Evolution (quick) Masterclass

[c4ts]

You can't "debate" with Kent Hovind. That would require an actual exchange of ideas.

 

[billydkid]

Unfortunately that is probably too vague a subject, and has very little to do with the specific processes, predictions and explanations which are relevant to biological evolution.

that "things change over time" is about the best I think you'll get asking such a wide ranging question.
However if you can give some specific examples of what you are interested in discussing, this thread will probably be more productive.

when people say evolution they are generally referring to the Darwinian theory of the evolution of species by natural selection. That is what this person wants to understand.

 

[Christian Dude]

Hi guys. I am here in Orlando and logged on my ISP by slow dialup in my room. The hotel also charges way too much for me to make a local call to my ISP. It sucks.

I have read all the posts since I left on my trip. You guys are giving me a ton of stuff to read up on. I’m going over to talk origins now to read some stuff. I hope that I might be able to ask a couple of intelligent questions or bring up some interesting creationist thoughts for you guys in the future. We will see, you guys are a very tough crowd, probably have way better educations than me, and I am only a layman in this area. But it is a subject I find very interesting personally.

Maybe some of you will find this interesting about what I believe, I don’t know. I am not dogmatic at all about the age of the earth or universe. Some Christians, like Ken Ham, say the Hebrew word Yom always has to mean a literal 24 hour period with no exceptions. They quote linguists who’s area of expertise is in ancient Hebrew who support that position. Others, like Hugh Ross, say Yom did not always mean a literal 24 hour period, that is was used as a term for epochs or ages as well in ancient Hebrew writings. And they have linguists who’s area of expertise is ancient Hebrew on their side.

So for me, again a layman in this area, I am not dogmatic. I am ok with an old Earth or a young Earth. In my personal study of scripture, again as a layman, I do not see the issue of sin and salvation being effected by this particular issue. I personally do not believe in evolution because that does effect the issue of sin and salvation dramatically, and the process of creation as described in scripture does not leave room for evolution. Again, my opinion. So any how, I think the debate about old Earth or young Earth inside the Christian community is fascinating and interesting, and also the debate about Evolution vs. ID or creation is also equally fascinating and interesting. I read what I can with the time I allow for this stuff and enjoy it a great deal. For me I’m kinda like a little kid asking a ton of questions like “Wow Lord, that is very cool. How did you do that?”

 

[Sapien]

I just finished reading this enitre thread up to the return of Christian Dude. I hope Ned returns as well. I have read many posts in other threads by some of the participants in this one and I am am surprised and encouraged by the overall civility.

I personally do not believe in evolution because that does effect the issue of sin and salvation dramatically, and the process of creation as described in scripture does not leave room for evolution.

Frankly, I wonder if your interest in evolution is genuine. If as you say, "the scripture does not leave room for evolution" then why the interest on your part? Are you about to abandon your belief in the scripture? What is your mission here?

 

[arthwollipot]

I personally do not believe in evolution...

That's your first problem. You think that evolution can be something that can be "believed in". Do you believe in the sun? Do you believe in computers? Do you believe in icicles?

Evolution is a fact, no less than the existence of the sun, computers and icicles are facts. The idea that evolution is something that some people "believe in" and others don't "believe in" comes from religion's rejection of the evidence based on Scripture.

Tell me, CD. If your eyes say one thing, and the Bible says another, which gets priority?

 

[Humphreys]

So, Christian, you're actually looking to try to pick holes in evolution, rather than learn about it, and possibly accept it as fact if the evidence is compelling?

Regardless of evidence, you won't believe because it contradicts scripture, right?

Your position seems to be "I don't know much about evolution, except that it's false. By learning more about it, I can hopefully find some evidence to support this, if not, it doesn't really matter."

 

[drkitten]

I hope that I might be able to ask a couple of intelligent questions or bring up some interesting creationist thoughts for you guys in the future.

I hope so, too. But as an opening, this doesn't appear promising....

I personally do not believe in evolution because that does effect the issue of sin and salvation dramatically, and the process of creation as described in scripture does not leave room for evolution.

