Creation vs. Evolution

[Warthaug]

I accept that there is a huge amount we don't know about evolution theory (in particular the "creeps" versus "jerks" dichotomy,

If by "creeps" and "jerks" you mean gradualistic verses punctuated evolution, that issue has long been put to rest. Turns out it was nothing more than a mountain made out of a mole hill. Long story short, evolution does not occur at a set speed. So you end up with long periods of slow change (gradualistic evolution) occasionally interrupted by periods of rapid change (P.E.).

Today we don't even consider the two to be different things. When and why both form occur is well understood, and we can even detect past PE events through the characteristic imprints it leaves in our genomes.

and the fact that no one seems to be able to explain how eyesight evolves)

You're nearly 50 years behind the times if you believe that. How vision evolved is well established. Wikipedia has an OK article on it, although it concentrates mostly on the vertebrate eye. talkorigins.org had an excellent page on it, but I'll be damned if I can find it...

Long story made short:
Light sensitive cells (allows detection of light) -> light sensitive patch (allows for orientation towards light) -> "migration" of patch into a cavity (allows directional detection of light) -> narrowing of cavity opening (allows for pin-hole effect; limited spatial vision) -> formation of covering over opening to cavity (primitive lens, better spatial vision) -> formation of focusing mechanism (vola, human eye).

In some cases organisms proceeded part way down the path and then went their own way. For example, insects didn't go much past the "make a cavity" step, and instead formed multiple cavities. Spatial resolution in their case comes from an array of cavities, rather then focusing an image in one cavity.

We have fossil progressions showing this process, and their are organisms alive today showing pretty much every stage of the process. For example, the nautilus has a pin-hole eye.

Edit: Still cannot find the talkorigins page on eye evolution, but it basically was a detailed version of this:
Murex: evolution of the eye -- Britannica Online Encyclopedia

Bryan

 

[Rhone Man]

I stand corrected - sorry, not an evolutionary biologist.

 

[sheck33]

If by "creeps" and "jerks" you mean gradualistic verses punctuated evolution, that issue has long been put to rest. Turns out it was nothing more than a mountain made out of a mole hill. Long story short, evolution does not occur at a set speed. So you end up with long periods of slow change (gradualistic evolution) occasionally interrupted by periods of rapid change (P.E.).

Today we don't even consider the two to be different things. When and why both form occur is well understood, and we can even detect past PE events through the characteristic imprints it leaves in our genomes.



You're nearly 50 years behind the times if you believe that. How vision evolved is well established. Wikipedia has an OK article on it, although it concentrates mostly on the vertebrate eye. talkorigins.org had an excellent page on it, but I'll be damned if I can find it...

Long story made short:
Light sensitive cells (allows detection of light) -> light sensitive patch (allows for orientation towards light) -> "migration" of patch into a cavity (allows directional detection of light) -> narrowing of cavity opening (allows for pin-hole effect; limited spatial vision) -> formation of covering over opening to cavity (primitive lens, better spatial vision) -> formation of focusing mechanism (vola, human eye).

In some cases organisms proceeded part way down the path and then went their own way. For example, insects didn't go much past the "make a cavity" step, and instead formed multiple cavities. Spatial resolution in their case comes from an array of cavities, rather then focusing an image in one cavity.

We have fossil progressions showing this process, and their are organisms alive today showing pretty much every stage of the process. For example, the nautilus has a pin-hole eye.

Edit: Still cannot find the talkorigins page on eye evolution, but it basically was a detailed version of this:
Murex: evolution of the eye -- Britannica Online Encyclopedia

Bryan

Indeed, while the minute details of the eye evolving are not always clear, the general path followed is pretty well known.

I'd recommend the book 'The blind watchmaker' by Dawkins. It beautifully explains how the process of evolution works and why there is no need for a 'divine designer' to explain the complex biodiversity we see around us.

What creationists are saying is not 'it couldn't have happened this way' but what they really mean is 'I cant comprehend how it could have happened this way' (thus the 'need' for a god to 'explain' it)

 

[Sas]

I'd recommend the book 'The blind watchmaker' by Dawkins. It beautifully explains how the process of evolution works and why there is no need for a 'divine designer' to explain the complex biodiversity we see around us.

I second that recommendation! That book was the first thing I'd ever read about evolution (when I was 19... :\) and it is very clear to understand even with no background in evolutionary theory. And also quite convincing as although I'd left the Church and no longer believed in God I had no idea what was the go with evolution v creationism was.

Rhone Man, it sounds like you've heard a lot of the arguments against evolution that Christians tend to put foward (glad you haven't taken it all on board tho ), such as how an eye is too complicated to have evolved and so on, so that book will explain the process really well

 

[porbeagle]

Well said Jamdiver,I'd push the thanks button for you,but someone took it away.

 

[Warthaug]

I'd recommend the book 'The blind watchmaker' by Dawkins.

I'll second (or third, I think someone seconded already) that recommendation - it is a fantastic book. It was actually one, of a small handful, of books which lead me to pursue a career in biology. And even though it is over 20 years old, it'll give anyone who reads it a great foundation on evolution.

