Oct
23
So I stop by another member of the Rocky Top Brigade, “We’re Srewed”, to find this statement as part of a heated rant by HangLeft:
Look, you pre-Cambrian idiots — there is no “debate.” Evolution is science.
Looks like HangLeft will be $250,000 richer very soon.
Maybe that will cheer ya up, HL.
October 24th, 2005 at 9:44 pm
Guy: The $250,000 wager re: “empirical evidence” is actually conflating two separate issues, while it is insisting on a mutual exclusivity that doesn’t exist.
First, whether or not God created the universe is an entirely separate question from whether evolution is true. It’s very possible that God could have created a universe where evolution is the rule.
Another entirely separate question is whether God created life forms (i.e., it’s possible that God created all life AND that God used evolution to do so.)
What I don’t understand is why so many folks are insisting on proof of evolution. People like to cite probabilities (miniscule that life would have developed as it did without God, etc.), and it’s very true that the possibility of life unfolding as it has on its own is very slim.
However, Occam’s Razor tells us that given a choice between a simple explanation and a complex one, the simpler one is probably the correct one. Given that one (just evolution) involves natural, observable phenomena and the other (God) involves a whole other intelligence that is coincidentally invisible, logic is really on the side of evolution.
Worse, you’re committing a logical fallacy in your challenge. The way it’s framed, whoever proves evolution to your satisfaction pretty much has to prove that God doesn’t exist. Since it’s impossible to prove a negative, you’re going to win that bet every time. Therefore, the framing of the question effectively dictates a particular answer. It’s not a sincere challenge.
That said, I see no reason not to believe in both evolution and God. However, I also see no reason to dogmatically insist that the other side “prove” its point.
October 25th, 2005 at 6:13 pm
AD,
You completely misread the challenge. Here it is again: “Prove beyond reasonable doubt that the process of evolution… is the only possible way the observed phenomena could have come into existence.”
Given that you believe evolution “involves natural, observable phenomena,” this should be a piece of cake for you.
In any case, the challenge demands nothing from you about God, or his existence.
The reason we “dogmatically insist” that you prove the point is that you, and others like you, claim “there is no debate.” If there is no debate, you must be able to prove your side beyond a reasonable doubt. Otherwise, the debate is justified, and you need to put a stop to the childish name-calling.
October 26th, 2005 at 2:31 pm
Glad to know there are “others like me.”
Look, my entire point is that the challenge is mixing apples and oranges. (Actually, this “beyond a reasonable doubt” business is yet another example of that. “Beyond a reasonable doubt” is a legal term of art for the burden of proof applicable to criminal trials. It doesn’t really even make sense in this context. I think “preponderance of the evidence,” or the standard for civil trials, would be slightly more analogous here, but I digress.)
At the risk of sounding like a broken record, the challenge does implicate the existence of God, because the only possible alternative presented is that God created life. (Indeed, unless I’ve missed some bizarre third option involving time-traveling biochemists, I think God is pretty much the way you have to go here.)
Anyway, the point is that your assertion that the challenge has nothing to do with God is disingenuous. If it didn’t have anything to do with God, then we wouldn’t be having this discussion, because as I pointed out earlier the ideas of God and evolution are not mutually exclusive (i.e., if God is smart enough to design life in such an intricate fashion, then doesn’t it logically also stand to reason that God could similarly design a process like evolution?)
And as for child name-calling, what you referring to is called an ad hominem argument, and if you look back as my post you’ll see no such thing. I would point out though, that it *is* an ad hominem argument to accuse someone of name-calling rather than respond to the substantive arguments re logic and probability.
Cheers.
October 26th, 2005 at 5:41 pm
Let me jump in on this one… When HangLeft talks about evolution, he is most likely talking about universal common descent… not cosmic evolution (either as it is actually defined, or by Hovind’s weird definition). And, that debate has been settled for a hundred years… Natural history, and the evidence we find in nature is best explained and predicted by evolutionary theory. That isn’t to say that it is “the only possible explanation”… there’s never an “only possible explanation”… We cannot rule out the possibility that the universe and everything in it just popped into existence last Tuesday, and each of us popped into existence already having our illusional memories of the past, that all the rocks and fossils that geologists and paleontologists study just popped into existence. There is no way to rule that out…
But, to explain and predict the observed phenomona we see in the biological world, it has long been settled that evolution gives the most complete and reliable answer.
In that sense, there is no debate.
