h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Last time I checked, about 40% of Americans were 'born again,' which in my experience is equivalent to fundamentalist. These are the people that voted for Bush.

Absolutely correct. About 100 million people in America are "born again". Or put another way, about one sixtieth of the world population.

I'd be interested to know how many of those 100 million actively want their children kept ignorant. I suspect the answer would probably depress me...

H.

And the really depressing thing is that they claim Evolutionists are the ones brainwashing their kids... Well, we do keep the cranial neurons clean and well maintained

... Born OK the first time ... .. . ... .. .

pretty much my whole town doesnt believe in evolution. It's kind of annoying. I believe the genisis was the literal just not that the English translation that in the KJV was the literal truth. so i do believe in evolution.

Some points here:
1) It is the evolutionists indoctrinating children- in the theory of evolution. The theory! is taught as fact!

2)Creationism is not a political movement. Creationists may be involved in politics but many certainly are not.

3)Why should'nt the theory of Creation be given equal footing with the theory Evolution. Neither can be proven.

4)It is ridiculous that science is always played off against religion. They CAN work in harmony and I believe they actually support each other.

Hello,

1) That evolution happens is a fact. How it happens is the theory side of things - "evolutionary theory". See?

2) If creationism is not a political movement then why all the attempts to **legislate** creationism into school curricula?

3) Simple. Evolution has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. Creationism is not science.

4) I agree. Science and religion are separate things. This is where creationism fails. It mixes religion with science and comes out confused.

Cheers
Ste

1) You misunderstand the word 'theory.' In common parlance, it means basically a guess. However, when a scientist uses it, it means 'an explanation for certain things that links various observations, and has been proven by experiment.' In other words, a theory is the best possible explanation we have for why things are the way they are.

There is indeed proof of evolution. It is a fact.

2) As Ste said.

3) Actually, evolution has been pretty much proven by over 200 years of observation and experiment. Creation, however, has been decisively disproven by those same observations.

(As an aside, people have been interpreting Genesis in allegorical terms since before Jesus was born. Qabalistic Jews, for example, believed that Adam represented the collective souls of all humanity.)

4) You seem to have it mixed up; it is far more common for religion to be played off against science. A few examples...

*Copernicus: Denounced by the church for arguing that Earth orbits the sun, not vice versa.
*Gallileo: Same deal. On ly pardoned by the Vatican in 1992.
*Newton: Denounced for his theory of gravity; churchy people saw it as removing power from God and reassigning it to a mere force.
*Pasteur: Denounced for arguing against spontaneous generatiopn, which at the time was seen as a sign of God's supreme awesomeness.
*Darwin: See university project.
*Einstein: Denounced for his theory of relativity, as it means that nothing is absolute, which may even apply to morals.

The same people who argue against relativity theory also argued against atomic theory, but I'm not sure why.

1.Theory is a possible explanation. But evolution as fact has not been demonstrated anywhere on a macro-scale. Complex information in DNA coding and the fine tuning of the Universe are two factors better explained by design rather than the chance of evolution.

2.If “legislating in” is a political activity, how would we define “legislating out”

3.If conclusive proof for evolution was available by observation and experiment much of the current debate would just disappear such irrefutable material does not exist.

4.Copernicus died of natural causes the same year his ideas were published. The main cause of Galileo’s troubles with the Church was that he mocked the Pope in one of his treatises. Newton’s main problems were with King James II about civil liberties not an assault on his scientific work. Science and religion can be in harmony. Isn’t it as much an act of faith to argue for a universe that has no first cause as it is to argue for a designer that has no first cause.

P.S

Sorry for the random symbols

1) Evolution is a fact. It has been considered so for many, many decades by science. Homology of DNA sequence, cells, fossils remains, and extant species morphology and behaviour point to the *fact* that everything is related. You'd have to have a predisposition to refuse to see this blindingly obvious pattern in the first place to deny it. And that's all that creationists have: Incredulity.

2) That is not the point in question. The point is whether creationism is politically active or not. The answer is "yes".

3) This "debate" exists because of the literal reading of the bible by fundamentalist Christians. Evolution does not match with that shallow view. Therefore evolution must be wrong, according to them. In science, the debate dissapeared well over a century ago - this should be enough to satisfy this criterion of yours. Somehow I doubt it will be.