Another good book that would fit this thread well, i.e. it concentrates more on the "conflict" between religion and science is "Rock of Ages" by Stephen J Gould.

Bryan

 

[Kingpatzer]

I have graduate degrees in theology and physics. My mother is a biologist. And every time I come across this sort of discussion I scratch my head and wonder "How the hell are people so confused about this?"

Religion and science conflict only when you try to make one side or the other claim for itself more than it has a right to. Prior to Christianity, jewish extant jewish writings show that Genesis I was taken as anagogically, not literally. In early Christianity, Jerome and others wrote about the clear allegorical and anagogical nature of the creation tales, and disavowed a literal interpretation.

Meanwhile, science is a specific and limited field of inquiry with an arbitrary and artificial set of rules around what constitutes warranted belief. This system works quite well when looking for answers to a very specific set of questions. This artificial, but effective, epistemology is not unlike that used in the legal system. It is structured to answer questions about the physical world and it does that quite well. Religion has never been about the physical -- it is about the transcendent, the meta-physical. Religion speaks to what it means to be a human being, not how we came to be human beings in a limited physical sense.

Certain religious people, whom I not-so-affectionately tend to refer to as "fundaholics," see any deviation from their chosen reading of a select few versus of scripture (usually without regard to either historical readings, or any understanding of semiotics, linguistics, or culture) as an attack on the possibility of the existence of God. An ever growing group of equally fundaholic scientists, meanwhile, forget that proper application of the scientific method can never say anything about God, one way or the other, as the transcendent is not a proper area of scientific enquiry (I'd love to see an experimental protocol that could demonstrate the non-existence of something with which we know we can not interact with physically in any manner, that'd be a sure-fire Nobel prize!)

One person may have all the epistemological warrant necessary to claim, for themselves, a proper and supported belief in God. Another may have all the epistemological warrant necessary to claim, again for themselves, the exact opposite. Neither need be irrational.

We can not "prove" God one way or the other. Nor, frankly, does any God I can imagine need us to do so. The question of religious belief, or lack thereof, is a question about how we, as human beings, choose to view our place in the world, and how we choose to approach our own relationships with each other. It is a question about how we derive meaning for our own lives. And for any particular individual, there isn't a wrong answer for that question, from their own individual perspective.

Those who's beliefs call them some form of proselytization, be they making claims of divine existence or of divine non-existence would do well to remember the words of Francis of Assisi, "Preach the Gospel always, use words if necessary." Petty arguments such as this do not further the Gospel, so I am confused as to why the religious engage in them. Nor do they change the nature of physical reality, so I wonder why scientists care.

 

[Soggy]

Nor do they change the nature of physical reality, so I wonder why scientists care.

I care because we have nuts like Ben Stein going around blatantly lying and spreading patently false information about evolution which leads to an intellectually lazy society that finds its answers in a several thousand year old book written by unknown authors and translated innumerable times. Mostly, I think of the children whose educations are being violated because the ID mob has decided to change the educational system.

Plus, I just find people who can't accept basic scientific truths because it conflicts with their Flying Spaghetti Monster's gospel really irritating.

 

[Warthaug]

Those who's beliefs call them some form of proselytization, be they making claims of divine existence or of divine non-existence would do well to remember the words of Francis of Assisi, "Preach the Gospel always, use words if necessary." Petty arguments such as this do not further the Gospel, so I am confused as to why the religious engage in them. Nor do they change the nature of physical reality, so I wonder why scientists care.

Simple. My job as a scientists isn't just to discover new things, it is to educate as well. The continual attack on science by some members of some religious communities is a direct threat the the second half of my obligations. It also represents a direct threat to humanities future, as the doubts they spread have led to a wide-spread mistrust of science, to the detriment of many people.

Arthur C. Clarke stated it quite well:
I would defend the liberty of consenting adult creationists to practice whatever intellectual perversions they like in the privacy of their own homes; but it is also necessary to protect the young and innocent.

Bryan

 

[Kingpatzer]

I care because we have nuts like Ben Stein going around blatantly lying and spreading patently false information about evolution which leads to an intellectually lazy society that finds its answers in a several thousand year old book written by unknown authors and translated innumerable times. Mostly, I think of the children whose educations are being violated because the ID mob has decided to change the educational system.

Plus, I just find people who can't accept basic scientific truths because it conflicts with their Flying Spaghetti Monster's gospel really irritating.

This, and the previous post, speak to my point.

It is perfectly fine and right to educate people who wish to be educated on proper science. It is even right to respectfully correct those who are making mis-statements, be they out of a desire to deceive or out of ignorance.

But once one starts inserting judgmental statements presupposing intent, and making aspersions on a person's or group's beliefs about the transcendent, then one is not acting as a scientist nor speaking scientifically. Such scientists expose an ignorance of theology as deep and wide as the person they are trying to correct has on some area of scientific inquiry.

The continual attack on science by misguided religious people is equally met, at least in vociferousness if not in number, by attacks on religion by scientists. And the ignorance flows both ways. The number of scientists I've met who lack even a basic understanding of the underpinning philosophies of science, or basic epistemology, is staggering.

One does not educate by insult.