- UPDATE 3a: Edited clip here:
This clip was changed to a slightly longer version to make sure RP’s full answer was given. - UPDATE 2: Ron Paul says “It’s a Theory … I don’t accept it.”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V4af9Q0Fa4Q (question starts at 2:40) Hat-tip: Ray (from comment 40 below). - Update 1 (written when I still understood Paul to believe in Evolution): Much to my surprise this post remains one of the most active on my site. So, I think it is necessary to clarify that Ron Paul’s views on evolution alone do not disqualify him from receiving my vote. I like many of Ron Paul’s comments concerning the Constitutionality of various things. It’s where Rep Paul and I have strong common ground. But this is a campaign and don’t let debate sound-bites override the facts. Investigate. Start with their voting records. Now, on to my original post:
As I investigate whom I will vote for, I found the list got a lot shorter after the first debate.
After seeing the clip after asking “who does not believe in evolution.” I shot off this email to the Ron Paul campaign:
On 5/4/07, Ron Shank
wrote: Dear Ron Paul team:
Does Ron Paul believe in evolution? I didn’t see his hand raised in the debate when asked “who does not believe in evolution.”
Thanks for your quick reply.
Thank you,
Ron Shank
They quickly replied.
——– Original Message ——–
Subject: Re: Didn’t see his hand
Date: Fri, 4 May 2007 16:15:06 -0400
From: Ron Paul 2008 Presidential Campaign Committee
To: Ron ShankRon,
Ron Paul did not raise his hand during that question, it was Tancredo, Huckabee & Brownback who raised their hands. Dr. Paul is physician and believes in evolution.
For me, this narrows it down to these three to further investigate.
Your thoughts?
Popularity: 19% [?]
Ron Shank: You want transitional evidence of evolution? Ok, you asked for it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiktaalik
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/10/1006_041006_feathery_dino.html
http://www.fsteiger.com/whales.html
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,227572,00.html
And, if you have time to watch a couple hours about evolution (you know, facts and stuff), go here:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/id/
Remember, Transitional fossils does not mean a monkey fossil with wings. That’s not how it works. Have fun studying.
Uh, thanks Willey. I’ll check them out fully later. But I was shocked to see you include the Nation Geographic link. They ran a retraction long ago.
NatGeo replied: “Xu Xing is one of the scientists who originally examined Archaeoraptor. As we go to press, researchers in the U.S. report that CT scans of the fossil seem to confirm the observations cited in his letter. Results of the Society-funded examination of Archaeoraptor and details of new techniques that revealed anomalies in the fossil’s reconstruction will be published as soon as the studies are completed.”
By the way, composite is a nice way of saying fraud, hoax or forgery. It’s why Archaeoraptor is often called “Piltdown Bird.” I’m not sure why NatGeo would leave the story up there in it’s entirety knowing that.
Remember transitional fossils does not mean dino fossil mixed with bird fossil. That’s not how it works, either.
More later. Merry Christmas!
From the first article (see post 92) http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/VC1fEvidenceSpeciation.shtml :
“In the summer of 1995, at least 15 iguanas survived Hurricane Marilyn on a raft of uprooted trees. They rode the high seas for a month before colonizing the Caribbean island, Anguilla. These few individuals were perhaps the first of their species, Iguana iguana, to reach the island.” That sounds very similar to a theory I read in a creation article a long time ago, attempting to explain how some isolated areas could have unique animals that were not located anywhere else nearby.
“We could be watching the first steps of an allopatric speciation event, but in such a short time we can’t be sure.” ‘We can’t be sure’ doesn’t stop the writer from using speculation as fact.
“We have several plausible models of how speciation occurs but of course, it’s hard for us to get an eye-witness account of a natural speciation event since most of these events happened in the distant past.” Yes, they require an unfathomable length of time to make that model of origins plausible. Yet, back during that time, what of the effects of gravity (reverse the documented weakening rate), and of the moon eventually becoming attached to the earth (again, reverse the known rate it moves further away from earth, a couple of inches a year)? Just two examples.
“Allopatric speciation — speciation that depends on an external barrier to gene flow (such as geographic isolation) to begin or complete the process of speciation.”
“If allopatric speciation happens….” If.
What I read of the first article sounds like what I expect from an environment under the Curse of sin. Animals move somewhere, the environment there affects them, they adapt, and genetic info from adapting is passed down to their offspring. What they don’t use from their ORIGINAL genetic make-up is also affected. They LOSE information.
>From the second article http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/artificial_01 :
Natural selection, microevolution (change within a species), is observed fact, and does not contradict Scripture, as far as I know. The guppies did not cease being guppies, nor did they change into some other creature. The predator could more easily see certain ones, which became food. I don’t know enough about the sexual selection deal to answer.
I have read where some believers in evolution tend to use microevolution to prove macroevolution, as well as to use modern scientific “evolution” (change, such as the Wright brothers’ plane to modern aircraft, etc.) to bolster Darwinian claims. If so, I humbly and sincerely don’t see the connection.
Thanks Patriot. There is also a ton of stuff on speciation here.
http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3036/
I also see I failed to answer Casey’s question. His question was, “Why is it hard to believe that over even longer periods of time, species will diverge even further until you get hawks and blue-jays from an earlier species of bird, especially when environmental factors will favor one species over the other?”
Probably the best way to quickly answer that is to say, what you are explaining speciation within the ‘kind’ and involves no new genetic information. I personally know of no transitions that increased the genetic makeup. If I am wrong, I’m sure someone will provide a link.
And that leads to what is personally my biggest problem with evolution. While Darwin predicted that the fossil record would show **numerous transitional fossils**, even 140 years later, all we have are a handful of disputable examples (see Willey’s post #101).
The common view of “theory” is equal to “scientific hypothesis”; in science to advance a hypothesis to a sound “theory” means that all experiments and natural observations support the idea. Scientists usual way to test an idea is to try to find a case to disprove it and research that – if it holds up among multitudes of attempts to disprove it than the “hypothesis” becomes a “theory”. To the commoner a natural law than is equivalent to a “scientific theory”. No scientist wants to call something a “natural law” because they want to be open to tweaking theories. Kepler’s laws of motion are now called classical physics, but we discovered on the scale of the stars and galaxies that Kepler’s laws had to be tweaked a bit by Einstein’s “Special Relativity”, “General Relativity” and Energy equals Mass times the square of the speed of light (C). These cosmological ideas lead to the atomic and hydrogen bomb. The new ideas are various “string theories” in trying to come up with one theory that resolves all the properties of electromagnetic radiation, matter, gravity, space and time.
The various space telescopes have detected an evolving universe that started with a “Big Bang” that occurred about 13.7 billion years ago. In the visible universe there are about 100,000,000,000 galaxies with about 200,000,000,000 stars in each. That is a big place for “God” to keep track of or play in – but there are many facts of the “Big Bang” and the density of the Universe and the improbable events of earth, a large moon, the GHZ (Galactic Habitable Zone), the solar habitable zone and the lack of earth destroying events that make man’s presence on earth MAGICAL – many astrophysicists do believe in God as a result, and all see evolution in the heavens! When light travels for billions of years to reach earth you can look back at the history of the universe in the sky – the earliest events are further away. The universe shows a clear evolution.
