Warning: You have the right to read the following 3 Authors. They just about sum up the whole Evolution / Creation argument. You also have the right to go crazy doing it. I've been there and it's not much fun at all. You also have the right to jump to the
53.4 Answer Section and avoid insanity.
53.1 Questions
Commentary by Michael J. Behe for The New York Times
BETHLEHEM, Pa. -- The debate leading the Kansas Board of Education to abolish the
requirement for teaching evolution has about the same connection to reality as the
play "Inherit the Wind" had to the actual Scopes trial. In both cases complex historical, scientific and philosophical issues gave way to the simplifying demands of
the morality play. If the schoolchildren of Kansas and other states are to receive
a good science education, however, then we'll have to forgo the fun of demonizing
each other, take a deep breath and start making a few distinctions.
Regrettably, the action of the Kansas board makes that much more difficult. Not
only are teachers there now discouraged from discussing evidence in support of
Darwin's theory, results questioning it won't be heard either.
For example, let's look at three claims of evidence for Darwinian evolution often
cited by high school textbooks. First, as the use of antibiotics has become common,
mutant strains of resistant bacteria have become more common, threatening public
health.
Second, dark-colored variants of a certain moth species evaded predation by birds
because their color matched the sooty tree trunks of industrial England. Third, the
embryos of fish, amphibians, birds and mammals look virtually identical in an early
stage of development, becoming different only at later stages.
A relevant distinction, however, is that only the first example is true. The second
example is unsupported by current evidence, while the third is downright false. Although
light- and dark-colored moths did vary in expected ways in some regions of England, elsewhere they didn't. Further, textbook photographs showing moths resting on tree
trunks in the day, where birds supposedly ate them, run afoul of the fact that the
moths are active at night and don't normally rest on tree trunks. After learning
about the problems with this favorite Darwinian example, an evolutionary scientist wrote in
the journal Nature that he felt as he did as a boy when he learned there was no Santa
Claus.
The story of the embryos is an object lesson in seeing what you want to see. Sketches
of vertebrate embryos were first made in the late 19th century by Ernst Haeckel,
an admirer of Darwin. In the intervening years, apparently nobody verified the accuracy
of Haeckel's drawings. Prominent scientists declared in textbooks that the theory of
evolution predicted, explained and was supported by the striking similarity of vertebrate
embryos. And that is what generations of American students have learned.
Recently, however, an international team of scientists decided to check the drawings'
reliability. They found that Haeckel had, well, taken liberties: the embryos are
significantly different from each other. In Nature, the head of the research team
observed that "it looks like it's turning out to be one of the most famous fakes in biology."
What's more, the embryonic stages shown in the drawings are actually not the earliest
ones. The earliest stages show much greater variation.
If I were teaching a high school biology course, I certainly would want my students
to understand Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection, which explains antibiotic
resistance and a lot of other things. I would want them to know the many similarities among organisms that are interpreted in terms of common descent, as well as to
understand the laboratory experiments that show organisms changing in response to
selective pressure.
But I would also want them to learn to make distinctions and ask tough questions.
Questions we might discuss include these:
If it's so difficult to demonstrate that small changes in modern moths are the result
of natural selection, how confident can we be that Darwinian selection drove large
changes in the distant past? If supposedly identical embryos were touted as strong
evidence for evolution, does the recent demonstration of variation in embryos now count
as evidence against evolution? If some scientists relied for a century on an old,
mistaken piece of data because they thought it supported the accepted theory, is
it possible they might even now give short shrift to legitimate contrary data or interpretations?
Discussing questions like these would help students see that sometimes a theory actively
shapes the way we think, and also that there are still exciting, unanswered questions
in biology that may require fresh ideas.
It's a shame that Kansas students won't get to take part in such a discussion. We
should make sure that the students of other states do.
Emotions run very deep on the subject of evolution, and while the morality play generally
casts religious people as the ones who want to limit discussion, some scientists
on the "rational" side could fit that role, too. But if we want our children to become educated citizens, we have to broaden discussion, not limit it.
Teach Darwin's elegant theory. But also discuss where it has real problems accounting
for the data, where data are severely limited, where scientists might be engaged
in wishful thinking, and where alternative -- even "heretical" -- explanations are
possible.
Michael J. Behe, professor of biological sciences at Lehigh University, is author
of "Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution."
Copyright 1999 The New York Times Company.
