Creationist vs Evolutionist

last SG · 2004-09-27T14:43:04+00:00

Hi guys... Hmm... think this has turned from a friendly discussion into something less than pleasant to see... Guess it'll all stop right here.

stupidissmart SG

I believe a bit of Intelligent Design was touched on in the other thread when the "watchmaker" was mentioned.

Here's an interesting document about Intelligent Design.

Why don't u tell us in your own words wat is all this about ? U must have read it yourself isn't it ? Tell us a summarized version about it.

BTW, if a "watchmaker" is needed for men, a better "watchmaker" should be on the standby to create god himself.

sillyme SG

Hi SIS,

I think it would be better if you read it yourself, lest I misquote or summarise it wrongly (cannot cut and paste PDF file mah)

But I think for the benefit of all, I shall try within my simple mind extract the essence of the document.

Intelligence Design is a scientific approach on the subject of whether the world around us is a product of unguided events or a product of design. It however does not specify who the "designer" is (it may a divine being or alien life form).

The document lays out the different schools of thought supporting evolution and creation. It defines evolution as an unguided process. It also tries to challenge some areas which evolution has no answer for. Some examples are the abrupt appearance of fossil phyla, the fine tuning of the universe and irreducible complexity.

Taking "irreducible complexity" as an example. An "irreducilbly complex" system is a single system which is necessarily composed of several well-matched intersecting parts that contribute to the basic finction, wherein the removal of any parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning. They then use the bacteria flagellum as an example of an irreducible complex biological system. The biological system is a high-speed motor that turns a propeller to move a bacterium towards food or away from danger. It requires at least 40, highly complex, interlocking, moving protein compoments for assembly and operation and is believed to have been a fully functioning component of the most primitive cells It will not work unless all parts are present together at the same time. Natural selection cannot build such system because, in isolation, the individual parts have no Darwinism selective value (i.e., they have no survival function that natural selection can "choose" because it works better than the original)

I think it's better to read it for yourself and derive your conclusions.

Icemoon SG

Erm, you can copy and paste PDF files as long as they’re not scanned.

sillyme SG

i forgot Razz

but then no need to cut and paste since got the document to read

Poopie-Head SG

Originally posted by sillyme:
Intelligence Design is a scientific approach on the subject of whether the world around us is a product of unguided events or a product of design. It however does not specify who the "designer" is (it may a divine being or alien life form).

The text at first appears very neutral, with valid points on both sides. I was very interested, however, I realise that sometimes it convieniently leaves out some details.

This website has answers to most, if not all, the claims made by anti-evolutionists. They are very systematic and the answers make alot of sense. (maybe except one - i am still searching for. more on this in my next post)

"Intelligent design is not mainstream science. (In fact, it is not science at all.) It is not generating any research. Zero scientific research articles have been written about it. Most of the few articles that mention it at all are critical of it [Gilchrist 1997; Lane 2003]. "

"Intelligent design means that various forms of life began abruptly through an intelligent agency, with their distinctive features intact -- fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, and wings, etc. [Davis and Kenyon 1989, 99-100]

The Intelligent Design movement rejects naturalistic explanations for origins and seeks to replace them with one or a few sudden creations by a supernatural agent who everyone in the movement identifies as the Christian God. That is creationism, plainly. "

"Intelligent design is explicitly religious as a motive for legislative change of educational standards. Legislation introduced in Michigan attempts to add "intelligent design of a Creator" to the science standards of middle and high school [Michigan HB 4946]."

"The ID movement attempts to hide its religious basis in order to give the appearance of secular objectivity [Branch 2002]. Their attempt is dishonest propaganda. "The trend among many Christian groups these days is to camouflage their creationism as 'Intelligent Design' or 'Progressive Creationism.'" [Morris 1999] And despite their claims, the movement has no science. "

quote:
"The document lays out the different schools of thought supporting evolution and creation. It defines evolution as an unguided process. It also tries to challenge some areas which evolution has no answer for. Some examples are the abrupt appearance of fossil phyla, the fine tuning of the universe and irreducible complexity."

abrupt appearance:
Since Evolution suggests gradual changes, these fossils of transitional organisms should be found.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200.html
Fossil transitionals between kingdoms and phyla:

The Cambrian fossils Halkiera and Wiwaxia have features which connect them with each other and with the modern phyla of Mollusca, Brachiopoda, and Annelida. In particular, one species of halkieriid has brachiopod-like shells on the dorsal side at each end. This is seen also in an immature stage of the living brachiopod species Neocrania. It has setae identical in structure to polychaetes, a group of annelids. Wiwaxia and Halkiera have the same basic arrangement of hollow sclerites, an arrangement which is similar to the chaetae arrangement of polychaetes. The undersurface of Wiwaxia has a soft sole like a mollusc's foot, and its jaw looks like a mollusc's mouth. Aplacophorans, which are a group of primitive molluscs, have a soft body covered with spicules similar to the sclerites of Wiwaxia. [Conway Morris 1998, 185-195]

Cambrian and Precambrain fossils Anomalocaris and Opabinia are transitional between arthropods and lobopods.