4) Faith and science live in harmony every day. I don't see it as a problem unless you're a fundamentalist.

"Isn’t it as much an act of faith to argue for a universe that has no first cause as it is to argue for a designer that has no first cause."

Well now you seem to be talking about an atheistic perspective, which is irrelevant to this discussion. Science is *secular*, not atheistic. Another mistake a lot of Christian fundamentalists make.

Nice talking to you
Ste

1) I conceed that evolution is considered fact by many, even the majority. However this in no way constitutes it as fact. It was considered, not so long ago, that J.J Thompson's 'plum pudding' model of the atom was considered to be fact, as it explained the obsevations that scientists had previously made rather well. This was later proven wrong though through further testing. In a similar way evolution seems to explain scientists obsevations. However, unlike with the 'plum pudding' theory it can be neither proved nor disproved as obsevations would need to be scientifically logged over millions of years something that cannot happen for a long time to come. Evolution is merely a scientific model and without rigourous testing, which is not possible for obvious resons with the case of evolution, it would be ignorant to suggest it is anything more than a generally accepted scientific model.

2)Creationists are no more poliyically active than evolutionists.

3)Many observations actually contradict the theory of evolution and I would be happy to list for anyone's benefit on request.

4)I don't see a problem, full stop.

Sorry for spelling error 'poliyically' should be 'politically'. Alas there is no edit function!

1) "In a similar way evolution seems to explain scientists obsevations. However, unlike with the 'plum pudding' theory it can be neither proved nor disproved as obsevations would need to be scientifically logged over millions of years something that cannot happen for a long time to come."

Incorrect. Evolution can be easily demonstrated and observed with rapidly-breeding organisms such as bacteria, fruitflies, etc. To infer that evolution has taken place you do not need to sit down with a notebook for millenia and record it, as you suggest. It can easily be disproved. If chimps and gorillas has totally different genetics to us it would suggest an independant evolutionary origin which would refute evolution. There are thousands of scenarios in which evolution can be disproved. To suggest it is not disprovable is highly misleading and incorrect. The only reason it hasn't been disproven is because no evidence has emerged that has refuted it in over 150 years.


"Evolution is merely a scientific model and without rigourous testing, which is not possible for obvious resons with the case of evolution, it would be ignorant to suggest it is anything more than a generally accepted scientific model."

It seems you are "ignorant" of the entire scientific discipline of "experimental evolution". Use that phrase in a Google query and read a sample of the 81,000 page hits that query recieves.


2) "Creationists are no more poliyically active than evolutionists."

I disagree. Any political activity on behalf of "evolutionists" is a necessary response to repel attacks on science and the US constitution by the political activities of fundamentalist christian creationists. Fortunatley for our children's sake they succeed.


3) "Many observations actually contradict the theory of evolution and I would be happy to list for anyone's benefit on request."

Go for it.


4)


Ste

To whom it may concern (i.e. Ste)

Sorry for taking such a long time in posting a response, however, I have been on holiday, and still am on holiday in fact. I will post a reply a.s.a.p.

*posting into the ether*

The term 'fact' when used by scientists refers to an observation. Thus, evolution is a fact, since it has been observed. It is also a theory. Creationists typically attempt to drive a wedge between the two by referring to them as 'microevolution' and 'macroevolution'. I have yet to see any definition to distinguish the two, other than "Anything that has been observed is microevolution and thus does not provide evidence for macroevolution".

A few ways that the standard model of evolution could be disproved:

Massively out of place fossils. Not human remains 1000 years older than generally accepted (a minor tweak and the model could accomodate that). Why are there no rabbit fossils in Precambrian rocks? Why are there no ape fossils in South America?

The Wrong Transitionals. Shark/dolphin transitionals. Bird/bat transitionals. Since we know that birds evolved from reptiles, not bats, evolution would be unable to explain this and we would be forced to conclude that transitional fossils are not evidence for evolution. It's the wrong transitionals, Grommit, and they've gone wrong!

Neanderthal DNA turns out to be identical to modern human (or, for that matter, to be completely different to modern human). In fact, almost anything other than what it is - very similar to, but distinct from modern human DNA.

Ditto for the DNA of any living thing - or other biological molecules (Cytochrome 'C' springs to mind, as does mitochondrial DNA). This is a massive area, and there are hundred (if not thousands) of very precise predictions made by evolutionary theory that have been tested and confirmed. Creationists have no explanation for this.