53.2 Science and Religion
From Jualt: Firepig01 ~ FOR4SEASON is issue 000711 of a forum with no name. and Jualt:
DALAISIB: SCIENCE versus GOD: A Debate ~ Author Unknown.
The [An] atheist professor of philosophy pauses before his class and then asks one of his new students to stand. "You are a Christian, are you not, son?" "Yes, sir." "So you believe in God?" "Absolutely." "Is God good?" "Sure! God is good." "Is God all-powerful? Can God do anything?" "Yes." "Are you good or evil?" "The Bible says I am evil."
The professor grins knowingly. "Ahh! THE BIBLE!" He considers for a moment. "Here is one for you. Let us say there is a sick person over here and you can cure him. You can do it. Would you help them? Would you try?" "Yes sir, I would." "So you are good...!" "I would not say that." "Why not say that? You would help a sick and maimed person if you could... In fact most of us would if we could... God does not." (No answer) "He does not, does He? My brother was a Christian who died of cancer even though he prayed to Jesus to heal him. How is this Jesus good? Hmmm? Can you answer that one?" (No answer).
The elderly man is sympathetic. "No, you cannot, can you?" He takes a sip of water from a glass on his desk to give the student time to relax. In philosophy, you have to go easy with the new ones. "Let us start again, young fella."
"Is God good?" "Er... Yes." "Is Satan good?" "No." "Where does Satan come from?" The student falters. "From... God..." "That is right. God made Satan, did He not?" [DALISIB: To me, Satan is a name for the oversoul of human negativity, and a product of humanity.] The elderly man runs his bony fingers through his thinning hair and turns to the smirking, student audience. "I think we are going to have a lot of fun this semester, ladies and gentlemen." He turns back to the Christian. "Tell me, son. Is there evil in this world?" "Yes, sir." "Evil is everywhere, is it not? Did God make everything?" "Yes." [DALISIB: I would say that there are many creators, co-creators.] "Who created evil?" (No answer) "Is there sickness in this world? Immorality? Hatred? Ugliness? All the terrible things, do they exist in this world?" The student squirms on his feet. "Yes."
"Who created them?" (No answer) The professor suddenly shouts at his student. "WHO CREATED THEM? TELL ME, PLEASE! "The professor closes in for the kill and climbs into the Christians face. In a still small voice: "God created all evil, did He, not son?" (No answer) The student tries to hold the steady, experienced gaze and fails.
Suddenly the lecturer breaks away to pace the front of the classroom like an aging panther. The class is mesmerized. "Tell me," he continues, "How is it that this God is good if He created all evil throughout all time?" The professor swishes his arms around to encompass the wickedness of the world. "All the hatred, the brutality, all the pain, all the torture, all the death and ugliness and all the suffering created by this good God is all over the world, is it not, young man?" (No answer) "Do you not see it all over the place? Huh?" Pause. "Do you not?" The professor leans into the students face again and whispers, "Is God good?" (No answer).
"Do you believe in Jesus Christ, son?" The students voice betrays him and cracks. "Yes, professor. I do." The old man shakes his head sadly. "Science says you have five senses you use to identify and observe the world around you. Have you seen Him?" "No, sir. I have never seen Him." "Then tell us if you have ever heard your Jesus?" "No, sir. I have not." "Have you ever felt your Jesus, tasted your Jesus or smelled your Jesus? In fact, do you have any sensory perception of your God whatsoever?" (No answer).
"Answer me, please." "No, sir, I am afraid I have not." "You are AFRAID... You have not?" "No, sir." "Yet you still believe in Him?" "...Yes..." "That takes FAITH!" The professor smiles sagely at the underling. "According to the rules of empirical, testable, demonstrable protocol, science says your God does not exist. What do you say to that, son? Where is your God now?" The student does not answer. "Sit down, please." The Christian sits... Defeated.
Another Christian raises his hand. "Professor, may I address the class?"
The professor turns and smiles. "Ah, another Christian in the vanguard! Come, come, young man. Speak some proper wisdom to the gathering."
The Christian looks around the room. "Some interesting points you are making, sir. Now I have a question for you. Is there such thing as heat?" "Yes," the professor replies. "There is heat." "Is there such a thing as cold?" "Yes, son, there is cold too." "No, sir, there is not." The professors grin freezes. The room suddenly goes very cold.
The second Christian continues. "You can have lots of heat, even more heat, super-heat, mega-heat, white heat, a little heat or no heat but we do not have anything called "cold". We can hit 458 degrees below zero, which is no heat, but we cannot go any further after that. There is no such thing as cold, otherwise we would be able to go colder than 458.