The scientific evidence in the cosmological, geological, genetic, structural commonalities and species changes through time concurs in evolution. Physicians and natural scientists believe in evolution; I have met one Animal Scientist in my life who believed in the seven-day creation – he was also the only PhD I knew who demanded that you always call him “Doctor”.
Ron Paul based on his knowledge, as a Medical Doctor, believes in evolution!
Over a thousand years ago man had only his senses and mind to come up with ideas of creation and various tribes had their own creation story. Now we have space telescopes, electron microscopes, genetic maps, super computers and laboratories that investigate nature – if the masses want to turn to ancient ideas for comfort than so be it.
That a potential president would believe in a seven-day creation in my mind means his logic is blinded to the advancing knowledge of the natural World, and another religious crusade in a nuclear age maybe the end of man!
Ron Paul believes in evolution and our God given liberties!
Whoops, saw the video in which Ron Paul says he doesn’t accept evolution as a theory – a surprise to me. Well the second scientist/physician I have heard in my life in science that doesn’t accept evolution. I’m in shock.
RJ wrote, “The scientific evidence in the cosmological, geological, genetic, structural commonalities and species changes through time concurs in evolution.”
I’m skipping the big-bang theory part of your post for now. 1. Because it’s not relevant to this post and 2. I’ve got enough to talk about with why I believe Creation vs Evolution and don’t have time to go down my list of why I don’t agree with the Big-Bang theory. Other than to say, it doesn’t match the Biblical
account of creation.
But let’s be careful (and honest) that their remains plenty of debate over the universe’s “clear” signs of evolution.
In fact, it’s at “the beginning” that we both have to have faith. Creationists believe at the beginning was God. Evolutionists believe it was soup. Neither can explain how God or the soup got there in the first place.
Ron,
I have read your posts and exchanges and liked the spirit, if not always the conclusions, of the discussions on here.
A few thoughts from a non-scientist who has, at some level attempted to grapple with the question of creationism vs. evolution.
First things first. Several key points:
(1) Should we be engaged in a logical discussion, then both sides are obligated to create a logical construct for their position. So, for example, arguments that challenge the validity of a creator are not “proof” of evolution nor vice versa. To establish your position, you must do more than provide challenges to your opponents position — you must construct your own.
(2) Evolution is not a theory that explains the origins of life. It explains the development of life. A person who believes in Evolution is entitled to believe whatever they want when it comes the big bang or the process of abiogenesis (organic/living matter from non-living matter) — this proof requires an entirely different construct.
(3) Cartesian (or Absolute) Proof is unachievable on either side of this discussion. Why? Science rarely, and I would posit, never deals in “absolute proof”; of course, it may deal in truth beyond any rational disagreement, but it would not be “absolute” — it’s just part of the scientific experience and method; the same too is true of faith in general and Christianity in particular; there is no absolute proof of God, Jesus’ rising, etc (save if we were disciples for the rising — and almost not even that for Thomas), the Trinity, etc. If there was, it would require no FAITH to believe in it. Yet Faith, belief in that which we either cannot see or cannot fully understand (no Christian fully understands in His entirety, the Divine Trinity), is essential to a spiritual or Christian side. So let us not bandy around presumed victories of “logic” by demonstrating that the other side has not “absolutely” proven its argument.
(4) As mentioned above, the word theory in the scientific realm is not simply a hypothesis. Rather a theory is a broad explanation which provides the mechanism for harmonizing those “known facts” (as best as we can know them) which science has uncovered through the scientific method, which you yourself seem to view at valid at least as it pertains to, say, gravity. A theory, of course, is subject to refinement, development and even at some point, contradiction. However, the more facts that a theory explains — the more accepted the theory becomes. So, whereas a fact (i.e. the car is red) may be provable by several tests, a theory is supported and established by hundreds, thousands, even millions of facts. Thus, theories are both (1) more difficult to discuss for laypersons especially because they encompass so many practice areas; and (2) may be even more supported (in core principles) then “facts”. Evolution is a well-accepted and tested theory — this should, at least, give any thinking person significant pause before its dismissal.
(5) Macro vs. Micro Evolution. This is a fascinating concept and I think its not disputed that “micro evolution” has much more evidentiary support, at least to a lay person. That said, a few points. One, there is a dispute whether there is actually any true difference between micro and macro evolution, or whether this is a false dichotomy. A man created separation that simply does not reflect the reality of evolutionary development. This is mainly because macro evolution is thought to be interspecies evolution while micro evolution is intra-species. Yet, the definition of species is a disputed concept within in the scientific community — i.e. is it simply that two creatures can no longer mate successfully, if so, how do we treat organisms that reproduce asexually? So, at least as a starting point, those who oppose evolution may be establishing a false construct, and then using this faulty construct to discredit evolution. Two, evolution of microorganisms is well-observed. We see it all the time — as mentioned though, this is asexual reproduction so you may simply view it as micro not macro — but, as noted, this may just be the result of a faulty definition. To be fair, this definition is disputed by professionals and lay persons alike. Two, there is evidence for evolution in several different scientific fields — evolution is not only evidenced by bone structure. Genetic research on DNA, and especially Mitochondrial DNA, are indicators that living creatures are intimately related to one another, and that certain members of species dominate the reproduction process (i.e. survival of the fittest). Chemistry demonstrates the proteins and chemical structures that are common to both men, apes and most basic protozoa. Archaelogy uncovers — and I will address what you consider a lacking record in a bit — structures in different animals that are identical, or closely related, despite the fact that (i) the structure is used (if still used) for very different purposes; and (2) the animals exist in dramatically different environments. i.e. the human hand and whale fins…whale fins have finger bones. These features — and I forget the technical name for them — have been observed over and over and over again.
Now, here is a question — well observed. Well why don’t we see more macro evolution in the fossil record. And lets take a fair definition of macro evolution — speciation. And let’s say speciation means that animals that once could procreate are, now, due to evolution changes unable to procreate. The problem here is that how would an archaeologist demonstrate that two animals with similar structures (horse and specie akin to horse) were unable to create viable offspring. That is hard because there may not be sufficient evidence in merely the fossils to demonstrate such a conclusion — all the soft tissue is GONE. So, the very definition of macro evolution may be antithetical to uncovering evidence in support of it — the false (or incomplete) dichotomy of reproduction as the species barrier may be the issue.
(6) The Bible. Well now, the question arises — how can I believe in Evolution (or something akin to it) and believe in the Bible. One, I have never met a Christian who takes the entire Bible literally. Now, people purport to but I have never met a Christian who does. If we take our brief gander at Leviticus: it would seem the literal Christian would be hard-pressed not to stone to death: those who have cursed their father in mother, people who have committed adultery and homosexuals. Many Christians also believe in consubstantiation not transubstantiation (Eucharist is literally Christ’s body)– yet the Bible literally says “this is my body” — if it be his body, how can a literalist argue that it is not his body or it is “metaphorical”. This can go on and on. I myself am not a literalist.
Why? Jesus himself spoke in parables. Was there really a Prodigal Son? I’m sure there have been many, but Jesus spoke in story. By doing so, he gave his stories greater depth and greater meaning, especially to those willing to listen to him.
At some level, I think you see it as perverse to “read into” Scripture metaphor and allegory. Yet, metaphor and allegory is what Jesus himself gave us..how he himself taught us how a Christian should act. And given the glory of the Word, I shudder to think that it is just some flat writing to which no thought or further depth applies or can even be given. God gave us his Word, but his Word is both accessible yet infinitely informative and complex. Not complex in a negative way, but complex in a way that repeated study gives way to greater understanding, greater subtlety. This to me provides me with the belief that metaphor and allegory are essential parts of the Bible — they are not “untrue” – they are descriptive of a greater, Infinite truth.