Unfortunately, if I take you at your word here, the discussion is more or less over. In any kind of scientific discussion, one has to be prepared for the possibility that any particular source of evidence is simply wrong -- you can't just handwave and say (for example), "but that would violate the law of conservation of energy," since the law of conservation of energy might not be entirely correct. (This is one of the central ideas behind the Theory of Relativity and much of nuclear physics --the idea of conservation of energy, as understood in the 19th century, isn't entirely correct.)

Similarly, the process of creation as described in scripture may not be correct. If you're unwilling to accept that as a possibility, no intelligent discussion is possible.

I would argue more strongly, in point of fact. Creation as described in scripture not only may be incorrect, but it provably is. There are two mutually contradictory creation stories as described in Genesis; if the first is true, the second is wrong (and vice versa). But even if scripture told a consistent story -- there is still no reason outside of scripture itself to take the story seriously. I don't take seriously the story of a huge cow licking the world out of a frozen sheet of ice (as told in the Norse mythis) or the story of Eru and the Valar singing the world into existence (as told in the Silmarillion).... why should Jewish creation myths escape?

 

[SuperCoolGuy]

Unfortunately, if I take you at your word here, the discussion is more or less over. In any kind of scientific discussion, one has to be prepared for the possibility that any particular source of evidence is simply wrong

For the record, are all pro-evolution folks open to the possibility that the Genesis account of creation is an accurate depiction of historical events?

 

[Genesius]

For the record, are all pro-evolution folks open to the possibility that the Genesis account of creation is an accurate depiction of historical events?

We will be if the creationist folks can come up with one shred of evidence in favor if it.

So far, nada.

 

[brodski]

For the record, are all pro-evolution folks open to the possibility that the Genesis account of creation is an accurate depiction of historical events?

yes, provided you can supply any evidence for it, as well as explaining all the evidence we see for evolution. attacking evolution is not enough, you have to provide positive evidence for genesis as a real account of "creation". We're skeptics here, we go where the evidence points.

 

[drkitten]

For the record, are all pro-evolution folks open to the possibility that the Genesis account of creation is an accurate depiction of historical events?

Well, I can't speak for "all" pro-evolution folks.

And the weight of evidence against the Genesis account is sufficiently great that I will give the Genesis account no serious credibility unless someone can find a truly revolutionary amount of new evidence.

Let me put it this way. I am open to the possibility that the Genesis account of creation is an accurate depiction of historical events to approximately the same degree that I am open to the possiblity that the official national language of the United States from 1812-1874 was Swahili. But in both cases, I'm willing to be convinced if sufficiently compelling evidence can be found.

 

[ohms]

the debate about Evolution vs. ID or creation is also equally fascinating and interesting.

What debate? For the vast majority of people with some sort of understanding of Evolution there is no debate. Evolution is science, ID isn't. Even your courts say so.

 

[Dogdoctor]

What debate? For the vast majority of people with some sort of understanding of Evolution there is no debate. Evolution is science, ID isn't. Even your courts say so.

That is how I think also. Evolution is interesting reading. ID and Creationism is not interesting.

 

[scotth]

That is how I think also. Evolution is interesting reading. ID and Creationism is not interesting.

I think ID and Creationism is interesting to read. Just like stories of Santa and the Easter bunny are.

 

[drkitten]

I think ID and Creationism is interesting to read. Just like stories of Santa and the Easter bunny are.

Which part of "play nicely" did you miss?

 

[Sapien]

For the record, are all pro-evolution folks open to the possibility that the Genesis account of creation is an accurate depiction of historical events?

My views on evolution are based on observable evidence. My views change as new observable evidence arises. I submit that the Creationist's views are based on faith rather than reason. New evidence that contradicts the faith is dismissed. New evidence adds to the scientist's view.

The Genesis account is no more credible than that of any other creation myth.

 

[scotth]

Which part of "play nicely" did you miss?

Sorry, sometimes it is easy to get carried away.

 

[Dr Adequate]

Okay, now I'm going to say "play nicely".

I've said this before about another creationist poster, and I'll say it about CD. He is asking intelligent questions of people likely to be able to answer them, and listening to the answers.