Kent Hovind probably does not understand that… But whether he does or not, his challenge has nothing to do with the science of evolution… it has to do with his cartoon version of same… By the way, you are aware, aren’t you, that Kent Hovind is among the most dishonest creationists in practice? I never like to recommend creationist pseudoscience to anyone, but I can at least say that some have higher standards of honesty than Hovind… Kurt Wise is about the only one who has enough honesty (not to mention competency) to gain my respect, but even people like Jon Sarfati and Ken Ham look good in comparison to Kent Hovind… I would advise you to steer clear of him.
October 26th, 2005 at 5:41 pm
P.S. Kurt Wise teaches in Tennessee now… If you’re ever out in Dayton, stop by Bryan College & you might get to speak with him.
October 27th, 2005 at 8:09 am
FYI …
1) Creationism and Intelligent Design are two different things altogether.
2) I believe the Bible to be 100% true and 100% inspired Word of God.
3) One cannot believe the Bible 100% true and the inspired Word of God AND believe in Evolution .. they are mutally exclusive.
October 27th, 2005 at 9:47 am
smijer wrote:
Can you give me an example? And if this is so, why is is not called the “law of evolution?”
October 27th, 2005 at 10:11 am
“But, to explain and predict the observed phenomona we see in the biological world….”
Okay … now you’re talking more of a “micro-evolution” (Adaptability to changes in one’s environment). For example, I am a native Texan. I moved up to Idaho for almost two years. It was cold. I “got used to it” (adapted to my environment) …. “micro-evolved” … but, I’m STILL a human.
Don’t confuse evolution with adaptability.
October 27th, 2005 at 9:49 pm
Ron,
What kind of examples are you looking for? Successful predictions from evolutionary theory? Examples of observations that are most successfully explained by evolution? Examples of radically different organisms that bear ample evidence of common ancestry? I’ll do the best I can to provide you examples for what you are asking, but do bear in mind, this would be somewhat difficult for an actual biologist or paleontologist to explain to a skeptical layman; so much the more so from satisfied layman to skeptical layman… Again, I’ll do my best.
As to why it isn’t called a law — that’s just jargon.. in science a “law” is something that is observed to happen, consistently, every time the conditions are met… it is a statement of observation, not of explanation… A theory is a model that explains that observation… Biological evolution is really closer to a paradigm — it is a framework of many well established theories that explain why we have such unity and diversity of living organisms, and the natural history of those organisms recorded in the fossil record (… also in their genes and molecular machinery). Evolutionary theory also explains and predicts the unique patterns of homology (something like “similarity”) between living organisms.
Tony… Microevolution is scientifically defined as evolution that occurs below the species level… The advent of a significant proportion of blue-eyed persons (within the human species) could be considered microevolution…. Macroevolution is evolution above that level - divergence of two species, or genera, etc..
The terms “micro-” and “macro-” evolution have been largely out of circulation since the 30’s when T. Dozhansky showed that the mechanisms for both were apparently identical.
Adapatation on an individual level really isn’t evolution at all - not even micro-evolution. Your ability to personally adapt to a range of climates is likely the result of evolution… but to do so isn’t an example of evolution… A better example of microevolution is the evolution of DDT resistance in malarial insects… that is a trait that is handed down from generation to generation… those who get it are resistant, the rest will die from exposure to DDT.
And yes, even though you may have blue eyes, you are STILL a human.. If, and only if, people who carried the alleles that make eyes blue only bred together, and the rest only bred together, for a very long time, while other mutations piled up that eventually prevented blue-eyed descendants from mating with the rest of us - at least spontaneously “in the wild”, then we would have two species… and they would still both be closely related enough to consider “human” - a genus-level designation… One might be homo sapiens, while the other might be homo azusapiens… Eventually, their descendents might diverge enough to make their differences qualify for genus level distinctions - as is the case between us and our closets cousins, the other great apes. This is something that happens over hundreds of thousands, or even millions of years… It is rare to observe that magnitude of change during a single human lifetime… yet such changes are abundantly recorded in the fossil record, and in “fossil” DNA….
October 31st, 2005 at 11:21 am
“Your ability to personally adapt to a range of climates is likely the result of evolution”
Or, the result of a omnipotent Creator who saw ahead of time that man will move beyond “livable” climates
October 31st, 2005 at 8:58 pm
Or, conceivably, both.
November 1st, 2005 at 10:15 am
Then, why not teach both?
November 1st, 2005 at 10:56 am
We do. Schools, charged with teaching the scientific method to kids, teach evolution and other products of science. Churches, charged with imparting religious ideas, teach them about the omnipotent creator.