God and Evolution

[maurile]

[ QUOTE ]
Pro-evolution arguments are utterly dependent on mutation as the key process through which existing life evolves.

Depending on mutation to argue evolution is a pretty weak strategy, yet all arguments for evolution depend on the weak-at-best mutation premise.

[/ QUOTE ]
Are you saying that mutations don't happen?

Because, you know, we've directly observed them.

[Dan Mezick]

Mutations happen. They do not convincingly explain the origin of life on earth or biological progression over time. It's a weak foundation for a strong argument in favor of Darwinism.

Ironically dogmatic belief in evolution has taken on decidely religious overtones. Think about it.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

sustained evolutionary progress and the origin of life on Earth are not satisfactorily accounted for by Darwinism


[/ QUOTE ]

Stunning.

[maurile]

[ QUOTE ]
Mutations happen. They do not convincingly explain the origin of life on earth or biological progression over time.

[/ QUOTE ]
Neither does gravity.

[ QUOTE ]
It's a weak foundation for a strong argument in favor of Darwinism.

[/ QUOTE ]
Mutations aren't an argument in favor of biological evolution. They're part of what we observe about how evolution works.

[ QUOTE ]
Ironically dogmatic belief in evolution has taken on decidely religious overtones.

[/ QUOTE ]
No it hasn't.

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Mutations happen. They do not convincingly explain the origin of life on earth or biological progression over time.

[/ QUOTE ]
Neither does gravity.

[ QUOTE ]
It's a weak foundation for a strong argument in favor of Darwinism.

[/ QUOTE ]
Mutations aren't an argument in favor of biological evolution. They're part of what we observe about how evolution works.

[ QUOTE ]
Ironically dogmatic belief in evolution has taken on decidely religious overtones.

[/ QUOTE ]
No it hasn't.

[/ QUOTE ]

There's no reason to believe that our current Theoretical Model for Evolution won't be modified in the future and possibly replaced by a much better one which may be as radically different conceptualy as Quantum Physics was from Newtonian Mechanics. Yes we have fossil evidence that species change over the millinea. We have observed mutations in viruses. But Evolution theory is very difficult to apply the scientific method to compared to other scientific theories. The experiments would just require too much time.

The most nagging problem for the Theory is whether the Mechanics it Theorizes are really powerful enough for evolution to have happened as fast as it did. I find it puzzling how the human species could have evolved from its precursors in just a couple of million years or so. This objection to the Theory is met by Argument rather than experimental results. Defenders of the Theory ARGUE that Mutation combined with Genetic Diversity combined with Dormant Genes Combined with Cross Reproduction combined with Changing Environment combined with Natural Selection provides the Evolutionary power to explain Quick evolutionary changes that fossil records show sometimes take place. Their arguments are very pursuasive by the way. But Arguments are not Proof by the Experimental Method.

I think there's some truth to the observation that the Theory of Evolution is sometimes defended like Religious Dogma. EVERY Scientific Theory today has shortcomings. If this were not the case we would have a fully functional Unified Theory. Scientists are the first to admit this about Newtonian Mechanics, Dual Theories of Light, Quantum Physics, General Relativity, etc. But when someone suggests that the Theory of Evolution may be flawed he is often met by statements like, Evolution is not a Theory, it's a fact.

PairTheBoard

[obsidian]

I've heard a lot of good arguments against evolution. However, the thing about intelligent design is you can't directly argue against it. It seems people think you can prove intelligent design by disproving evolution. Science simply doesn't work like that.

[meow_meow]

[ QUOTE ]

There's no reason to believe that our current Theoretical Model for Evolution won't be modified in the future and possibly replaced by a much better one which may be as radically different conceptualy as Quantum Physics was from Newtonian Mechanics. Yes we have fossil evidence that species change over the millinea. We have observed mutations in viruses. But Evolution theory is very difficult to apply the scientific method to compared to other scientific theories. The experiments would just require too much time.


[/ QUOTE ]

I'm sorry, but this kind of thinking really annoys me. The theory of evolution is not a quaint little corner of biology, it is the cornerstone and constant companion of every discipline therein.

The evidence for evolution goes beyond fossils - extending to morphology (shared skeletal structures), embryology (e.g. you once had a tail), molecular biology (the sequence level)...

Quantum mechanics doesn't invalidate Newtonian mechanics. Similarly, if you think an alternative thoery will arise that significantly supplants the theory that (at least the vast majority of) all life on earth shares a common ancestry, then you are mistaken.

Everybody who thinks otherwise needs a good dose of Richard Dawkins.

[Maddog121]

Intelligent design is a nice way of saying "I believe in the God of the Gaps". Adherents to intelligent design are saying that because currently no explanation has been postulated or shown through experimentation or current knowledge then that must be where God is. This has the effect of banishing God to an ever decreasing domain as the knowledge base grows. (I should say I am an avowed agnositic - don't even think the question of God is answerable and therefore meaningless)

[David Sklansky]

What you don't seem to realize is that the problems you have with evolution theory are insignificant if you use those problems to argue for intelligent design. They would only be significant if the problems were obviously insurmountable.

The analogy is Uri Geller. He does stuff. Amazing Randi duplicates it. That convinces even you that he is a fraud. Keep in mind however that it is no proof of that fact. Geller could still be for real. But virtually everybody understands that Geller's claims are so farfetched that if a magician can duplicate them it becomes a giant favorite that Geller is a liar. Because there is no evidence that it is possible that anyone could ever have the powers Geller claims. Once Randi does it without those powers its pretty clearcut that Geller used the same or similar means.

But what about if Randi cannot duplicate all of Geller's tricks? Im pretty sure that most people would still not believe in him as long as those tricks were at all similar to the ones Randi figured out. As long as Randi showed that in general Geller's stuff could be explained without resorting to mysticism, it would be reasonable to assume that the tricks that Randi couldn't duplicate would someday be figured out by him or other magicians.

Same with evolution.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

As long as Randi showed that in general Geller's stuff could be explained without resorting to mysticism


[/ QUOTE ]

This is precisely what evolution hasn't begun to do. This is why Gould needed "punctuated equilibrium" and why we now see what I call "punctuated alienism".

[ QUOTE ]

would be reasonable to assume that the tricks that Randi couldn't duplicate would someday be figured out by him or other magicians.


[/ QUOTE ]

Evolution of the Gaps. Someday man will discover how the universe popped up out of nothing for no reason.