"You see, sir, cold is only a word we use to describe the absence of heat. We cannot measure cold. Heat we can measure in thermal units because heat is energy. Cold is not the opposite of heat, sir, just the absence of it." Silence. A pin drops somewhere in the classroom.
"Is there such a thing as darkness, professor?" "That is a dumb question, son. What is night if it is not darkness? What are you getting at...?" "So you say there is such a thing as darkness?" "Yes..."
"You are wrong again, sir. Darkness is not something; it is the absence of something. You can have low light, normal light, bright light, flashing light, but if you have no light constantly you have nothing and it is called darkness, is it not? That is the meaning we use to define the word. In reality, darkness is not. If it were, you would be able to make darkness darker and give me a jar of it. Can you give me a jar of darker darkness, professor?" Despite himself, the professor smiles at the young effrontery before him. This will indeed be a good semester. "Would you mind telling us what your point is, young man?"
"Yes, professor. My point is, your philosophical premise is flawed to start with and so your conclusion must be in error...." The professor goes toxic. "Flawed...? How dare you...!"
"Sir, may I explain what I mean?" The class is all ears. "Explain... Oh, explain..." The professor makes an admirable effort to regain control. Suddenly he is affability itself. He waves his hand to silence the class, for the student to continue.
"You are working on the premise of duality," the Christian explains. "That, for example, there is life and then there is death, a good God and a bad God. You are viewing the concept of God as something finite, something we can measure. Sir, science cannot even explain a thought. It uses electricity and magnetism but has never seen, much less fully understood them. To view death as the opposite of life is to be ignorant of the fact that death cannot exist as a substantive thing. Death is not the opposite of life, merely the absence of it."
The young man holds up a newspaper he takes from the desk of a neighbor who has been reading it. "Here is one of the most disgusting tabloids this country hosts, professor. Is there such a thing as immorality?" "Of course there is, now look..." "Wrong again, sir. You see, immorality is merely the absence of morality. Is there such thing as injustice? No. Injustice is the absence of justice. Is there such a thing as evil?" The Christian pauses. "Is not evil the absence of good?"
The professors face has turned an alarming color. He is so angry he is temporarily speechless. The Christian continues. "If there is evil in the world, professor, and we all agree there is, then God, if He exists, must be accomplishing a work through the agency of evil. What is that work that God is accomplishing? The Bible tells us it is to see if each one of us will, of our own free will, choose good over evil." [Commentator: A test of true nature.]
The professor bridles. "As a philosophical scientist, I do not view this matter as having anything to do with any choice; as a realist, I absolutely do not recognize the concept of God or any other theological factor as being part of the world equation because God is not observable."
"I would have thought that the absence of Gods moral code in this world is probably one of the most observable phenomena going," the Christian replies. "Newspapers make billions of dollars reporting it every week! Tell me, professor. Do you teach your students that they evolved from a monkey?"
"If you are referring to the natural evolutionary process, young man, yes, of course I do." "Have you ever observed evolution with your own eyes, sir?" The professor makes a sucking sound with his teeth and gives his student a silent, stony stare. "Professor. Since no one has ever observed the process of evolution at work and cannot even prove that this process is an on-going endeavor, are you not teaching your opinion, sir? Are you now not a scientist, but a priest?"
"I will overlook your impudence in the light of our philosophical discussion. Now, have you quite finished?" the professor hisses.
"So you do not accept Gods moral code to do what is righteous?"
"I believe in what is, that is science!" "Ahh! SCIENCE!" The students face splits into a grin. "Sir, you rightly state that science is the study of observed phenomena. Science too is a premise which is flawed..." "SCIENCE IS FLAWED..?" the professor splutters.
The class is in uproar. The Christian remains standing until the commotion has subsided. "To continue the point you were making earlier to the other student, may I give you an example of what I mean?" The professor wisely keeps silent. The Christian looks around the room. "Is there anyone in the class who has ever seen the professors brain?" The class breaks out in laughter. The Christian points towards his elderly, crumbling tutor. "Is there anyone here who has ever heard the professors brain, felt the professors brain, touched or smelled the professors brain?"
No one appears to have done so. The Christian shakes his head sadly. "It appears no one here has had any sensory perception of the professors brain whatsoever. Well, according to the rules of empirical, testable, demonstrable protocol, science says the professor has no brain."
