's what we see. For example, humans and chimpanzees have almost exactly the same version of cytochrome c -- there is a difference in just one place. Humans and mammals differ in a few dozen places. Humans and yeast differ in hundreds. Remember, these differences don't change what the DNA does...

Any single one of these things would be incredibly good evidence for evolution.... we have all of them. Any many more besides.

For example, there's the fossil record. You can fucking see evolution happen. The oldest fossils (pre-Cambrian) have only a few types of very primitive life. Then there is an 'explosion' of new, bizarre, forms; you see these gradually change, some disappearing, other similar ones appearing, for hundreds of millions of years. In later fossils, you see the first dinosaur-like reptiles appear, then the first dinosaurs, which evolve along various paths; then these are cut short. Then mammals -- which had appeared earlier, but remained tiny rodent-like critters, take over; you seem them evolving, becoming more and more varied, in later fossils eventually coming to look very much like the species we see around today.

It's like a bloody photo-album of evolution. What more do you want? (Matches up with the evolutionary trees above, incidentally.) Creationism has no explanation for this; sometime they mumble something about the Flood drowning bigger animals first -- but you'll not hear an explanation of why primitive bony fish show up at the bottom, or whales at the top (and with feet just below, or any one of a zillion other things.

---

This is just a little of the evidence, too -- there is plenty more. Like I said, a ridiculously huge amount. There's a reason scientists have considered this debate settled for over 100 years now...

Look at http://www.nap.edu/html/creationism/evidence.html for more, and especially http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/ -- 29 Evidences for Macroevolution. That's got details on all the stuff I mentioned here plus much more.


Again, there's absolutely nothing wrong with not having known this stuff. I certainly don't think that people who don't are "stupid" or "inferior" or any such thing! But there is something wrong with not knowing and yet going on to make claims about how there "certainly" is no scientific consensus about evolutionary theory, or it is "assumption" without evidence, or dismissing the amazing discoveries & work of many thousands of researchers over decades as "grasping at straws" (or nonexistent.) That's ignorant, in my book. :)

Seriously, I always wonder -- where do you come up with this stuff? Like what, exactly, leads you say that "humankind has no real idea how old the planet is"? (This is if anything even crazier than just saying evolution is wrong; it requires ignorance/denial of most of physics, not just biology.) Obviously it's not from having read the journals or having talked to people who work with methods for determining the age of the Earth. So where do you get it from? I mean, is it just that you talked to some people at work or temple who took a creationist position, and you assume the scientific community parallels them? If not, what then? It sort of baffles me.
 
Top