Doesn't that make him a creationist in a thousand? Is that not, in fact, exactly what a skeptic should do? Should we not admit that he is the best and most honorable opponent we could wish for?

I may have said a few harsh words about creationists generally, but I have nothing bad to say about CD.

I admit he hasn't yet asked the question that a skeptic would ask, but I hope he will.

I personally do not believe in evolution because that does effect the issue of sin and salvation dramatically, and the process of creation as described in scripture does not leave room for evolution. Again, my opinion.

I may say personally that although I am no longer a Christian, I used to be, and I never saw any problem with accepting mainstream biology too.

Let me deal with your theological questions in reverse order. In the first place, there are plenty of Christians who have had no trouble in reconciling Genesis with biology. Indeed, scientists who are Christians usually regard creationism as a huge embarrassment to Christianity.

Could I refer you to the SkepticWiki article : [swiki]Evolution is an atheist theory[/swiki]

Here's a short quote from the rebuttal of that claim :

The very existence of this argument shows that it is flawed. The proposition that "evolution is an atheist theory" would not be an argument against evolution if it was addressed to an atheist. The only reason that there is any use for this argument is that there are plenty of Christians who accept evolutionary biology: and if they would only believe that evolution is intrinsically atheistic, presumably they'd give up on evolution. Or religion.

Now, the issue of sin and salvation. By a curious chance, I've just been thinking about that. Now, the bit about the forbidden fruit gives us an explanation (or it may be an allegory) of how sin came into the world.

Suppose we took away the explanation (or allegory). Would that change the material facts?

No, of course it wouldn't.

It would still be plain that no human being is perfect, and that doing things which the Bible condemns is in some sense part of human nature. Having admitted that, we can then continue Christian theology on its usual lines with the notion of original sin (in our genes, perhaps?) atonement, and redemption.

I can think of other objections you might raise --- and the answers, come to that --- but I would like to refer you first to the article above. The leaders of mainstream churches, and the scientists who are card-carrying Christians, seem to agree. Can you even find so impressive a list of Church leaders speaking up for fiat creation of species?

 

[drkitten]

I've said this before about another creationist poster, and I'll say it about CD. He is asking intelligent questions of people likely to be able to answer them, and listening to the answers.

Doesn't that make him a creationist in a thousand? Is that not, in fact, exactly what a skeptic should do? Should we not admit that he is the best and most honorable opponent we could wish for?

Absolutely. I apologize if I have used intemperate language myself. But in order to continue having a meaningful discussion about a scientific topic, there are a few ground rules we have to follow, of which the most important is that nothing is above question. In theory, if I present an argument hinging on the belief that salt dissolves in water, I need to be able to back it up with independent argumentation.

That's one of the basic ground rules of science, but it's also one of the ground rules of sophisticated theology as well. It's well-attested that much of Scripture is allegorical, and that allegories can usually be interpreted in several ways. Simply stating that "the literal reading of Genesis is true," or alternatively "the creation story in Genesis cannot be an allegory," isn't an argument. Stone walls do not an argument make, nor iron bars a cage.

If someone -- CD, for instance -- wants to argue, instead of just state, that the literal reading of Genesis is true, I'll be glad to hear him or her out. I also suspect there's a very interesting discussion (probably one well beyond my league) about which of the many competing allegorical interpretations might be true and which are definitively untrue. I'll be equally happy to be educated in these matters if it helps. I should also point out that I'm equally willing to be educated about evidence against the theory of evolution -- when I referred to "new evidence" earlier, I mean (of course) "new to me." But few of the creationist arguments are "new" even in that sense....

 

[Dr Adequate]

If someone -- CD, for instance -- wants to argue, instead of just state, that the literal reading of Genesis is true...

But not on this thread.

On this thread, he has stated frankly where he's coming from, which is good of him.

He has not tried to divert this thread into a discussion of whether the Bible is the literal word of God. 'Cos that would be unsuitable in a "masterclass on evolution". This is also a good move on CD's part.

He's kept the questions on science and epistemology. Again, we should be grateful and compare him to ... everyone else.