The class is in chaos. The Christian sits... Because that is what a chair is for.
"Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works and glorify your Father in heaven." Matthew 5:16
"Without faith it is impossible to please God..." Hebrews 11:6
"Professing to be wise, they became fools..."
[Commentator: On evolution, my joke that "we" devolved from space... Even as we consider polishing our genetic designs, we still view our evolution as natural, rather than as designed. It is though the jump from Neanderthal to Cro-Magnon was abrupt; no missing link can be found... In math, one could say Neanderthal is a 3, Cro-Magnon a 5, and we cannot seem to find 4. I think a 3 was interbred with a 7, a 10/2, resulting in our Cro-Magnon 5. I think our missing link was a 7].
[Commentator: I view angels and gods as other life-forms. I remember that in Genesis, Cain went to the land of Nod to find women, a point being that there were other humans around at the time of the "creation" of Adam and Eve. I do not think "we" kept the genealogy record in Genesis of who beget who...]
(Note: My conclusions are far different from this Commentator. Also, we may think that this argument is the epitome of each sides belief system and it may be. Each one proves its own theory and boosts its own egos infinitely, as we can see. We can also plainly see that the 'holy' scripture backs up this ego massage. Do we need more and more of this crass, vulgar ego massage in the world? If we wish to continue with this admittedly clever way of feeling good, then we deserve what karmic repercussions we get.
The point is this: To deal in the back and forth arguments of the world of duality (2), is error of ignorance and not what we are here for. If we make a statement concerning one side of an argument, we should train the mind to be able to equally present the other side of the argument also, to remain neutral.
A paraphrased quote from Thomas Jefferson, "The whole of Christianity is to engender eternal argument, for church profit".
A paraphrased quote from me: "The whole of science is to engender eternal argument, for science profit".
I would suggest neutrality as the way out of this duality. : ) + 0 -
53.3 Creation / Evolution
Talks on Origins
Five Major Misconceptions about Evolution
Copyright © 1995-1997 by Mark Isaak
[Last Update: November 16, 1998]
Other Links:
A Creationist Rebuts this FAQ
Creationist Tim Wallace has written a rebuttal of each of the points
made in this FAQ. (Despite its pilfered masthead, Wallace's web page is
not a part of the Talk.Origins Archive.)
A Critique of Wallace
Evolutionist Wayne Duck responds to Tim Wallace's rebuttal.
A large part of the reason why Creationist arguments against evolution can
sound so persuasive is because they don't address evolution, but rather
argue against a set of misunderstandings that people are right to
consider ludicrous. The Creationists wrongly believe that their
understanding of evolution is what the theory of evolution really says,
and declare evolution banished. In fact, they haven't even addressed the
topic of evolution. (The situation isn't helped by poor science
education generally. Even most beginning college biology students don't
understand the theory of evolution.)
The five propositions below seem to be the most common misconceptions
based on a Creationist straw-man version of evolution. If you hear
anyone making any of them, chances are excellent that they don't know
enough about the real theory of evolution to make informed opinions
about it.
Evolution has never been observed.
Evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
There are no transitional fossils.
The theory of evolution says that life originated, and evolution
proceeds, by random chance.
Evolution is only a theory; it hasn't been proved.
Explanations of why these statements are wrong are given below. They are
brief and therefore somewhat simplified; consult the references at the
end for more thorough explanations.
"Evolution has never been observed."
Biologists define evolution as a change in the gene pool of a population
over time. One example is insects developing a resistance to pesticides
over the period of a few years. Even most Creationists recognize that
evolution at this level is a fact. What they don't appreciate is that
this rate of evolution is all that is required to produce the diversity
of all living things from a common ancestor.
The origin of new species by evolution has also been observed, both in
the laboratory and in the wild. See, for example, (Weinberg, J.R., V.R.
Starczak, and D. Jorg, 1992, "Evidence for rapid speciation following a
founder event in the laboratory." Evolution 46: 1214-1220). The
"Observed Instances of Speciation" FAQ in the talk.origins archives
gives several additional examples.
Even without these direct observations, it would be wrong to say that
evolution hasn't been observed. Evidence isn't limited to seeing
something happen before your eyes. Evolution makes predictions about
what we would expect to see in the fossil record, comparative anatomy,
genetic sequences, geographical distribution of species, etc., and these
predictions have been verified many times over. The number of
observations supporting evolution is overwhelming.