You ask the question of death — appropriately so because sin is the wages of death. Let me be fanciful. Physical death is that to which a flawed physical creation can most understand. Yet, the most important of deaths — the death caused by the sins of Adam and Eve — were the death of our eternal life in God. We were cast out into the wilderness and it required Christ’s redemption (his physical death and resurrection) to conquer the spiritual death (not the death of our souls but the death of our “entitlement” to be with the Divine Trinity) that man had brought upon himself and the world. It was this spiritual death — this break from our divine relation to God that cast evil upon the world. Not surprisingly, the Bible is couched with the term death — which we understand as physical death — because this death is so immediately and innately understood and feared — thus we taste only the barest consequence of this separation with God. Why is this believable according to the Bible? We still die…we (Christians, et al) still die our physical death despite the fact that our sin has been paid for in Christ. It was not physical death Christ conquered…it was our spiritual death that he conquered. But beautifully — even metaphorically — he did it while conquering our basest fear as humans, physical death.
Here’s DNA evidence human evolution:
science & religion can be compatible.. evolution can just be the mechanism of life..god just set the ball rolling to see what evolves as a giant scientific experiment
Ken Miller on Apes and Humans
Y’all should see Ken Miller’s lecture on this. Very good and provides some good bits that are hard for creationists (ok, impossible) to explain in any sensible manner.
Ken Miller on Apes and Humans
The video is from a biologist who explains how apes have 48 chromosomes (24 pairs, numbered #1 to #24) & humans have 46 chromosomes (23 pairs, numbered #1 to number #23) .. recently, both the entire human & ape DNA/genome was mapped .. evolutionary theory can be verified/tested in that if humans evolved from apes, humans are missing the 1 ape chromosome pair (2 chromosomes) because the 2 chromosomes(1 pair) fused into another chromosome. Chromosomes have a beginning & an end marked by telomeres. After mapping the entire DNA of both apes & humans, lo & behold, humans have the entire missing ape chromosome fused into chromosome #2 (we know they”e fused because there is a telomere in the MIDDLE of the chromosome in addition to normal telomere the end/beginning of chromosome #2 –such an anomaly can only be explained by the fusion of the missing chromosome with chromosome #2 –not only that, but the fused portion of the chromosome matches the “missing” chromosome of the apes!).
Further DNA testing showed that human chromosome #2 MATCHES ape chromosome #12 & #13, proving that human chromosome #2 is a fusion of ape chromosom #12 & #13
===
Here’s a transcript from Ken Miller (professor of bio at Brown University from a NOVA documentary):
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/id/defense-ev.html
Q: One of the lines of evidence that you pointed out at the Dover trial is the organization of our own chromosomes. How is that evidence for common ancestry?
Miller: We’ve known for a long time that we humans share common ancestry with the other great apes—gorillas, orangs, chimps, and bonobos. But there’s an interesting problem here. We humans have 46 chromosomes; all the other great apes have 48. In a sense, we’re missing a pair of chromosomes, two chromosomes. How did that happen?
Well, is it possible that in the line that led to us, a pair of chromosomes was simply lost, dropping us from 24 pairs to 23? Well, the answer to that is no. The loss of both members of a pair would actually be fatal in any primate. There is only one possibility, and that is that two chromosomes that were separate became fused to form a single chromosome. If that happened, it would drop us from 24 pairs to 23, and it would explain the data.
“The closer we look at our own DNA, the more powerful the evidence becomes for our common ancestry with other species.”
Here’s the interesting point, and this is why evolution is a science. That possibility is testable. If we indeed were formed that way, then somewhere in our genome there has to be a chromosome that was formed by the fusion of two other chromosomes. Now, how would we find that? It’s easier than you might think.
Every chromosome has a special DNA sequence at both ends called the telomere sequence. Near the middle it has another special sequence called the centromere. If one of our chromosomes was formed by the fusion of two ancestral chromosomes, what we should be able to see is that we possess a chromosome in which telomere DNA is found in the center where it actually doesn’t belong, and that the chromosome has two centromeres. So all we have to do is to look at our own genome, look at our own DNA, and see, do we have a chromosome that fits these features?
We do. It’s human chromosome number 2, and the evidence is unmistakable. We have two centromeres, we have telomere DNA near the center, and the genes even line up corresponding to primate chromosome numbers 12 and 13.
Is there any way that intelligent design or special creation could explain why we have a chromosome like this? The only way that I can think of is if you’re willing to say that the intelligent designer rigged chromosome number 2 to fool us into thinking that we had evolved. The closer we look at our own DNA, the more detailed a glimpse we get of our own genome, the more powerful the evidence becomes for our common ancestry with other species.
The process of evolution
Q: What do gaps in the fossil record represent vis a vis evolution? Why are such gaps not a problem for evolutionary theory?
Miller: It’s important to appreciate that all historical records are necessarily incomplete. We don’t have complete data for any historical process. I’ve tried to trace my own ancestry, and after about four generations, we lose bits and pieces of it. I don’t think that means I don’t have any ancestry. I think it means that some of the evidence is missing.
The same is true for the study of history. We know, for example, when and where the Battle of Gettysburg took place in the Civil War. We know the opposing generals on both sides. But we don’t know exactly what every soldier, by name, was doing at every moment during the Battle of Gettysburg. That doesn’t mean Gettysburg didn’t take place. It doesn’t mean that the Union forces didn’t win. It simply means we have more to learn about that battle.
The same is true for the fossil record. We have an enormous amount of information as to what life was like in the past. That information tells us that life changed, that it changed in a particular pattern, and that the history of change is complete, with one example after another of descent with modification, an ancestor-descendant relationship between organisms. And in a few lucky cases, we can trace almost step by step the evolution of key organisms in the history of life. [See Fossil Evidence.]
Q: What about the claim that no one’s ever seen a new species form?
Miller: Right now new species are literally in the process of forming in the state of California. For years David Wake of the University of California at Berkeley has studied different species of salamander that surround the Central Valley in California. When you look at the range of these species, what you discover is that the local variations at the very ends of the range are now so different from each other that if you capture them both and you put them side by side in a cage, any biologist would agree that they are distinct and separate species. Nonetheless, they have been produced in recent times simply by the spreading of salamanders over a geographic range.
Many opponents of evolution will sort of retreat and say, “Well, okay, but those species are really similar to each other. Show us a species that is dramatically different.” But that initial splitting, that’s the phenomenon that actually drives evolution. You shouldn’t expect to see a cat suddenly give birth to a dog or something along those lines. At the moment when one species splits into two, you should see two distinctly different species that still show the similarities that previously united them within a single classification. We see this happen all the time.
The people who say that macroevolution, by which they mean really big evolution, has never been observed, inevitably cannot give you a strict and rigorous definition of what macroevolution is. They’ll simply say it’s the formation of new categories or evolutionary novelties. They’re loath to put specifics on that idea, to tell you what percentage of the genes or how many base pairs of DNA have to change, because I think they know very well that once they make specific what they mean by macroevolution, some darn biologist is going to go out into the field or into the lab and follow exactly that rate of change and show that macroevolution really does occur.