For many more detailed examples, try putting '29 evidences' into Google.

Scientific theories are 'proved' (to the extent that anything can be) by surviving tests such as these. That makes neo-Darwinian evolution one of the best tested models/theories we have. By comparison, Creationists have been unable to make a single non-trivial testable prediction that has not failed.

I encourage you (both - Ste and Pgtips2) to look through both sides of the evidence and compare the predictive power of each. Do come back here and let us know your conclusions.

Gif

Hi Gif,

"I encourage you (both - Ste and Pgtips2) to look through both sides of the evidence and compare the predictive power of each. Do come back here and let us know your conclusions."

So then, ummm, what evidence am I actually looking at here?

Ste

Hi Ste,

Well, for example you could compare Henry Morris' flood geology to pretty much any standard geology textbook. Or you could flick through Behe's 'Darwin's Black Box' and compare it to you own knowledge of biochemistry, or to Zimmer's 'Evolution - Triumph of an Idea'. Or to Behe's testimony in the 2005 Dover School Board trial where he admitted under oath that Intelligent Design is no more scientific than astrology.

You will note that I specifically referenced predictive power as a test of a theory. You might look at the discovery of tiktaalik (a fossil) or Doolittle's work on vertebrate blood clotting mechanisms.

Pgtips - if you're still reading - any chance you could help balance up Ste's reading list by supplying a few examples of (non-trivial)predictions made by Creationists that have turned out to be accurate? I don't know of any off-hand.

Gif

Ok guys sorry for the interlude, my life is pretty hectic right now, but as briefly as possible I will try to summarise a few points. From a philosophical point of view, the Universe either had to come from somewhere or has always been here. Assuming the first is true, there is no scientific, credible, explanation as to where matter first came from. The (supposed) 'big bang' had to come from somewhere and scientific laws alone cannot explain from where. This points to some supernatural original creation that was not bound by scientific laws. To discount this, some people choose to adopt the second view, that the Universe has always been here. This is shooting oneself (if you are an evolutionist) in the foot though, as it merely adds credibility to the creationist argument that God has always existed. The only difference is that the evolutionist view cannot explain the necessary contradiction of scientific laws in this theory whereas the creationist view, as God is not bound by any physical or scientific laws, can. Either way a supernatural entity is obvious and is only deemed ridiculous by todays secular society because of indoctrination- that is both subtle and disturbingly effective- the unthinking masses are like sheep.

STE Please only read this when you have plenty of time to properly consider i.e. think about the points raised. Sorry for any inconvenience but it would be much appreciated as I eagerly anticipate a reply (hopefully) after much thought.

Thanks

Phil

From a scientific point of view, much of the evolutinist theory just does not add up. It is amusing how often it has to be revised to cover up obvious flaws just keep the facade of credibility. A vast majority of people who claim the evolution is fact seem to know little (if anything) about their own theory ,mostly because it is largely fragmented and incoherent theory adopted by those who wish to be exempt from the statutes of God and do as they see fit. This is why almost all evolutionists hate Christians usually the bigger the supporter the larger the grudge. This is also, I think, why so few evolutionists actually send any time thinking about or questioning their own theory- unless of course (God forbid)some ignorant (please note the irony) Christian challenges their view, when they either aggressively defend it with some stock- usually ill concieved- cliche or change the subject so that the again evade thinking about a topic which after meditation may present them with harsh realities. That they have done wrong and do need the healing touch of God. Oh no! I'm descending into irrational, sentimental crap to subdue my deep seated insecurities. I think not. That is the most priceless excuse for discounting the existance of God. I'm sorry but those you refuse to consider religion are the ones with closed minds. Those who reject holiness for personal indulgance and gratification are the weak, and those who do not see that they are sinful and need God's healing love are the truly ignorant.

Sorry Ste but I think you need a re-think.

P.S. If you are offended by this piece or reject it immediately without assimilating the points made, you tragically prove my point. If you decieve yourself into thinking that are not offended by this and that you consider the points, when you in fact don't but merely say you do for the purposes of self justification, then you even more tragically prove my point. If this enlightens you then you have understood my point. All that remains then is to act on it. But on the off chance that you desire any guidance with this I am quitely confident that I can point you in the right direction.