What hasn't been observed is one animal abruptly changing into a
radically different one, such as a frog changing into a cow. This is not
a problem for evolution because evolution doesn't propose occurrences
even remotely like that. In fact, if we ever observed a frog turn into a
cow, it would be very strong evidence against evolution.
"Evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics."
This shows more a misconception about thermodynamics than about
evolution. The second law of thermodynamics says, "No process is
possible in which the sole result is the transfer of energy from a
cooler to a hotter body." [Atkins, 1984, The Second Law, pg. 25] Now you
may be scratching your head wondering what this has to do with
evolution. The confusion arises when the 2nd law is phrased in another
equivalent way, "The entropy of a closed system cannot decrease."
Entropy is an indication of unusable energy and often (but not always!)
corresponds to intuitive notions of disorder or randomness. Creationists
thus misinterpret the 2nd law to say that things invariably progress
from order to disorder.
However, they neglect the fact that life is not a closed system. The sun
provides more than enough energy to drive things. If a mature tomato
plant can have more usable energy than the seed it grew from, why should
anyone expect that the next generation of tomatoes can't have more
usable energy still? Creationists sometimes try to get around this by
claiming that the information carried by living things lets them create
order. However, not only is life irrelevant to the 2nd law, but order
from disorder is common in nonliving systems, too. Snowflakes, sand
dunes, tornadoes, stalactites, graded river beds, and lightning are just
a few examples of order coming from disorder in nature; none require an
intelligent program to achieve that order. In any nontrivial system with
lots of energy flowing through it, you are almost certain to find order
arising somewhere in the system. If order from disorder is supposed to
violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics, why is it ubiquitous in nature?
The thermodynamics argument against evolution displays a misconception
about evolution as well as about thermodynamics, since a clear
understanding of how evolution works should reveal major flaws in the
argument. Evolution says that organisms reproduce with only small
changes between generations (after their own kind, so to speak). For
example, animals might have appendages which are longer or shorter,
thicker or flatter, lighter or darker than their parents. Occasionally,
a change might be on the order of having four or six fingers instead of
five. Once the differences appear, the theory of evolution calls for
differential reproductive success. For example, maybe the animals with
longer appendages survive to have more offspring than short-appendaged
ones. All of these processes can be observed today. They obviously don't
violate any physical laws.
"There are no transitional fossils."
A transitional fossil is one that looks like it's from an organism
intermediate between two lineages, meaning it has some characteristics
of lineage A, some characteristics of lineage B, and probably some
characteristics part way between the two. Transitional fossils can occur
between groups of any taxonomic level, such as between species, between
orders, etc. Ideally, the transitional fossil should be found
stratigraphically between the first occurrence of the ancestral lineage
and the first occurrence of the descendent lineage, but evolution also
predicts the occurrence of some fossils with transitional morphology
that occur after both lineages. There's nothing in the theory of
evolution which says an intermediate form (or any organism, for that
matter) can have only one line of descendents, or that the intermediate
form itself has to go extinct when a line of descendents evolves.
To say there are no transitional fossils is simply false. Paleontology
has progressed a bit since Origin of Species was published, uncovering
thousands of transitional fossils, by both the temporally restrictive
and the less restrictive definitions. The fossil record is still spotty
and always will be; erosion and the rarity of conditions favorable to
fossilization make that inevitable. Also, transitions may occur in a
small population, in a small area, and/or in a relatively short amount
of time; when any of these conditions hold, the chances of finding the
transitional fossils goes down. Still, there are still many instances
where excellent sequences of transitional fossils exist. Some notable
examples are the transitions from reptile to mammal, from land animal to
early whale, and from early ape to human. For many more examples, see
the transitional fossils FAQ in the talk.origins archive, and see
http://www.geo.ucalgary.ca/~macrae/talk_origins.html for sample images
for some invertebrate groups.
The misconception about the lack of transitional fossils is perpetuated
in part by a common way of thinking about categories. When people think
about a category like "dog" or "ant," they often subconsciously believe
that there is a well-defined boundary around the category, or that there
is some eternal ideal form (for philosophers, the Platonic idea) which
defines the category. This kind of thinking leads people to declare that
Archaeopteryx is "100% bird," when it is clearly a mix of bird and
reptile features (with more reptile than bird features, in fact). In
truth, categories are man-made and artificial. Nature is not constrained
to follow them, and it doesn't.