Q: Another criticism often made is that all this couldn’t just have happened by random chance.
Miller: One of the great mischaracterizations of evolution is that it’s driven by random chance, that things just happen. People like to say, “I don’t like to believe that I’m just an accident.” Well, you’re not. What evolution says is that the variation that crops up in a species is indeed unpredictable. We can’t be sure what will happen next. But that doesn’t mean it’s random.
To me, the word “random” means anything can happen. But the reality is that evolutionary change is restricted. It’s restricted by the laws of physics and chemistry. It’s restricted by the nature of molecular biology. It’s restricted by the constraints of developmental biology during development. Most importantly, evolutionary change is governed by natural selection, and natural selection is not a random process at all. Natural selection selects for successful phenotypes, for successful combinations of characteristics that actually work, and that’s not random at all.
“Any theory that can stand up to 150 years of continuous testing is a pretty darn good theory.”
Q: I have heard critics say that mutation doesn’t create information, it destroys it.
Miller: That notion is at variance with the facts. Four or five million years ago, for example, the Antarctic Ocean, which was warm at the time, froze over as a result of a kind of climate change on this planet. Well, to this day, there are fish that swim in the oceans of Antarctica. One of the interesting things about those fish is that even though the saltwater is actually below the freezing point—our own blood would freeze solid in that cold water—these fish don’t. The reason they don’t freeze solid is because their blood contains an antifreeze protein, sort of the biological equivalent of ethylene glycol in antifreeze.
Well, how did they get it? It turns out that the antifreeze protein that is found in the blood of Antarctic fishes was the result of a digestive enzyme that was mutated, retargeted to the bloodstream, and then mutated again and again to enhance its antifreeze properties. All of these changes were the result of mutation.
Now, that Antarctic fish has a kind of biological information that its ancestors didn’t have. It has the ability to make a completely new protein that enables it to survive in very cold waters by preventing its blood from freezing. That’s novel information, and it’s information that was produced by the process of mutation.
The test of time
Q: How do you answer the charge that evolution has never been tested?
Miller: Evolution is tested every day in the laboratory, and it’s tested every day in the field. I can’t think of a single scientific theory that has been more controversial than evolution, and when theories are controversial, people devise tests to see if they’re right. Evolution has been tested continuously for almost 150 years and not a single observation, not a single experimental result, has ever emerged in 150 years that contradicts the general outlines of the theory of evolution.
Any theory that can stand up to 150 years of continuous testing is a pretty darn good theory. We use evolution to develop drugs. We use evolution to develop vaccines. We use evolution to manage wildlife. We use evolution to interpret our own genome. Every one of these uses of evolution is a test, because if the use turns out to be inadequate, we would then go back and question the very idea of evolution itself. But evolution has turned out to be such a powerful, productive, and hardworking theory that it’s survived that test of time.
Ken Miller is covered really well here:
http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1826
He’s not trustworthy.
Human/chimp DNA similarity continues to decrease: counting indels
http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4653/
Your post is so long I’ll have to try and answer more later.. If those links don’t send you in the right direction.
Don’t know if you saw this yet: http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2007/12/ron_paul_rejects_evolution.php
[...] post is an answer to a comment by JP on the ever popular Ron Paul on Evolution post. His post was so long the reply needs it’s [...]
Thanks R.M. I’ll embed that.
“Belief” in Evolution is a misnomer. One no more believes in the irrefutable fact of Evolution than they believe in automobiles. Evolution is a fact that is overwhelmingly supported by all numerous fields of science including but not limited to: genetics, biology, chemistry, geology, anthropology and even physics.
People either accept Evolution or they deny it, there is no belief.
Evolution is today what the Sun being at the center of the solar system was hundreds of years ago. Even though it was irrefutably proved that the Earth revolved around the Sun religious maniacs refused to accept it for hundreds of years. The same is true now of Evolution. It is a fact that religious maniacs will continue to deny until such time as the general public becomes educated enough to move on.
How does acceptance of Evolution contribute to a candidate’s ability to lead? Obviously, we don’t want ignorant fools running our country. Oopps too late that’s already happened. Well, let’s say we don’t want to continue letting ignorant fools run our country.
That tape was edited to embarass Dr. Paul. Here is the full version.
http://www.paulunteer.com/videos/answers-ron-paul-evolution-and-the-origin-of-life/
Dr. Paul is a scientist. He has published medical research.
http://www.greenjournal.org/cgi/content/abstract/34/2/235
Obstetrics & Gynecology 1969;34:235-241
© 1969 by The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists
PubMed
PubMed Citation
Articles by PAUL, R. E.
Articles by FISHER, E. R.
Evaluation of Renal Biopsy in Pregnancy Toxemia
RONALD E. PAUL, MD, T TERRY HAYASHI, MD, FACOG, VICTORIANO PARDO, MD and EDWIN R. FISHER, MD
From the Departments of Obstetrics and Gynecology, and of Pathology, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, Pa.
Abstract
Percutaneous renal biopsies obtained during the immediate postpartum period from 57 subjects who had been hypertensive during pregnancy were studied by pathologists who had no knowledge of the clinical data. Although the degree of glomerular endotheliosis, mesangiosis, and basement membrane deposits showed some correlation with the clinical severity of the hypertension and toxemia, there was a wide range of observed tissue changes. It is concluded that such renal alterations are suggestive but not pathognomonic of preeclampsiaeclampsia.
1140, I’ve updated the link. You are right it did cut it short. But I’m not sure it will help your cause. Seems the die-hard evolutionists have a new phrase. “There’s no Revolution without Evolution”
See it here: http://alsotequila.com/?p=38
Michael Davis wrote: “‘Belief’ in Evolution is a misnomer. One no more believes in the irrefutable fact of Evolution than they believe in automobiles.”
Oh, Michael. You know I am talking about evolution adding information. That is, particles-to-people evolution. (Never mind how you thought the particles got there.)
There is NO proof, therefore NO FACT, showing the required changes that increase genetic information.
All current evolutionary “proofs” are observations of sorting and loss of information. We have yet to see even a ‘micro’ increase in information, although such changes should be frequent if evolution were true. Conversely, we do observe quite ‘macro’ changes that involve no new information, e.g. when a control gene is switched on or off.
I posted a reply about the addition of information to the separate, “response to LP” thread, so I’ll leave that be here. Just for the sake of clarification though:
- “Law”, in science, usually refers to a consistent pattern or process which can be observed repeatedly, and appears to always occur for the given system. The “Law of Gravity” for example, is the observation that gravity happens.
- “Theory”, in science, is an explanatory model for a given pattern, based on repeated observations and accumulated evidence. Because it has an explanatory component, a Theory can never be “proven” in absolute terms, but only supported beyond reasonable doubt. “Gravitational Theory” would be an example; it is the model that explains how gravity works. Theories are, in fact, more powerful than Laws because they have an explanatory component, and can be used to make predictions about future patterns and processes in the physical world.
Applying the same to biological evolution, the observation that evolution occurs is factual, and could be called a “Law”, because all populations that we have tracked and measured do change over time. Evolutionary Theory, by contrast, is the model that explains how evolution occurs, and further posits that the modern processes we measure account for the generation of biodiversity through time (note that this does not refer to the initial generation of the first biological units).
Here’s a challenge: Using what is known of how biological systems work, demonstrate how biological evolution could fail to happen.