An ancestral echinoderm has been found, intermediate between modern echinoderms and other deuterostomes [Shu et al. 2004].

Fine tuning of universe - need to be specific.
[EDIT] If u mean how could universe be so fine-tuned for life, i suggest read THIS.

quote:
"Taking "irreducible complexity" as an example. An "irreducilbly complex" system is a single system which is necessarily composed of several well-matched intersecting parts that contribute to the basic finction, wherein the removal of any parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning. They then use the bacteria flagellum as an example of an irreducible complex biological system. The biological system is a high-speed motor that turns a propeller to move a bacterium towards food or away from danger. It requires at least 40, highly complex, interlocking, moving protein compoments for assembly and operation and is believed to have been a fully functioning component of the most primitive cells It will not work unless all parts are present together at the same time. Natural selection cannot build such system because, in isolation, the individual parts have no Darwinism selective value (i.e., they have no survival function that natural selection can "choose" because it works better than the original)"

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB200.html
also http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB200_1.html

"The bacterial flagellum is not irreducibly complex because it can lose many parts and still function, either as a simpler flagellum or a secretion system. Many proteins of the eukaryotic flagellum (also called a cilium or undulipodium) are known to be dispensable, because functional swimming flagella are known which lack these proteins. "

".... irreducible complexity can evolve naturally. Many of the proteins in the bacterial flagellum or eukaryotic cilium are similar to each other or to proteins for other functions. Their origins can easily be explained by a series of gene duplication events followed by modification and/or cooption, proceeding gradually through intermediate systems different from and simpler than the final flagellum. "

"Eubacterial flagella, archebacterial flagella, and cilia use entirely different designs for the same function. That is to be expected if they evolved separately, but it makes no sense if they were the work of the same designer. "

Poopie-Head SG

I've been reading quite alot recently regarding the ideas behind creationism and evolution.

Sorry, this post might be considered off-topic but they are somehow slightly related to the debate. I think it is good to read for more information.

I try to find what doubts the Creationists have on Evolution, and interestingly enough, almost all (except one that I am still searching for) are answered in the Talk Origins site.

Talk origins site is very nicely laid out and they do provide feedback for any queries.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html

Some interesting points to ponder:
- Creationists are Christians.
- Creationism require a belief in a Creator. Science is NOT a matter of belief.
- Creationist is not Science at all. They require no evidence, there's no way to test it, yet they have all the answers.
- The ideas behind Creationism and Intelligent Designs (esp the former) are always linked to a superior being.
- They provide no precise answers, everything unknown is due to the work of a superior being or the supernatural.
- Their claims against evolutionists are not precise most of the time. Very generalized. Many times Creationists are grossly mis-informed or they have mis-use of information in their claims.
- No Creation article has been published in scientific papers
- An extremely low percentage of the relevent scientists believe in Creationism. (< 0.15% in U.S. alone, other countries lower figures)
- Most of the scientists who reject evolution is because of religious reasons, not evidence. Evidence supports evolution.
- creationists rarely expose their own errors, and they sometimes fail to correct them when others expose them. Read More and Here

Previously, I didnt think Creationism is so much related to Christianity, so I am not disagreeing with it based on the reason that Christianity is involved, rather I find the idea unconvincing.

Why was the debate between Creation vs Evolution started?
I found out that the reason why Creationism vs Evolution was getting so much attention. The Creationists are trying to get Creation Science to be taught in schools - as a part of the Science subject. Their arguement is that students must be informed if a certain theory (evolution) is controversial. However, the real reason behind this is to teach about Christianity under the cover of Science. Evolution is also a theory that might contradict the Christian belief, since Evolution suggests no supernatural forces at work. Thus, Evolution, along with other Sciences, would imply that the world today is not created "as is", therefore, not the work of God.

Clearing some common mis-understandings about evolution:
Evolution theory does not mean it is NOT a FACT. In everyday speech. "theory" often means a hypothesis or even a mere speculation. But in science, "theory" means "a statement of what are held to be the general laws, principles, or causes of something known or observed."

Evolution is both a FACT and Theory. The theory part comes in as the mechanisms of how and what happens during evolution - this is the part that scientists are less certain of.

Evolution does NOT deal with how life started from non-life. That is Abiogenesis. "The first instance of life would not be anything that you or most people would recognize as "life"... a chain molecule that made a copy of itself from surrounding free-floating molecules. In one second, it had not yet copied itself, and in the next second, it did."

As far as Evolution is concerned, it does not matter if God, Zeus, space aliens, dust from space, or from comet initiated life on Earth. It does not render the Theory of Evolution untrue, because all existing evidence supports it.

Evolution and Abiogenesis are not random. They are probably a result of natural selection. "Selection" clearly means non-random.

Mankind did not evolve from apes or any of the other existing primates. We share the same ancestory. We did not evolve from any group of modern apes-- therefore apes are unaffected by human evolution. All of human evolution occured after the split.

Evolution is science most pure, devoid of any religious concepts whatsoever. It is non-theistic, but it is not necessarily atheistic.

Some topics of debate which got involved:
Abiogenesis is the science of life developing from non-life, and it is a different field from Biological Evolution. Biological Evolution kicks in after life is formed. Of course, they are still trying to create life from non-life.

Noah's Arc - Even if only a pair of each animal, it could not have enough room for all (inc. food supplies). Young Earth Creationists believed dinosaurs lived alongside man, so they should be included, meaning even more overflow. If Creationism rejects evolution, how could new species have come about (since only one of each type is brought onboard)? Other problems such as plants, fresh water fishes, insects, etc could not have survived during the flood. Some animals require specific conditions (such as low temperature) to even survive. Population growth (esp human) after the flood to present day also proved impossible. There are too many people now (or even during certain times in history) to have been descended only from Noah's family.

Young Earth Creationists are people who believed the 6 days of creation are literally 6 earth-days; and that the universe including the Earth is young (10,000 years old). This suggests that there isnt enough time for evolution. Scientists believed Earth is 4.6 billion years old (by radiometric dating). Also, if the universe is just as young, it cannot explain the time taken for starlight to reach us. Distant objects are so far that light couldnt have reached us thus suggesting an old universe.

Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) temperature is a problem for the big bang (Light-travel time problem). Temperature is consistant everywhere and in all directions. However, there isnt enough time for distant objects from one part of the universe to communicate with another; yet, the different regions of the current CMB have precisely uniform temperatures. The most popular explanation is called inflation', but i need to find more on this problem.

Read More

Radiometric dating gives unreliable results. The creationist claim that radiometric dates are inconsistent rest on a relatively few examples. The majority of results are consistant though.

Read More

The fossil humerus KP 271 is an apparently human fossil from 4 million years ago, which, according to the standard evolutionary model, is well before the appearance of modern humans. Response says it is a good match with Australopithecus anamensis, but I dont find it convincing. I need to read more independant comments on this.

Read More

sillyme SG

Not to worry, I posted the ID document for the reading pleasure of some. You may disagree with it, I'm fine with it. In fact, the document states that ID is open to the fact that the ID theory maybe disproved to be wrong too.

By the way, other religions also support the idea of the world is created. So, loosely speaking, not all creationist are christians.

sillyme SG

Actually the debate between creationist and evolution goes all the way back before the US school cirruculum. I believe is started when Darwin came up with his notion of evolution.

Here's another article in Wired.com
The Crusade Against Evolution

stupidissmart SG

In the end, the idea of intelligent design still has a flaw. If everything need careful designing, then who is the one tat design the designer ? Isn't the probability and likelihood of designer such a complex designer more difficult ? He can say the probabilty and likelihood of tis cell forming or tis bacteria appearing is teribly low... but then is the likelihood of forming the designer who can manipulate these cells better ?

IMO, in the end something has to pop out from just mere chances and probabilty isn't it ? If tat something has to exists, why can't it start from human now ? Again by probability and likelihood, human to form out of chance r definitely much higher than the Intelligent designer.

sillyme SG

Then the human race must be suuuuuper lucky. The probability of us or anything else not existing is just toooooooo slim.

Go read the document lah... just for knowledge

sillyme SG

how can an unguided process have a higher chance of happening than one that is guided?

it's like tying a kite to a tree and hope the wind makes it fly, as opposed to asking a boy to make it fly..

Poopie-Head SG

As mentioned many times before, Evolution and Abiogenesis suggests that it does not rely on probability, instead it is very possible that natural selection took place.

Natural Selection is NOT probability. Natural Selection suggests that organisms retain what is good and rejects what is bad for improvement to itself.

Many people cannot get away from the idea that probability has totally nothing to do with it!

Evolution and Life is NOT the result of probability!!

sillyme SG

But the very start of Big Bang, formation of stars, appearance of organism.. aren’t all these by chance?

Poopie-Head SG

The problem with most people is the difficulty to detach the mind from thinking that probability is the cause of it all.

If you think more on the subject, you will realise that many things are not results of probability.

By 'appearance of organism', i suspect you meant "start of life"? Remember the very first live organisms are not complex creatures like humans, rather it is most probably single cells or just some self-replicating object formed of molecules.

Remember that atoms and molecules arrange themselves not purely randomly, but according to their chemical properties.

As for formation of stars, they are also not random. Remember there are certain laws governing the universe, such as the law of physics, gravity, electromagnetism etc. All these laws make it that there are certain rules to follow, and suggests that even though chance might play a part, probability has got nothing to do with it.

stupidissmart SG

Then the intelligent designer must be

suuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuper

duuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuper

lucky to have been created. The probability of it is much much much much much lower to create tis ID isn't it ? If it is easy, then we can see multiple ID now.

And poopie head is right. Evolution is not random nor blind. By natural selection, living beings evolved to be more and more adapt to their environment.

Probability of forming life (first single cell) or forming human (from other living creatures) is low. However please take note tat there r infinitely many sites for reaction and given infinitely amount of time for such formation. Wat is the possibility of forming the straight flush given only 5 cards ? Pretty low too. However if a billion person was given 5 cards every seconds, pretty soon u will find someone with a straight flush soon. U r dealing extremely low odds with infinitely amount of time, sites and trials. In the end, it is possible.

stupidissmart SG

how can an unguided process have a higher chance of happening than one that is guided?

True, a guided process is faster. An unguided process is still nevertheless POSSIBLE. But then who is the guider ? Who to guide the process to make the guider ? Wat is more believable, chances of forming a stone which had a weight of 10 +- 0.001 gram or a stone which has the weight of 10+-0.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 gram.

It is like telling me u do not believe tat nature can form such a precise stone (former) because the probability is low yet believe tat the more precise stone (latter) which has a much lower probability can be formed. DO u realise the flaws of your argument now ?

sillyme SG

but it’s about timing. if certain event does not occur within a certain time frame, it will probably not happen at all.

Poopie-Head SG

So far, it seems the most active Creationists are Christians. ID opens more doubts such as who designs the designer, etc just like SIS said. It's very similar to Creationism in that there is no science to it - there are no evidence, no way to test it and no contribution to the scientific community. The theory also seems unfalsifiable - there's no way to say it is not true.

I was suggesting why the debate started, not when.

Many people refuse to think rationally even when the facts and reasons are obvious; all these due to the fact that it might contradict their (religious) beliefs.

Please remember that untill now, Creationists are not able to provide any solid evidence in their favor.

About time frame - you are correct. However, you are still thinking of absolute probability. You have to consider the envoirnment and the laws of nature that actually ASSIST the formations (life) to happen.

Poopie-Head SG

Consider this analogy which i had previously posted and you will see what is meant by natural selection.

As an analogy, consider the 13-letter sequence "TOBEORNOTTOBE. " Those hypothetical million monkeys, each pecking out one phrase a second, could take as long as 78,800 years to find it among the 2613 sequences of that length. But in the 1980s Richard Hardison of Glendale College wrote a computer program that generated phrases randomly while preserving the positions of individual letters that happened to be correctly placed (in effect, selecting for phrases more like Hamlet's). On average, the program re-created the phrase in just 336 iterations, less than 90 seconds. Even more amazing, it could reconstruct Shakespeare's entire play in just four and a half days."

Random or probability is totally without order.

However, remember that the world and its characteristics (the laws governing it) is not totally without order.

sillyme SG

Again, it's Catch-22 situation. Science supporters want concrete proof of a divine being before they can believe in the being. Hence, if they don't believe it's divinity, then they cannot believe that there's a possibility that he can make something that is 10.000000000000000001 grams. Or that this divine being is self-existing and is the start of everything and hence need not be created. It's beyond me to prove his existence. Yes, it's not science to make a choice to belief.

Oh ya.... so the big, dense of of material prior to the Big Bang is just there?

And as for laws of nature and environment assisting in evolution. When I mentioned about time frame, I was talking at events during the big bang, not bioliogical changes. Even laws of nature must have an opportunity to form by chance or by design.

« Previous Page Next Page »