Some Creationists claim that the hypothesis of punctuated equilibrium
was proposed (by Eldredge and Gould) to explain gaps in the fossil
record. Actually, it was proposed to explain the relative rarity of
transitional forms, not their total absence, and to explain why
speciation appears to happen relatively quickly in some cases, gradually
in others, and not at all during some periods for some species. In no
way does it deny that transitional sequences exist. In fact, both Gould
and Eldredge are outspoken opponents of Creationism.
"But paleontologists have discovered several superb examples of
intermediary forms and sequences, more than enough to convince any
fair-minded skeptic about the reality of life's physical genealogy." -
Stephen Jay Gould, Natural History, May 1994
"The theory of evolution says that life originated, and evolution
proceeds, by random chance."
There is probably no other statement which is a better indication that
the arguer doesn't understand evolution. Chance certainly plays a large
part in evolution, but this argument completely ignores the fundamental
role of natural selection, and selection is the very opposite of chance.
Chance, in the form of mutations, provides genetic variation, which is
the raw material that natural selection has to work with. From there,
natural selection sorts out certain variations. Those variations which
give greater reproductive success to their possessors (and chance
ensures that such beneficial mutations will be inevitable) are retained,
and less successful variations are weeded out. When the environment
changes, or when organisms move to a different environment, different
variations are selected, leading eventually to different species.
Harmful mutations usually die out quickly, so they don't interfere with
the process of beneficial mutations accumulating.
Nor is abiogenesis (the origin of the first life) due purely to chance.
Atoms and molecules arrange themselves not purely randomly, but
according to their chemical properties. In the case of carbon atoms
especially, this means complex molecules are sure to form spontaneously,
and these complex molecules can influence each other to create even more
complex molecules. Once a molecule forms that is approximately
self-replicating, natural selection will guide the formation of ever
more efficient replicators. The first self-replicating object didn't
need to be as complex as a modern cell or even a strand of DNA. Some
self-replicating molecules are not really all that complex (as organic
molecules go).
Some people still argue that it is wildly improbable for a given
self-replicating molecule to form at a given point (although they
usually don't state the "givens," but leave them implicit in their
calculations). This is true, but there were oceans of molecules working
on the problem, and no one knows how many possible self-replicating
molecules could have served as the first one. A calculation of the odds
of abiogenesis is worthless unless it recognizes the immense range of
starting materials that the first replicator might have formed from, the
probably innumerable different forms that the first replicator might
have taken, and the fact that much of the construction of the
replicating molecule would have been non-random to start with.
(One should also note that the theory of evolution doesn't depend on how
the first life began. The truth or falsity of any theory of abiogenesis
wouldn't affect evolution in the least.)
"Evolution is only a theory; it hasn't been proved."
First, we should clarify what "evolution" means. Like so many other
words, it has more than one meaning. Its strict biological definition is
"a change in allele frequencies over time." By that definition,
evolution is an indisputable fact. Most people seem to associate the
word "evolution" mainly with common descent, the theory that all life
arose from one common ancestor. Many people believe that there is enough
evidence to call this a fact, too. However, common descent is still not
the theory of evolution, but just a fraction of it (and a part of
several quite different theories as well). The theory of evolution not
only says that life evolved, it also includes mechanisms, like
mutations, natural selection, and genetic drift, which go a long way
towards explaining how life evolved.
Calling the theory of evolution "only a theory" is, strictly speaking,
true, but the idea it tries to convey is completely wrong. The argument
rests on a confusion between what "theory" means in informal usage and
in a scientific context. A theory, in the scientific sense, is "a
coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation
for a class of phenomena" [Random House American College Dictionary].
The term does not imply tentativeness or lack of certainty. Generally
speaking, scientific theories differ from scientific laws only in that
laws can be expressed more tersely. Being a theory implies
self-consistency, agreement with observations, and usefulness.
(Creationism fails to be a theory mainly because of the last point; it
makes few or no specific claims about what we would expect to find, so
it can't be used for anything. When it does make falsifiable
predictions, they prove to be false.)
Lack of proof isn't a weakness, either. On the contrary, claiming
infallibility for one's conclusions is a sign of hubris. Nothing in the
real world has ever been rigorously proved, or ever will be. Proof, in
the mathematical sense, is possible only if you have the luxury of
defining the universe you're operating in. In the real world, we must
deal with levels of certainty based on observed evidence. The more and
better evidence we have for something, the more certainty we assign to
it; when there is enough evidence, we label the something a fact, even
though it still isn't 100% certain.