(Hint: The solution set for non-evolving populations was generated by the neutral model of the Hardy-Weinberg equations, and the conditions required for a non-evolving population are never met in any real biological systems.)
Cheers,
–MBH
Thanks for the Clarification MBH. My reply to your other comment is here.
I found this line of your’s interesting:
“note that this does not refer to the initial generation of the first biological units”
And I hate to sing this song again, but again the observed “evolution” you refer to contains no new information. I explained that in more detail here as well.
Thanks for coming by! You’re obviously very intelligent and I hope you use that intelligence to examine the claims of scripture. Because smart (thankfully for me) won’t get you in heaven.
Thanks for the kind words. I am not certain what you consider to be “new information”, but I cannot think of any workable definition of the term that does not include permutation and duplication as examples of new information. More to the point, since different genomes code for differing products we know that the information differs between genomes. Since there is a time context, new information exists by definition.
Take the example of binary code: 0110 and 0011 contain different information. By changing the sequence of numbers from the first to the second set, I have altered the expression, and indicated new information. Biological information, like binary code, relies on combinations and sequences, and so new permutations are new information by default. In fact, the reason that duplications add information is because they produce new permutations; the sheer size of the genome is rather less informative. In fact, if we consider “new information” only to be an expansion of total genome size (which is a silly definition, but seems to get used sometimes), then evolution doesn’t require new information at all.
The paper you linked in response was an interesting read. I’m afraid that it is rife with errors, however. Two of the most glaring are the assumption that biological systems are irreducibly complex (this can shown to be false, and has been, rather simply) and the idea that humans and other mammals are somehow “more complex” than plants or amphibians. They further make an error in thinking that genome size is the main predictor of information content, and make the additional mistake of leaving out any sort of phylogenetic (evolutionary tree) patterning from their “complexity” versus genome size comparsion. This is critical, because if you actually plot genome sizes on an evolutionary tree, it is apparent that genome size has both reduced and expanded throughout numerous lineages. They fall into the trap of thin-strand causality and historical interpretation, which does not apply to biological systems.
Not everything in the paper is incorrect, of course. Much of the stated information is accurate, though it (ironically) more contradicts their own thesis than supports it, because many of the examples they given are implicitly cases of evolutionary change, as well as information expansion. The overarching conclusions are not well supported, but I give them credit for doing some serious reading.
Of course, you don’t have to take my word for it. There is a vast literature reporting the importance of gene duplication and repeated sequence information to evolutionary mechanisms. For examples, see Bridges (1936), Stephens (1951), Ohno (1967), Nei (1969), Ohno, S. (1970), Wolfe (2001), Friedman Hughes (2001), Lynch and Conery (2000), Li (2001), Gu, et al. (2002), Lespinet (2002), Long (2001), Samonte and Eichler (2002), Walsh (1995), Lynch et al. (2001), Ota and Nei (1995) Trabesinger-Ruef, et al. (1996). The list goes on rather longer, in fact, as I have another 60 or so references on the subject at hand. All are published in major, peer-reviewed journals.
Given the audience here, though, I’d imagine that I could ramble at length and probably do little good. So, here’s something to chew on: Speaking as a scientist, the most important items in my replies are undoubtedly the definitions of Theory and Law, and the point that physical evidence must be the framework of scientific work. Quite frankly, a detailed, working knowledge of biological evolution is not critical for most of the occupations in the world. Much more critical is a general understanding of how physical evidence is used. If more people had a general grasp of that process, then I, for one, would be quite happy. In science we accept what the evidence shows to be most likely, and not what we’d prefer to be true. That is, I think, the critical issue.
Cheers,
–MBH
What Ron Paul doesn’t seem to realize is that the term “theory” is used in science to refer to a huge body of knowledge used to explain an observation. Thus, there is a theory of gravity, a theory of light, and a theory of evolution. A theory is much stronger than a hypothesis, in that a theory is based on a great deal of data. The phenomena explained by a theory are facts. Thus, gravity is a fact, light is a fact, and evolution is a fact. The only exception might be mathematical theories, which are often abstract and may have no observable phenomena associated with them.
In case anyone asks, here is a very brief summary of evolution. The theory of evolution seeks to explain observations such as the fossil record, in which different fossilized species are seen to occupy different layers of rock, with the less-complex species at the bottom and the more complex species at the top. There are also fossils showing the development over time of particular species, such as man, the horse, etc., with the more ancient forms appearing deeper in the earth.
Radioactive dating shows that the various layers represent different geological epochs, with the oldest ones at the bottom and the youngest at the top.
There is also genetic evidence that shows which species are closely related and which are more distantly related. In addition, “silent” genes have been found in all organisms studied. These are genes that don’t work. The theory of evolution proposes that these genes used to work, but because they aren’t needed anymore, they don’t confer any evolutionary advantage to individuals carrying them. Thus, there is no natural selection against mutations in these genes, and they consequently accumulate mutations. Sometimes a mutation turns out to be beneficial, and that mutation becomes favored by natural selection, and can develop into a new feature of the organism.
A fascinating example of silent genes has been found in the chicken. Chickens have no teeth, but they do have the genes that encode teeth. These genes are no longer active, presumably (according to the theory of evolution) because chickens no longer need teeth. Therefore their tooth genes have accumulated mutations over time that have inactivated them. Teeth have actually been grown from chicken gum tissue in the petri dish under conditions that activated the tooth genes. The chicken teeth turned out to be peg-like, as in reptiles. Creationists have a difficult time explaining the existence of tooth genes in chickens. Why would god make a chicken with silent genes?
In summary, for someone to say that they don’t believe in evolution is like saying they don’t believe in gravity. Evolution is a fact. And if they say that they don’t believe the theory of evolution (meaning that they accept the fact of evolution but not the explanation supported by a mountain of evidence), then that must mean they have found specific flaws in the evidence supporting the theory. If disbelievers want legitimacy, they must state the specific flaws that they have found. Maybe the chicken is actually a reptile and the teeth are microscopic? Even that is probably not enough to overturn the theory, though it would certainly require some modification of the theory. Anyone seeking to invalidate the theory of evolution has a huge amount of data to overcome. But one can no more “not believe in evolution” than he/she can “not believe in gravity.”
PS: In the clip above, Ron Paul says that this issue is not that important to the election, but I disagree. I see the issue of evolution is an indicator telling us how likely a person is to accept facts that are contrary to his/her opinions. We’ve seen the devastating impact resulting from a president who is able to disbelieve facts.
Dear Geoffrey. So Chickens with teeth became… Chickens without teeth.. and therefore you believe humans came from soup?
Re: 122. I don’t think you’ll find anyone running who doesn’t have some ideology that shapes their thinking. For Ron Paul, it seems to be the Constitution. But don’t kid yourself. We all have presuppositions. I’ll admit, I come to the table of this discussion believing the scripture to be true. That doesn’t make that presupposition wrong, but I should be aware of it and at least be willing to admit that it is the foundation of my thinking.
There are those that believe science to be true … no, infallible. And they come to scripture with those presuppositions. They read Gen 1 and can’t figure out how this jives with their understanding of Darwinism (which they presume to be true and beyond question) – therefore they reject scripture. It’s part of the appeal of Evolution. People see it as a way to say, “oh the Bible’s not true.” and feel good about it – as they ignore their own God given conscience.
