Evolutionary Science-v- Creationism

[DanaC]

.......Since the topic came up on another thread......It probably doesnt come as a huge surprise to anyone that being an irreligious commy Brit I subscribe entirely to the one and eschew the other.....I would be intrigued to hear what the rest of you had to say on that subject......

As far as I can see, the evidence for Evolutionary science is thick on the ground, but the Creationist stance seems to be based mainly on faith with what scientific endeavour there is being crowbarred in to try and prove the existence of a creator God.......Or am I dismissing that idea too readily?

Is Creationsim merely a religious doctrine with science fitted into it or is it as valid as Evolutionary theory? Should it be taught in schools as equal in weight to Evolutionary science?

[OnyxCougar]

We've had this arguement (in this forum) before, and what it comes down to is that all the non-Christians summarily dismiss any hypothesis that would indicate evolution didn't happen (as if it's not a theory, as if it's fact), and all the Christians do is state their beliefs.

I have been (and continue to be) a non-believer in evolution. I simply don't see how it could have happened that way. I've read alot of books in favor of both theories, and I think that the answers in genesis site is the most scientific of all the Creationist view sites I've seen, meaning, out of all the sites I've been to, it uses the most scientific approach. No one will ever be able to PROVE that God created the earth, and LIKEWISE, no one will ever be able to PROVE that all life on earth started out as amino acids in a primordial soup.

Bottom line is, neither are provable.

My concern on the other thread is your criteria of what are "real" scientists and what aren't. It seems to me you think that the hypothesis itself determines what is "good" science. I disagree with that.

the aig website uses the same principles of science against the theory of evolution. AiG is a Christian site, no doubt, the name gives that away. But they use the SAME scientific methods, laws and structures, and they come up with completely different hypotheses. Doesn't that interest you? I'm not asking you to say, "Oh! well then, I'm a Christian now!" I'm just asking you to think about what it is they are saying and not dismiss it SOLELY because they are putting forth a view that is religious in nature.

Don't you think that it's worth more than an offhand, RELIGIOUSLY based dismissal?

Why is it that a non Belief in Christianity automatically makes many people close their eyes, put their fingers in their ears and say lalalalalalala when presented with a scientific hypothesis that differs from evolution?

Edit: department of redundancy department

[OnyxCougar]

From the AiG site:

Although many prominent evolutionary fossil experts insist that there are no satisfactory fossils of transitional forms between different kinds of creatures, on page 35 of the Skeptics’ book, the author tries to show that there are. In his article about ‘Gaps in the fossil record’, he neither mentions nor shows a single
diagram of any fossil. In fact, much of the article is taken up explaining away the very gaps which he elsewhere seems to deny by saying that ‘the fossil record contains literally thousands of transitional forms'.

In spite of many words, the author neither mentions nor shows a single diagram of a fossil showing a true transitional structure — part-limb, part-wing; part-scale, part-feather, for example. This, of course, is for the simple reason that there are none.

However, all of this has been so adequately documented — not only by creationist writers such as Dr Duane Gish (Evolution: The Fossils Still Say No) by also by leading evolutionists — that this is not the issue I wish to discuss here.

Archaeopteryx is a fossil creature with some reptilian and some bird features. Most leading evolutionary paleontologists today would not regard it as a transitional form because it has no transitional structures, and because fossils of true birds have been found in a supposedly earlier geological layer. Under the subheading Archaeopteryx and feathers the author says

‘Is it really impossible for scales to have evolved into feathers? Many birds, from chickens to ostriches, show a continuous gradation from scales on some parts of their bodies to feather elsewhere (Lucas and Stettenheim 1972; Dyck 1985). Moreover scales and feathers are identical in chemistry, molecular structure and mode of development (Spearman 1966). [However, see Editor’s Note 2]

‘Most significant of all is the fact that scales and feathers are interchangeable. Recent laboratory studies demonstrate that chicken embryos can be induced to transform their developing scales into feather, and their feathers into scales (e.g. Dhouailly, Hardy and Sengel 1980). In their structure and appearance such artificially induced feathers are indistinguishable from natural ones. Indeed, it now seems possible for scientists to transform scales to feathers, and vice versa, almost at will! Similar interchanges between scales and feathers are known to occur spontaneously in wild populations of birds. Does the transformation of scales into feathers require massive genetic engineering? The answer is no. The transformation is triggered by a single chemical — retinoic acid, which is probably better known as vitamin A.