What evolution has is what any good scientific claim has--evidence, and
lots of it. Evolution is supported by a wide range of observations
throughout the fields of genetics, anatomy, ecology, animal behavior,
paleontology, and others. If you wish to challenge the theory of
evolution, you must address that evidence. You must show that the
evidence is either wrong or irrelevant or that it fits another theory
better. Of course, to do this, you must know both the theory and the
evidence.
Conclusion
These are not the only misconceptions about evolution by any means.
Other common misunderstandings include how geological dating techniques
work, implications to morality and religion, the meaning of
"uniformitarianism," and many more. To address all these objections here
would be impossible.
But consider: About a hundred years ago, scientists, who were then
mostly creationists, looked at the world to figure out how God did
things. These creationists came to the conclusions of an old earth and
species originating by evolution. Since then, thousands of scientists
have been studying evolution with increasingly more sophisticated tools.
Many of these scientists have excellent understandings of the laws of
thermodynamics, how fossil finds are interpreted, etc., and finding a
better alternative to evolution would win them fame and fortune.
Sometimes their work has changed our understanding of significant
details of how evolution operates, but the theory of evolution still has
essentially unanimous agreement from the people who work on it.
Further Reading
The "FAQ" files listed below are available on World Wide Web via
http://www.talkorigins.org/. They are also available via ftp at
ics.uci.edu, directory /pub/origins. Messages with more information on
how to access them are posted regularly to talk.origins. The archive
also contains many other files which may be of interest.
For what evolution means, how it works, and the evidence for it:
Colby, Chris. faq-intro-to-biology: Introduction to Evolutionary Biology
Mayr, Ernst. 1991. One Long Argument
Darwin, Charles. 1859. On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural
Selection
For issues and evidence of speciation:
Boxhorn, Joseph. faq-speciation: Observed Instances of Speciation
Weiner, Jonathan. 1994. The Beak of the Finch: A Story of Evolution in
Our Time
For explanations of how randomness can lead to design:
Dawkins, Richard. 1986. The Blind Watchmaker
Bonner, John T. 1988. The Evolution of Complexity by Means of Natural
Selection
Kauffman, Stuart A. 1993. The Origins of Order: Self-Organization and
Selection in Evolution [very technical]
For a readable introduction to the 2nd law of thermodynamics:
Atkins, Peter W. 1984. The Second Law
For transitional fossils and the fossil record:
Colbert, Edwin H. 1991. Evolution of the Vertebrates, 4th ed.
Hunt, Kathleen. faq-transitional: Transitional Fossils
For a fairly comprehensive response to many Creationist claims:
Strahler, Arthur. 1987. Science and Earth History
Meritt, Jim. faq-meritt: Jim Meritt's general anti-creationism FAQ
Coming Soon-
Placement of Eden, the Garden and the Fall.
The Cosmological Zodiac (Processional and Evolutionary clock hands).
Placement of Aryan, Atlantean, Lemurian and Hyperborian.
53.4 Answer Section
THIS IS A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF CYCLES OF CIVILIZATIONS MYTHOLOGIES!!
The first section defines what Involution and Evolution are. The second part establishes the Sumerian Trinity, Anu, Enlil and Enki-EA. The third part arranges the major mythologies into a 7 Level order comprised of the longest cycles known, 311.040 trillion years.
The premise is that if all of history's mythology and lesser cycles can be compared within one long time frame, we will be able to form conclusions about each part that is not evident in any previous study.
Welcome! I see you made it intact. Here, we will explore what I have learned from both arguments of Evolution and Creation Theory:
Imagine a pyramid. On the left side is Involution (The Fall). On the right side is Evolution (The Rise). This pyramid could be a circle or more accurately, an ever contracting spiral.
*Estimated Time Spans*
Involution was the decent of Man (Spirit / psyche) into matter. This represents the Fall, terminating in the Garden Story (Actually a Gahenna: the flaming sun period).
Evolution, here, represents the Rise from the Garden Story and subsequent outward push of inner mind (psyche).
Evolution also represents the gradual enforced decent of self-consciousness into a "world body" of "progress". Evolution
is the endless complication of life by man's self-consciousness requiring us to go further away, deeper into the "world body of ignorance", falsehood or imagination
before we can get out of it. Imagination is equated with continuous streams of information
but no knowledge. This implies the that there was, indeed, a higher consciousness in mankind before our age. We call them 'the gods'.