Ron Shank: First, you missed the point. Chickens with tooth genes are only a small part of the evidence favoring current evolutionary theory. It is this fact combined with the sum total of all other evidence that strongly supports the theory that humans came from soup, as you sneeringly put it. If you disagree with the mountain of evidence supporting this explanation, then you must cite specific evidence that is wrong. You have to study evolution, look at the data, and say, “This experiment was not done properly,” or “This experiment was not interpreted properly.” You can even suggest further experiments. If you end up being correct, then theory will change. That’s what makes science so powerful.
The only presupposition a true scientist should have is that the strength of belief is proportional to the strength of the evidence. The stronger the evidence, the stronger the belief. If evidence changes, then belief should follow.
You refer to “those that believe science to be …infallible.” Such people are not true scientists, so you can just toss the whole straw-man argument you’re trying to set up. Anyone who looks at the history of science can see that scientific theory is constantly changing and evolving in response to stronger evidence this way or that. Consequently, incorrect ideas are constantly being revised or discarded. Religious leaders are the only ones I know of who have claimed to be infallible. And based on what? Nothing but an old fairy tale dreamed up to explain the puzzles of the world before science developed the more rational alternatives that we have today.
Religious leaders are aware that their beliefs, and therefore their power over their unquestioning “sheep,” are threatened by science, which encourages questioning. This is why they demand that their sheep accept “on faith” everything they tell them. And their sheep must do so, lest they be cast out and despised as “nonbelievers.” The capacity of “good” religious people to hate, based on nothing more than a fairy tale, is quite amazing.
Wasn’t trying to “sneer,” Geoffrey. Just trying to be a little lighter in my points. Smile.
My point was its still chicken to chicken “evolution”. Genesis clearly teaches creatures multiplied “after their kind.” That doesn’t mean changes can’t occur. In fact, science has proven changes occur. But they are not showing any new (or added) information. What is observed is merely a turning on and off of switches.
oh and regarding my so-called “straw-man” argument. My point remains that many people (not honest scientists) believe science and faith are at odds and that science is the infallible one. I seem to have angered you some how in my comment, that was not my intent. And if my argument was straw-manish (hey, i made a new word) it’s no-more-so than you’re argument that “religious leaders are … threatened by science … ” I really am not sure you understand what scripture teaches. That is not an insult – I really just think you are misunderstood. Are there religious people that hate and use their religion to justify it – sure. But they are wrong and scripture clearly reveals that. Further to the point, scripture shows I am often wrong, and sinful, in need of repentance. Because, just like you, I will one day stand before God and need to be forgiven. But the question is — how can we be forgiven??? Darwinism offers no answers to that question.
Yes, I was somewhat angry. Thanks for not escalating it. I find it frustrating when people disbelieve facts, like gravity or evolution. One can freely disbelieve things that have not been proven, such as the Bible. But to disbelieve things that have been proven is lunacy, and it is harmful to teach lunacy to our children.
How can an atheist be forgiven? You are correct, Darwinism offers no answers to that question, as it offers no answers to questions in quantum physics. It answers evolutionary questions quite well. The Bible, on the other hand, does not answer questions of evolution, quantum physics, molecular biology, gravity, air, water, earth, fire, or anything else about the natural world. Instead it posits the necessity for an imaginary god to forgive the imaginary guilt inborn in every person. None of this has been proven in the slightest, yet religionists place more credibility in that than in things like evolution that HAVE been proven! This is the lunacy that they teach their children. It also explains George Bush’s monumental failures.
How can an atheist be forgiven? Here’s how: By asking any PERSON he’s wronged to forgive him! We don’t go into the shadows, ask an imaginary being to forgive us, and then emerge under the illusion that all has been made right. Though that would be far easier, it doesn’t force the person who has done wrong to face up to, and make amends for, his bad deeds.
If you want revelation, study the natural world. It really is fascinating. You wouldn’t believe the facts that have been discovered out there!
For me this is a big stumbling block. I trust Ron Paul to say what he means without the typical pandering to anyone. Evolution is a fact. The science and evidence is inescapable. Macro evolution most certainly has taken place. The genetic evidence alone is overwhelming on that point. I would expect any competent, honest and intelligent person who looks and isn’t to wed to a conflicting belief to know that. So this is a very real problem. In the 21st century we cannot have a scientific illiterate or willful bender of scientific truth as US president, again. That he says how the entire subject area is a matter of theology is a stake through the heart. I had to check to make sure I wasn’t listening to Huckabee.
Samantha, I won’t rehash the “evolution is fact” claim, as I’ve already done that in previous replies. However, concerning Ron Paul, unless he does really well in NH or SC, or is going to make a 3rd Party run (which I think he said he wouldn’t do) he’s quickly turning into a non-issue. Fox has already (wrongly, in my opinion) cut him from this weekend’s debate.
Geoffrey, your offense is ultimately against God. Your own conscience is witness to that. When we lied, we knew it was wrong. Same with stealing, etc. The Bible says, God’s law is written on our hearts. Honest scientists admit there is no proof showing where life began… let’s go beyond evolution here. As a self proclaimed atheist, you can’t know there is no God; not for sure (making you at best an agnostic). The natural world all around points to evidence of a creator. The prophetic nature of scripture has and is more than sufficient to settle the minds of any open minded skeptic. If you have other questions, please feel free to contact me. I’d love to discuss them rationally with you; and explain why I believe. But there’s no point in us debating it or getting angry about it here. And that seems to be all I am doing; is making you angry. That is not my intent. I pray you’ll find the truth.
Samantha, well-said. I agree 100%.
Ron, I would be happy to debate it here or by e-mail. Doing it here would be my preference, because the debate needs to be publicly aired, but it’s your web site. But understand that the debate is not making me angry; I was already angry, as I said above, because religionists are portraying unfounded beliefs as facts and forcing them on our children. The debate above actually makes me happy
(<–see?) because it allows me to air my grievances.
Getting back to the offense that needs your god’s forgiveness: If there is no god, then there is no need for his forgiveness. You assume by reading a fairy tale that your god exists. Yet there is no evidence for the existence of any god. You state, “The natural world all around points to evidence of a creator.” Like what, for example? Have you studied the natural world? There are many amazing things happening out there that may seem to be miracles until one understands the NATURAL principles at work. I advise you and all religionists to learn about natural laws and how they work, rather than wishing them all away and substituting the word “miracle” in their place.
“Atheist” means one who does not believe in any gods. That’s me. Of course, I cannot prove that there are no gods. But if there were gods, I would expect proof before believing in them. Since you believe in at least one god, and since you claim certainty, then kindly enlighten humanity by sharing the proof you have.
The “prophetic nature of scripture” is fiction. Read the history of the Bible and learn how it has been written and modified over time. Then tell me one prophecy that has been proven true, which is to say that it must be proven to have been made prior to the event, and the event must be proven to have actually occurred.
Not knowing there is a god makes you an agnostic. Congrats, you’re making progress already
Seriously, you are not ever going to agree with anything I say, until you study or I show you – the accuracy of the current translations.
Which leads to a good first question. Is the bible we have today accurate with what was written originally? [you can deal with the sanity of the authors later] Because without knowing that, you’ll never believe the scriptures. I’ll try to answer this this weekend if as I have more time. Back to work! Have a great day!
Check your definitions; you have a common misconception: An agnostic is not someone who is unsure of the existence of gods. Rather it is someone who believes that it is impossible to know for sure if there are or aren’t gods. Thus it is possible to be both an agnostic and an atheist. Take me for instance. Frankly, I am inclined to agree with the agnostic belief that it is impossible to know for sure. But, until I do know for sure, I have a belief: I believe they don’t exist. Therefore, I am definitely an atheist, and possibly an agnostic as well. If that makes you happy, feel free to congratulate me again.
I look forward to your view on the accuracy of the Bible.
Not sure if anybody addressed this or not but a scientific theory does not become a law, they are both different. Also when the word Theory is used in science it is not the same as when used in everday conversation. Here is a good definition of the difference
“The word theory has a number of distinct meanings in different fields of knowledge, depending on their methodologies and the context of discussion.
In science, a theory is a mathematical or logical explanation, or a testable model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise falsified through empirical observation. It follows from this that for scientists “theory” and “fact” do not necessarily stand in opposition. For example, it is a fact that an apple dropped on earth has been observed to fall towards the center of the planet, and the theories commonly used to describe and explain this behaviour are Newton’s theory of universal gravitation (see also gravitation), and general relativity.
In common usage, the word theory is often used to signify a conjecture, an opinion, or a speculation. In this usage, a theory is not necessarily based on facts; in other words, it is not required to be consistent with true descriptions of reality. This usage of theory leads to the common incorrect statement “It’s not a fact, it’s only a theory.” True descriptions of reality are more reflectively understood as statements which would be true independently of what people think about them. In this usage, the word is synonymous with hypothesis.”
Hope that clears things up a bit
“Not sure if anybody addressed this or not… “
A few times Jason. Thank you, anyway.
Geoffrey wrote: “But, until I do know for sure, I have a belief:”
And that’s why atheism is a religion.
Call it whatever you want. When I use the term religion, I mean to convey belief in a supernatural, intelligent being capable of working miracles, which I define as acts defying natural laws. Apparently your definition of religion is “any belief.” So if I believe that the apple I drop will fall to the ground, to you that’s a religion.
If you want to explore what we each mean by “religion” and a “belief,” I’m happy to do so.
Mr. Shank,
After reading your comments here, I am somewhat perplexed on several fronts.
You repeatedly ask people to cite a single piece of evidence, a “single point”, to justify the theory of evolution. It’s a silly and disingenuous request for you to make, for a few reasons.
In the first place, NO theory can be verified by one instance, one observation, or one piece of evidence. It is the WHOLE PICTURE which gives rise to a theory in the first place and, over time, lends it weight. (The ‘whole picture’ means: the entire body of empirical observations & scientific tests providing cohesive support for the theory IN ADDITION TO any evidence which conflicts with the theory.) A failure to examine a theory as a cohesive whole is to ignore context, to do so eschews logic.
Secondly, you have stated that scripture is the “inerrant and infallible”(32) word of god and also that “evolution is in conflict with god’s holy word”(24). What this implies is that NO AMOUNT of evidence (let alone a single fact) would be sufficient to convince you of the soundness of the theory of evolution. This is especially interesting, since you seem keen on providing evidence against evolution/for creation, AND you hold that “science can prove facts”(32). So: science proves, but only when such “proof” conflates with the dictates of scripture? Evidence which supports scripture is relevant, and that which conflicts with it can be rejected without further consideration? It seems that we’ve run into an issue of circularity. Further, to reject a scientific proof on a non-scientific basis eschews logic (and is rather telling of your actual opinion of science).
As somewhat of an aside, I am curious–in light of the infallibility of scripture and the fallibility of human beings, two things:
1) How do you know when you’re understanding scripture correctly?
2) How do you know when science has “proven” something, and when it has not?
Last, let’s consider these three statements:
“the original scriptures are the divinely inspired Word of God [and are] inerrant and infallible”(32)
“evolution is in conflict with god’s holy word”(24)
“let me go on record here for all time (or as long as there’s Google) that should evolution be proven – then the Bible is false and untrustworthy. But I’m not worried about that.”(80)
Of course you’re not worried. You haven’t given evolution a fair shake, and you never will. So long as you accept that scripture is truth, and that evolution conflicts with that truth–evolution is necessarily wrong. False. End of story. Notice that there is zero science involved in this rejection of evolution… yet you claim to “respect science”(12) and hold that science is capable of proving things. Is this coherent?
Again: HOW do you know science proves things? How can you be sure when science HAS proven something that it doesn’t conflict with scripture–or–that an apparent conflict is not a result of your own failure in understanding scripture?
Atheism is more simply defined simply as the lack of a particular belief: a belief in god. If one is asked “do you believe in god” the atheist will answer, “no.” But this answer is not a statement of belief: it is simply a self-description. It isn’t even a real characteristic of the person, because it isn’t an affirmative characteristic.
If not holding a particular belief is a religion, then not going to the bank is a type of going to the bank.
The more you find out about Ron Paul, the more nutty and silly he becomes. For instance, he doesn’t believe in evolution, even though you can literally SEE EVOLUTION occurring with your own eyes, such as in the case of the flu virus constantly evolving so that new vaccines need to be created each year, or entirely new species of microorganisms evolving into existence within labs over the course of just months.
Paul has the same backward beliefs of right-wing nuts like George W Bush and G Gordon Liddy, he just happens to be for smaller government as well. A person with that kind of warped view of reality isn’t fit to lead the country.
Dear Good Twin. I think it’s funny how the RPeeps were all — what does this matter! — until they found out he was a creationist (or at least leans that way) and now he’s GWB 3.
Geoffrey, I’m answering you on the other thread.
http://www.shanktified.com/archives/good-enough
Dagny and Bad: Welcome.
Dagny, I’m very impressed you appear to have taken the time to read most of the comments here. I don’t think I would have ever done that. Your comment is worthy of a post of it’s own and I’ll do that as soon as time permits. But as a very short answer, I see no problem making scripture my ultimate authority. We’ll see if we can’t work out what that is a little later.
Bad, your bank analogy is not accurate. More accurate would be to say “I don’t believe in banks, so I keep my money at that the ‘non-bank’. They give me interest and loans and even lollipops in drive through. They just are not a bank, because banks don’t really exist. I know this because I’ve never been in one.”
Atheism has all the workings of a religion or belief system, but because the primary tenet is “non-belief” then we are to ignore all that.
Dear all religious pundits:
Please do some research in to what you are discussing. The United States wasn’t founded on “Christian Moral Values”. I don’t know where you people come up with this stuff. Most of the founding fathers were Deists. Look it up. Read about it. Stop pretending Jesus was an American because Reverend Billy Bob on TV told you so. I’m not knocking your beliefs, but please stop trying to pass off made up stories as the truth. You’re embarrassing yourselves.
As for evolution, before you start whining about it, maybe you should understand it first. I love how creationist people always bring up the “It’s a theory!” argument. Hey, ELECTRICITY is a theory too. Better stop believing in that as well and turn off your computer now if you want to play that card.
Look. Evolution is just changes taking place over time. Nowhere does it say a monkey magically turned in to a person. Maybe that’s actually why you don’t like it.
I just wish that people would actually get informed about things before they start talking about them.
Dear Dave.
1. We hear that deist claim a lot on the web. When you say “most” which ones are you talking about?
In short, if you are talking about “downward evolution” – the loss of genetic information. We agree with that theory. Where we disagree is on a layman’s understanding where man evolved from fish.
2. No one here (or anywhere else I know of) claimed Christ was an American.
3. We’ve discussed the “it’s not a theory” claim. Please reread the comments – yeah, I know there are a ton. Thank you Ron Paul.
4. re: “..changes over time” argument see comment 80 above for a great quote by Darwin.
Hey there… I’m still eagerly awaiting your reconciliation of faith and science. I know my post was long, but I’d be willing to narrow it down to a few specific questions/statements that I’d especially like a response to.
And just since I’m herel: Atheism does NOT have “all the workings of a religion or belief system”. It is merely a statement of what one DOES NOT believe in. It is a pretty useless term for determining what a person’s beliefs actually ARE. While it may rule a few things out, the “atheist” label is consistent with many belief systems (eg communist, secular humanist, objectivist…).
Ron,
As a scientist (Ph.D. in physics from Stanford), I am quite certain that there is proof beyond any sane doubt that evolution is true – the fossil record, radiometric dating, DNA evidence, vestigial organs, embryology, population genetics, and all the other stuff you can find in any decent textbook on the subject.
I am also quite, quite certain that I cannot prove to you that evolution is true, and for a very simple reason.
I hold patents on various techniques used in computer and communication systems. There are rigorous mathematical proofs that these methods work.
However, I cannot prove to most people that these methods work, for a very good reason: a pre-requisite to understand the mathematical proofs is that you have a very broad understanding of certain areas of mathematics (e.g., Galois field theory) that most people have never even heard of.
There is the same problem with proving evolution: the problem is not too little knowledge but too much. There is so much evidence for evolution that neither I nor anyone else can give you one single cute soundbite or one conclusive piece of evidence that simply nails it.
I have never met a single human being who has carefully perused and gone to the trouble to understand all of the relevant scientific evidence and who has concluded that evolution is not true.
But I cannot force anyone to go to the trouble to learn the relevant science. I certainly cannot present that science in a few postings in the comments section of your blog.
A similar point holds for the theory of relativity, Maxwell’s equations, statistical mechanics, and almost everything else in physics (or higher math). Give me a whole semester with a bright, attentive, properly prepared student and I can explain how we know that any of this stuff is true. But I cannot do that in a thousand words or less or in an hour conversation
To give a relevant concrete example, you, and many creationists, keep insisting that genetic change cannot increase information. My patents involve the application of information theory to engineering systems: I know this stuff. The common creationist claim here is not true: it involves a misunderstanding of the second law of thermodynamics and of basic principles of information theory. I’ve tried to explain to creationists that their belief as to what the second law says is simply in error, as they will find out if they go to any decent textbook on the subject. Every single one I have mentioned this to has refused to actually go to a university library and bother to learn this stuff. But, of course, they keep insisting that we physicists are saying something about entropy and information that we are not saying.
I know that 1,534,789 is a prime number. But I cannot prove this to someone who refuses to learn the meaning of the term “prime number” or how to do long division.
I know this comment is very elitist, un-American, and all that. I’m sorry. But that is the situation we scientists are actually in. Some stuff really is sufficiently complicated that you can only learn it by learning it.
No one would go to a “brain surgeon” who had “learned” brain surgery by reading a few blogs on the Web. But the egalitarian ethos is so strong in the United States that many Americans (and it is overwhelmingly Americans) actually do take that attitude on many issues of science (not just evolution).
This is one of many reasons I consider egalitarianism to be evil.
Dave M. in Sacramento
Hello. I would like to clarify something. The scientific theory of evolution does not promote its followers to have a reduced appreciation for the value of life, or that life is “expendable” as some of you think. This is a Religiously-centric point of view. I assume you are referring to movements such as Eugenics in Nazi Germany for example. A horrible mistreatment of scientific theory maybe, however lets not forget all the people Christianity has persecuted during its tenure here on earth. Ideas can be used to manipulate populations of people in a variety of ways, this is called “Rhetoric”, “Dogma”, etc.
The world evolution is used to designate two things in science, theory and fact. The FACT is that species CHANGE OVER TIME. The THEORY of evolution by NATURAL SELECTION, GENE DRIFT, and GENETIC FLOW, the currently accepted scientific model is simply an explanatory framework that BEST fits the phenomena we ALL experience from day to day. Surely one would agree with the fact that “creatures” (organisms) change; do you own DOGS or CATS? Well guess what? At one time they were wild animals and there was much, much less variety amongst them. Now, thanks to breeding (which is a controlled evolutionary process) we have lots and lots of breeds and they are making new ones every day. Even early Greek physics, such as that studied by Thales, Anaximander, and later Aristotle (who’s ideas the Catholic church Ironically accepted as their own ), OBSERVED that creatures changed over time, which by the way, predates the birth, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ.
As a theoretical framework, evolution is simply the most accurate explanation science has for explaining certain phenomena. It is yes, one most dire, as it points to ORIGINS and that scares people b/c it asks that one often time challenge their beliefs and assumptions. However it IS the best theory for science to use. The Christian Creationist-Model CANNOT be taught AS SCIENCE because it does NOT provide an accurate framework for the changes we experience.
Does this however, mean that Creationism should not be taught? NO. Creationism and religious VALUE SHOULD be taught, for a plurality of different viewpoints are CRUCIAL to an individuals ability to critically and personally decide what is right and wrong for themselves. I’m sorry to say this, but the bible was written by a variety of politically devious individuals; people who were, at various periods of political unrest, MOTIVATED TO ALTER THE BELIEFS of people through dogma, that is unchallenged belief structure. Just take a look at all the versions of the bible out there and you’ll realize that. What makes a particular Christian partial to a particular version? I can’t answer that. That would be beyond my knowledge and presumptuous of me. Everyone derives their values differently.
It is important to promote understanding by introducing people to a variety of different learning styles, however CREATION-SCIENCE is NOT science, it is a sloppy importation of Christian dogma into science. In order to be scientific it must undergo rigorous testing, which it has and the conclusions are absurd. This does not mean Christianity is absurd Nor believing in God and Jesus. One should be reserved for Science, the other a religious studies class, philosophy, or Sunday school. Thank you.
Dave – I agree with you 100%. There’s another thread going on that deals with evolution that you might want to check out at http://www.shanktified.com/archives/good-enough/#comment-39094 . I cited a web page where UC-Berkeley has an intro to evolution. Ron seems open to reading that. Something like that may help you explain things also, if you could find one.
Geoffrey,
Thanks, I’ll check it out. As you’ve probably guessed, I’ve had extensive experience discussing this issue with creationists, and I’m getting a bit weary of people who pontificate about what science says but who are too lazy to get off their duff and actually learn what science says.
Although I am an atheist/agnostic (like most top-flight scientists of course), I would not presume to tell Christians what their faith teaches if I had not done extensive reading in the Christian holy book. I do not expect Christians to simply spoon-feed me the Bible on some online discussion thread. However, too many Christians do demand that we professional scientists “prove” to them evolution in a thread like this instead of their actually reading the requisite scientific books and taking the needed classes for themselves.
Laziness.
That so many Christians are so certain of themselves in complex technical subjects such as information theory, about which they know nothing, I find quite remarkable.
Dave
PhysicistDave, I’m not sure why you posted? It’s clear you can’t (by your own words) prove anything about evolution. Why don’t you submit some links to get us started, as GK has done?