‘Archaeopteryx is a splendid example of a transitional fossil, showing an undeniable mixture of reptile and bird characteristics. In every feature except its feathers Archaeopteryx is similar to theropod dinosaurs. That one distinguishing feature — feathers — represents the crucial dividing-line between reptiles and birds. And today, in the laboratory, it is possible to breach that dividing-line by using simple chemical treatment to transform scales into feathers.’

Simple Transformation?
One gets the impression that it is a fairly simple matter to transform scales into feathers with the addition of a single chemical. If so it would not be at all difficult to imagine how scales could have evolved into feathers by only a small genetic change. However, common sense shows the huge flaw in this argument.

First, let us look below at the detailed structures of a feather (left) and scales (right), both magnified 80 times (Photos courtesy of David Menton)



Superbly engineered for lightweight aerodynamic efficiency, the system of interlocking hooks and barbules means that a quick preen with the bill will cause flattened feathers to snap into fully aerodynamic shape again. But note that every structure or organ must be represented by information (written in a chemical alphabet on the long molecule DNA) at the genetic level. Clearly, the information required to code for the construction of a feather is of a substantially different order from that required for a scale. For scales to have evolved into feathers means that a significant amount of genetic information, or specific chemical complexity, has to exist in the bird's DNA which is not present in that of the reptile. Examine the amazing close-up (below) of the barbules of a feather showing the tiny hooklets and grooves (Magnified 200 times, courtesy of David Menton).



At this stage we should be feeling uneasy about the idea that a simple chemical, containing a small amount of ‘information’, could cause such an ordered structure to arise. And here’s the catch, of course. The author himself has already told us that the experiment was done on chicken embryos, which already have the information coding for feather construction. The simple chemical is used as a ‘switch’ or ‘trigger’ during embryonic development.

That is, what we are witnessing is the fact that physicochemical manipulation of the developing embryo can cause a developmental pathway, which would normally result in scales, to result in feathers instead. But the information required to construct/assemble the structure of the feather is already there, and is simply being expressed at a different site. Genetically, there has been no evolutionary change — no information has been added to the organism’s ‘blueprint’ which was not already there.

So what has been achieved is that feathers have been induced to form in birds — although in locations at which they would not usually form. Equally, interference with the developmental machinery in fruit flies can cause a leg to grow where there would normally be an antenna. Such homoeotic mutations, as they are called, are not strictly analogous to the chicken example, but the point is the same, in that the genetic information for forming a leg was already in the embryo. Growing ectopic, or out of place, fur on mammals, or extra legs on flies or cows, demonstrates nothing about the origin of the information coding for fur or legs.

Thus, growing feathers on chickens cannot possibly have any value for the idea of evolution.

What if a researcher reported that vitamin A in a reptile embryo caused feathers to form? Now that indeed would be spectacular evidence for evolution. But no serious scientist would expect that such a thing were possible, for the simple reason that it would be a violation of the fundamental principles of entropy/information theory. The reptile does not contain the information for feather construction in its code. Vitamin A contains less ‘information’ in its chemistry than that required to code for a complex feather. The addition of a small amount of unrelated information cannot spontaneously cause a quantum leap towards information which was not there already.

Put simply, you cannot get something from nothing — this is why there is no such thing as a perpetual motion machine. Exactly the same principle of science forbids reptile feathers as forbids perpetual motion machines.

If a clever genetic engineer were to splice out the information coding for feather construction from a chicken embryo, and splice it into a reptile embryo to cause it to grow feathers, this would confirm the point we are trying to make here — that is, such complex information cannot spontaneously arise — it has to be created or transferred from a preexisting source. And furthermore that an intelligent mind is required to conduct the experiment.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ed. notes:
See the sequel, The Strange Recurring Case of the Feathered Reptile — a refutation of an evolutionist who tried to answer this article.

After both the Skeptic book and this Creation magazine articles were written, we came across evidence that refutes this claim. For example, feather proteins (ö-keratins) are biochemically different from skin and scale proteins (á-keratins). A feather expert, Alan Brush, concludes:

‘At the morphological level feathers are traditionally considered homologous with reptilian scales. However, in development, morphogenesis, gene structure, protein shape and sequence, and filament formation and structure, feathers are different.’ A.H. Brush, ‘On the origin of feathers’, Journal of Evolutionary Biology 9:131–142, 1996.

This is what I'm talking about. Allllll those "good scientists" that think Archeoptrix is a transitional form completely DISCOUNT any information that sheds doubt on their theory. Doesn't matter how right it is, or how many holes it punches in their arguments. So OTHER people "break their hypothoses" as you call it, but that doesn't make them discard the hypothesis, oh no. Either the "breaking" is ignored, or kept so quiet that no one sees it has been broken, and KEEPS putting it forth as truth, even when it's been disproven.

That is NOT good science.

And there are TONNES of other articles like this one. Not that say "we're right, so believe in God" (although some do...) but more importantly, say "There is a problem with your theory, here are the holes we can shoot in it using science."

And they are out of hand rejected because of WHO puts them forward, with no interest in the CONTENT of the material.

That is NOT good science.

[OnyxCougar]

I also want to point this out, from Talk-Origins.

2. Is there any observation which supports any feature of your theory? (An adequate answer to this question will not be something which is a problem for evolution, but is rather evidence for your theory. Remember that it is logically possible for both evolution and your theory to be false.)

And for every question like this, I would to response thusly:

Is there any observation which supports any feature of your theory? (An adequate answer to this question will not be something which is a problem for Creationists, but is rather non-circular evidence for your theory. This includes geological column and/or fossil records. Remember that it is logically possible for both Creationism and your theory to be false.)

And regarding this paranthethical qualifier to the original question:

An adequate answer to this question will not be something which is a problem for evolution

So obviously, there ARE problems with at least portions of the theories they are espousing. But in refuting their hypothesis, it's not allowed to bring them up? What kind of scientific argument is this?

I want to be clear. I don't know how we all got here. I don't believe my great(x infinite) ancestors were primordial bugs. I don't don't buy that. More importantly, they cannot PROVE it. Yet it's in every science and biology book printed. Now, I don't have a problem with biology. I don't have a problem with how a cell works, that has been proven. But don't try to tell me that over billions of years, information of such complexity and of different chemical components just HAPPENED to occur at JUST the right time and in JUST the right way.... no.

I can't tell you why things are the way they are. But at least I'm willing to keep an open mind and admit when I'm wrong.

I guess that makes me a "bad" scientist.

[elSicomoro]

I think that God created everything...in a way similar to what is described in the evolution theory.

[Lady Sidhe]

Originally Posted by sycamore

I think that God created everything...in a way similar to what is described in the evolution theory.

Ok...not sure if this will cause the globe to wobble on its axis, but I agree with Sycamore. I believe in a creator, by whatever name one chooses to call him, her, or it, and I think that if that creator chose to create the world through evolution, who's to say no?
Evolution just seems logical to me, and considering the perfection in the way things are made, in how they fit together, etc. I know that if I were doing such an experiment, I'd start it off and then let it go to see what happened. Who's to say the creator didn't do the same?


For all we know, God's gonna get graded on this, and we're screwing up his Cosmic GPA with all our silliness and stupidity....



Sidhe

[tw]

Originally Posted by Lady Sidhe

Ok...not sure if this will cause the globe to wobble on its axis, but I agree with Sycamore. I believe in a creator, by whatever name one chooses to call him, her, or it, and I think that if that creator chose to create the world through evolution, who's to say no?

One of the best issued of The Economist is after they have taken a week off to eat well. In the 1 Jan 2005 issue is this stunning piece entitled "It ain't necessarily so".

Why people of the book have such trouble with language, truth, and logic
Whatever meaning this well-known version of the Christmas story may have, it does not seem to be very accurate history. Father Jerome Murphy-O'Connor, a distinguished biblical scholar, lists the difficulties he sees. First, it is said elsewhere in the New Testament - and this is central to the story that Jesus was born in the last days of his would-be persecutor King Herod, who died in 4 BC. (The Christian system for dating Christ's birth was established at least three centuries later, so an error of a few years is not surprising.) But according to Josephus, a secular historian, the big census around that time (and the start of Cyrenius's governorship) took place in what Christians would call the "year of our Lord" 6 or, as today's secular historians now prefer, 6 CE (common era).

The problems do not stop there. For example, when the Romans counted their people, they insisted that everyone had to stay put, so a last-minute dash from one city to another seems unlikely. And as a protectorate under Herod, Palestine would not automatically have been included in an imperial census.

As a Dominican monk, whose views on some things, such as the virgin birth of Christ, are conservative, Father Jerome is unfazed by these contradictions. "The Gospels should be read spiritually, but with critical intelligence", he believes. Given that the two main accounts of Christ's birth - those of Matthew and Luke - are inconsistent, he prefers to rely mainly on the first, which moves from Christ's origins in Bethlehem to his upbringing, after an interlude in Egypt, in Nazareth. Moreover, in all the biblical material about Christ's beginnings, Father Jerome and other scholars see a deeper meaning: Christ is both a blue-blooded monarch from the royal city of Bethlehem, and a poor boy from the hardscrabble town of Nazareth from which nobody expected anything good. Even under the watchful eye of Pope John Paul II, who has reaffirmed the unchangeability of the truths maintained by the church, and the church's role as interpreter of the Bible, such bold readings of the New Testament are permissible. "What the church insists on is the spiritual message of the Bible, not its literal truth", says Father Jerome. If ordinary literal-minded worshippers said he was undermining their faith, he would conclude they were the victims of "bad preaching" and point out the impossibility of believing every word of an internally inconsistent text.

[tw]

So how can a president so immoral be elected by those who call themselves moral - the evangelicals? Again from the article entitled "It ain't necessarily so"

For the 70m or 80m people in the United States who call themselves evangelicals, the Bible is "the inspired, the only infallible, authoritative word of God", according to a definition by America's National Association of Evangelicals. So whenever the Bible seems inconsistent with beliefs held on other grounds, the instinct of an evangelical is to insist that the contradiction must be apparent, rather than real. Either secular historians are mistaken, or there has been some simple and easily rectifiable mistake - such as the mistranslation of a word - in the reading of scripture. Somehow the information received from holy writ and the evidence from other sources must be made to fit; and if that cannot be done, then the non-scriptural information must be dismissed.

One product of such intellectual contortions is "creation science" and an insistence on the literal truth of the proposition that God took seven days to create the world, with the evidence from fossils as a kind of decorative, but confusing, extra. Even wackier, from the secular viewpoint, is America's "biblical astronomy" movement which insists, under the guidance of a Dutch-born astrophysicist, Gerardus Bouw, that the sun goes round the Earth.

No problem as long as these extremists don't do the math for manned space flights. Then they would be imposing their religion on others - the real and original sin.

Do you take the bible literally - or just in its early spiritual sense?

[Troubleshooter]

From a biblical astronomy site: (note the domain)

http://www.parentalguide.com/Documen..._Astronomy.htm

A highlight from each portion.

1-BIBLICAL FACTS ON ASTRONOMY NOW PROVEN TO BE TRUE

Throughout much of the world’s history, people thought that the world was flat. Yet thousands of years ago, the Bible showed it was round. The Bible was right, people were wrong.
Isa 40:22-IT IS HE THAT SITTETH UPON THE CIRCLE OF THE EARTH.

2-BIBLICAL FACTS ABOUT NATURE NOW PROVEN TO BE TRUE
(God’s established order)

It has recently been learned that the eagle could see very small objects from great distances. Yet thousands of years ago, the Bible told of this.
Job 39:27,29-THE EAGLE…SHE SEEKETH THE PREY, AND HER EYES BEHOLD AFAR OFF.

3-THE UNIVERSE IS EXPANDING:
THE AREA IT IS STRETCHING OUT TO IS EMPTY

Throughout much of the world’s history, people did not understand the universe is expanding and stretching out into empty space. Science, in recent years, has confirmed that this is true. The Bible told about this thousands of years ago. The Bible was right, people didn’t understand.
Job 26:7-HE STRETCHETH OUT THE NORTH OVER THE EMPTY PLACE.

4-OTHER ITEMS ABOUT THE UNIVERSE

One might ask, "How is it possible the Bible recorded thousands of years ago such things as the bands of Orion and other astronomical information?" The answer remains the same—there is a God, and the Bible is the Word of God. He has also told us the future in His Word. As every single prophecy in the Bible regarding the past has been fulfilled, likewise, every single prophecy of the future will come to pass.
Job 38:31-CANST THOU BIND THE SWEET INFLUENCES OF PLEIADES, OR LOOSE THE BANDS OF ORION?

5-INVENTIONS

Could this be the telephone?
Job 38:35-CANST THOU SEND LIGHTNINGS (or we might say, electrical currents), THAT THEY MAY GO, AND SAY UNTO THEE, HERE WE ARE?

6-INSIGHTS ON ASTRONOMY

Astronomers, with their huge optical telescopes, radio telescopes, space telescopes, satellites, and many new types of detection devices are trying to measure "space." It is evident—the more they learn, the more vast the universe seems to be. They have found that "space" seems to extend billions of light years, and the galaxies seem to be almost without number.
The Bible told of this thousands of years ago. The Bible was right, yet many still don’t understand.
Jere 31:37-THUS SAITH THE LORD; IF HEAVEN ABOVE CAN BE MEASURED, AND THE FOUNDATIONS OF THE EARTH SEARCHED OUT BENEATH, I WILL ALSO CAST OFF ALL THE SEED OF ISRAEL. Since we know God will never cast off His people, we know that indeed heaven cannot be measured!

7-SOME OTHER THINGS THAT THE WORLD’S WISDOM MAY NOT UNDERSTAND

Ps 32:9-AS THE HORSE, OR AS THE MULE, WHICH HAVE NO UNDERSTANDING: WHOSE MOUTH MUST BE HELD IN WITH BIT AND BRIDLE, LEST THEY COME NEAR UNTO THEE (or they will not come to you-NIV).

8-ALL THINGS WERE CREATED BY JESUS CHRIST
As the previous things are true, so the following is true.

Col 1:16-FOR BY HIM WERE ALL THINGS CREATED, THAT ARE IN HEAVEN, AND THAT ARE IN EARTH, VISIBLE AND INVISIBLE, WHETHER THEY BE THRONES, OR DOMINIONS, OR PRINCIPALITIES, OR POWERS: ALL THINGS WERE CREATED BY HIM, AND FOR HIM.

[Lady Sidhe]

Originally Posted by tw

One of the best issued of The Economist is after they have taken a week off to eat well. In the 1 Jan 2005 issue is this stunning piece entitled "It ain't necessarily so"...

etc., etc., etc......



According to some information I got a few years ago--and yes, I can probably find it if it's that big a deal--the census was taken in the spring...therefore, Jesus' birthday would be then, not on Dec. 25 (which was Mithra's birthday).

But I'm not sure what any of this has to do with creationism v. evolution.

And just to put in an extra two cents: no matter how it was done, whether by big bang, or an entity causing a big bang, or an entity slapping together some dust, we're here....believing in a creator doesn't hurt. Not believing in a creator doesn't hurt--unless you're talking to a bible-thumper who wants to save your soul, that is--we're here.

So what are we going to do about it?

Sidhe

[tw]

Originally Posted by Lady Sidhe

But I'm not sure what any of this has to do with creationism v. evolution.

Again from the Dominican scholar

"What the church insists on is the spiritual message of the Bible, not its literal truth", says Father Jerome. If ordinary literal-minded worshippers said he was undermining their faith, he would conclude they were the victims of "bad preaching" and point out the impossibility of believing every word of an internally inconsistent text.

Believe in creationism as we do 'Santa Claus' or 'Red Riding Hood and the Big Bad Wolf'. It is the spirit that counts. In the meantime, religion has no place in science.

Creationism is religion. Religion is about a relationship only between you and your god; often taught in parables. Evolution is science - taught with scientific tools, logical proofs, and numbers. Creationism is only the "word of an internally inconsistent text." It was a good first attempt at 'science'. Long since displaced by other and better science. Creationism is nothing more than religion - something only between you and your god. A spiritual concept not to be taken literally.

[lumberjim]

Originally posted by Lady Sidhe
I'm just curious. I'm eclectic Wiccan myself, mostly Green, with a little bit of Greek, Roman, and Strega, for a little over ten years. I personally became Pagan because it just seemed like I finally found a belief system that matched the one I already held. Not to mention that it emphasizes personal responsibility, and I think the rituals are much more evocative than any church I've attended.

Anybody else wanna 'fess up?


Sidhe

Originally posted by OnyxCougar
I think this should be in the "philosophy" forum, but this question has been asked repeatedly. Do some digging, you'll find us.

appparently your split personalities have different religions. Do they argue a lot?

or do you think that godS created everything?



I don't know much about a scientific argument FOR creationism. Its kind of an oxymoron isn;t it? I mean, God has magical powers right? so science wouldn;t have much to do with it. Poof! "here's a bunny rabbit!.....isn;t it cute?" no fossil record, no scientific evidence.

Here's a poser for you....the giant squid has an eyeball that is superior to ours in design. If we were created in God's likeness, why did he give us an eyeball with a blindspot in it? Does God have a blindspot in HIS eyeball? perhaps the squid has need of more acute vision than we do, so it friggin evolved that way.

COuld not the two theories coexist? maybe god created whatever went BANG at the beginning of time, but to think that he plunked Adam and freaking Eve down on this one planet amongst all of the infinite planets in the universe is just plain nuts.

Originally posted by OnyxCougar


My concern on the other thread is your criteria of what are "real" scientists and what aren't. It seems to me you think that the hypothesis itself determines what is "good" science. I disagree with that.

the aig website uses the same principles of science against the theory of evolution. AiG is a Christian site, no doubt, the name gives that away. But they use the SAME scientific methods, laws and structures, and they come up with completely different hypotheses. Doesn't that interest you? I'm not asking you to say, "Oh! well then, I'm a Christian now!" I'm just asking you to think about what it is they are saying and not dismiss it SOLELY because they are putting forth a view that is religious in nature.

Don't you think that it's worth more than an offhand, RELIGIOUSLY based dismissal?

Point of order. You cannot argue science by making an inaccurate statement about how the scientific method works. A scientific hypothesis is the second step in the rigorous field of endeavor known as the scientific method:

1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.

2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation.

3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.

4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.

If the experiments bear out the hypothesis it may come to be regarded as a theory or law of nature.

A poor hypothesis makes for poor science. If you don't like this fact go debate about art or something, but don't expect scientists to take you seriously.

[jaguar]

Although many prominent evolutionary fossil experts insist that there are no satisfactory fossils of transitional forms between different kinds of creatures, on page 35 of the Skeptics’ book, the author tries to show that there are. In his article about ‘Gaps in the fossil record’, he neither mentions nor shows a single
diagram of any fossil. In fact, much of the article is taken up explaining away the very gaps which he elsewhere seems to deny by saying that ‘the fossil record contains literally thousands of transitional forms'.

In spite of many words, the author neither mentions nor shows a single diagram of a fossil showing a true transitional structure — part-limb, part-wing; part-scale, part-feather, for example. This, of course, is for the simple reason that there are none.

That's bullshit.

You're right, it's not good science. It's cherry picking evidence, skipping facts and pursuing a very narrow agenda. It's all I've ever seen from creationist 'science'. As stated on the other thread, it's more of a philosophy than a science, there is zero, precisely zero scientific evidence supporting it.

In terms of the links between reptiles and birds, you might want to research the following fossils/species. I think the reason that creationists picked this area is because feathers do not fossilize well, so getting accurate ideas of what species looked like has been particularly difficult.

Archaeopteryx lithographica
Sinosauropteryx
Confusciusornis
Protarchaeopteryx

Of course some of the other 'evidence' this idiot throws up is even worse, particularly the claims there is no evolutionary advantage to feathers. Proposed reasons include insulation, water resistance, particle filtration, sexual displays, buoyancy and protective coloring.

Of course that doesn't fit so nicely with the wankings of a bunch of blind idiots cherry picking evidence to suit their theory. Every time I come across one of these examples of why clearly god made everything or evolution doesn't work they pic some very small detail and attempt to blow it all out of proportion. The last one I heard which really made me laugh was that the banana was proof that god exists because it's a perfect food for us....

Good page here on all this.

[wolf]

I've never really seen a great disparity between evolution and creationism.

The gods can create things any way they want to, after all, and make adjustments along the way as the design either proves itself or flubs.