Evolution, as the word is used today, represents the Creationists anathema, or polar opposite. Both deal in the world of duality. The truth is, Creation Theory needs Evolution Theory. How can this be you might ask? If we can see that Creation Theory is nothing more than the inner world before the outer world was manifest, we can begin to understand how the two need each other. The Evolution Theory needs to be clarified as the outer world manifestation of the inner world Creation. As stated on the homepage, both theories are vague, obscure and both need clarification.
It is not a matter of which one is right or wrong. Both have their proper place in universe.
Creation Theory is:
What was before what is seen.
The invisible half of universe.
That which produced the visible.
The inner world of man.
Evolution Theory is:
What came after Creation Theory.
The visible half of universe.
That which was produced by the invisible.
The outer world of manifestation.
It is as simple as that. No one will ever claim a final victory of one theory over the other. If that is claimed, then it is an error.
Sumerian Tripartite "Gods" Anu, Enlil and Enki-Ea: The Symbolic "Trinity"
Original Source: Babylonian World Map
Topic: The Face on Mars in Sumerian Lore; A post by Ricard
The TEM debate involves the journey of greater self-being. Therefore I do add the following to this board.
According to Sumerian Clay texts of The Sumerian Ruler Gudea of Lagash, 2600 BC, records in his inscriptions; Seven Monsters.
Actually , the text is attempting to describe the Seven Mansion Worlds (The exact 7 Levels described below) and the Ocean of vanquished that the moral seeking must travels through to reach them.
The text tells of the creation of everything from the beginning. These texts, are incomplete, and are misunderstood by authors today as to (who) was the original writers of them, in 2600 BC.
But nevertheless, they do have much truths in them.
According to Gudea' texts; but not quoted here,
"In the beginning, everything was Tiamat, the Ocean, then within Tiamat--arose 'The Apsu--or Chaos; matter, --- and Apsu then had arose within self-being a number of divinities to be present, all included within the , 'Tiamat, - or the Sea- and thus were the Gods, Anu, Enlil and Enki-Ea-, all later to be representatives of the ideal of a 'Tripartite world - a Trinity- that did also have arise within Chaos others, now a full blown Pantheon family did arise. Now Apsu desired to destroy his own offspring,- Why? - but was then himself killed, by Enki, who looked upon the Apsu - Chaos as his home. So then an area of force charge, Apsu, attempted to abolish a created consciousized force charge, Enki, so now then Enki did become the Apsu -area- Chaos itself, still with self-willed consciousness . Then Tiamat,--the ocean--, the first cause , then went forth to revenge Apsu-chaos, but was then itself vanquished in a conflict with Sumer, Babylon and Assur, who were other created deities themselves, also within the Tiamat itself they existed, respectively.'
So then the earth formed civilizations of Sumer, Babylon and Assur of ancient texts, they were named after three personified deities, who dwell in the ocean-space, and who vanquished the original Tiamat or ocean from effecting on them, they joined and over powered there own creator."
"Rebels!
If one sees the beginnings of all things as with a time bound persective on them, or with motions of things as action or drama, then can we see the Tiamat was actually, in ideal at least, the Totality of - the Universal First source and Center - God.
The Apsu, according to Sumerian Texts, was chaos, unorganized, at least that is what man is lead to think....Chaos was, is, Totalities very own personified Son.
The personalities of; Anu, Enlil and Enki were the Three born of chaos' own self - willed, Children of the the First causes son.
They were, according to the tale, as anti - matter to Chaos, the son.
Where they Righteous or Evil? Why did Chaos attempt to destroy them? Why did they have the ability to over-power there own originations ability of control?
Now according to Sumerian Scriptures, before the Battle had begun, Apsu, Chaos the son, had created huge Monsters in Animal form to wage the fight. Its a very dramatic universe. One were Ideology is the basis of all living experiences." Ricard, TEMBBS
(Note: Of course, any "Trinity" of mythology, as we will see below, are 3 separate and distinct levels of existence, existing (Or perhaps NOT existing) before the creation of "time". I don't believe a time span can be assigned to these 3 but if the whole cycle is 14 levels in 311.040 trillion years then one level is 20 trillion years, meaning the "Trinity" is symbolically, 60 trillion years. MetPhys).
Symbols of Seven An explanation of the so called Trinity (3) and Quaternary (4) of the Seven Levels of Creation in our study, below: