christians hate science but need it.
Christian’s hate science because it doesn’t match up with their simplistic readings of the Bible. It contradicts a ‘literalistic’ reading of the ancient books like Genesis, Exodus, and Joshua. Sometimes this happens archaeologically and sometimes biologically. The contradictory coincidence lies in the fact that Christian’s need biologically based sciences like genetics to reinforce other parts of their worldview: namely that heterosexuality is natural and innate—genetic.
Guess what? You don’t get one without the other, creationists happen to be intellectual numbskulls who can’t get their intellect around two contradictions that they hold in tandem: namely that genetics confirms evolutionary theory and that sexuality is not genetic but socially constructed instead. Yes, that means my sexual tastes for men or women—just like my taste for apple pies rather than pumpkin pies—are personal preference and culturally associated.
You can’t accept one of the bull’s horn without accepting the other.
“What?!” You say. “That makes the word of God a lie!”
Nope, it makes your interpretation of the Bible: dumbassed. And it makes your use of science one-sided and bigoted.
Yes, I just used the term dumbass in a past-tense adjectival format to describe bigoted creationist thought—get over it.
I will disagree with you here. I am a Creationist, meaning I do believe the word when it says the earth was created in six days. This thought was the consensus belief until as recently as the 19th century. To say that Christians hate science is absurd. Most scientists until the last century or so were in fact Christian and was begun by Christians. I would say that since neither idea is wholly conclusive and no one will know the truth until the final days, that either belief is fine and should be able to be discussed, argued, etc. without either being called an ‘intellectual numbskull.’ I believe that to have faith as a child in what was given to Moses as far as the word of God is concerned, does not make me any less intelligent. What I guess it comes down to is, I believe in miracles.
You should read a couple of books called _Refuting Evolution_ and _Refuting Evolution 2_ they’re really eye opening as far as what we’re actually buying into as far as the argument of Evolution vs Creationism goes.
As far as the societal versus genetic. I also add why not have 2 wives or 2 husbands why the limit of one?
Because it doesn’t represent God. Either way, to lay with someone of the opposite sex is not wrong, but to be set apart, as to be different. Paul wrote about this in Romans 1:
26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.
We can say it is a condition of culture yes, but to show how God has worked in your life and has made you set apart. Genesis 1:28 be fruitful and increase in number. This was God’s first blessing to man and woman. How can we not accept God’s first blessing and expect to be counted in the fold by being un-abiding. Am I saying that we need to have children to be accepted by God. No. Am I saying we should set ourselves apart. Yes. We do live in a country that was built to be a safe haven for those seeking not to be persecuted. I say live and let live. But fight for the hearts of men.
I will add, we all have our own sins we deal with daily. Me especially
With Love, no homo
Michael
Michael Plante
November 3, 2009 12:31 pm at 12:31 pm
i am replaying to the guy that wrote the dumb ignorant rant on this page..
christians like science there is nothing wrong with science christians are human too.. what christians dont like it how science is very non scientific when it comes to creation.. and evolution.
evolution has never been proven thats why its still theory..
Darwin made the theory upon seeing a black man eating a banana and back in those days white men were very racist and called black people monkeys.. and thats where Darwins theory came from… no proof whatsoever just a racist remark turn theory…
Christians are more hated in todays society than pedophiles, murdereres, liars, evil. just goes to show what kind of worls we live in now… last days it surely is..
dont worry though believers will have eternal life.. the blind and ignorant only have a short time left of being fools then use christians get the last laugh, be strong fellow Chrisitians..
kev
December 21, 2009 7:25 am at 7:25 am
Well thank God we got that cleared up! Now I see the truth.
When Darwin made a racist comment, the worls got confused.. thinking the Christians are more hated than evil and forgetting how to use punctuation?
I think I understand why nobody believes anything written by Christian bloggers. No one can understand a thing they say.
Davo
December 21, 2009 11:51 am at 11:51 am
I completely agree that most Christians, especially creationists hate science, or at the very least fail to understand it on a very basic level.
I find it amusing that so many creationists claim that evolution is somehow controversial when, in reality, everything in biology (and all other fields of science) conforms to the theory. When creationists accept this bit, and agree that the typological tables, genetic, lineal, regional or consanguineous they often profess that there are no transitional forms. When these are pointed out, they cry for direct and exact transitional forms for specific species, or refute radiometric dating. All of this is absurd, if you cannot grasp the science that goes into these concepts you should not attempt to refute them… this leads me to my least favorite group of people, and since one was so conveniently mentioned by the commenter prior to me I will use him.
Jonathan Sarfati author of “Refuting Evolution” (heralded by the scientific community as misleading and worthless), and “Refuting Evolution 2″ (what an innovative title, referred to as a “crude piece of propaganda”) is my least favorite type of person. One who looks at evidence from an area outside of their area of expertise and makes declarative statements. Jon “look at me I am a scientist” Sarfati is a chemist, making statements about biology, this would be like taking the word of a composer over that of a linguist when looking into the history and usage of language. Yes, in science, the individual fields are that distinct. If one tries to claim that simply having a doctorate affirms his credentials, I will get back to you in one year, when I have my terminal degree in a completely unrelated field… it just doesn’t work, terminal degrees show expertise in an extremely narrow field, simply having one does not expand your expertise.
Nevertheless this article is about Christians hating science, and to that end, Jon Sarfati himself likes to revel in christian hate of science, and of each other “He also implies that evolution is incompatible with Christianity, always referring to Christians who reject AiG’s version of creationism as “professed” Christians or people who “claim” to be Christians.”
I typically stay out of belief wars as when dealing with the supernatural one can make any claim and have it with just as much gravitas as any other… however when creationists make a scientific claim (that there is an agent God, who created the world) I have a problem, and when they try to say that there is controversy between science and Christianity… they will lose every time.
“he Holy Sprit intended to teach us in the Bible how to go to Heaven, not how the heavens go.” Galileo
Andrew
November 3, 2009 1:02 pm at 1:02 pm
In addition to hating science, it seems that a lot of Christians hate grammar. Dave, you should do a post on how Christians discard elementary grammatical rules when they get worked up. (Michael, this isn’t specifically directed at you. Don’t take it as a personal attack. It was just a general observation).
Davo
November 3, 2009 1:41 pm at 1:41 pm
No attack taken. I gave my wife papers in college and she thought they were a grammatical horror film.
Michael Plante
November 3, 2009 1:47 pm at 1:47 pm
Is it so bad to believe in miracles?
First, Are we arguing Evolution, or are we arguing adaptation.
Then I would ask what great advancements have we learned from actual evolution. What assertive proof is there? If you say this species came from _____, then where is _____? I’m not dumb I believe in dinosaurs I believe in little Lucy the protozoic or whatever time period they say she came from. But there is no middle. Almost as if they were there all of a sudden.
Galileo was a physicist and an astronomer. He also was not a biologist and as you have stated doesn’t know what he is talking about as far as biology works either. I would also argue that if Galileo had just read Genesis 1 he wouldn’t have said that. Its in the first chapter of the whole book.
With Love
Michael
Michael Plante
November 3, 2009 1:45 pm at 1:45 pm
Evolution, and I will answer your questions when I have time (maybe in the next few hours depending on how my current research goes.
Before you slam Galileo for not reading his bible, realize that the Pope echoed his statement, and the Vatican upholds it to this day. The Vatican also upholds scientific evolution, and has decided the debate is over.
Of course, according to you they probably haven’t read their bible.
Andrew
November 3, 2009 2:11 pm at 2:11 pm
The Vatican has taken a position of neutrality and has not made a definitive statement.
I’m not arguing Galileo as a physicist I am not arguing him as a biologist, but your use of his words that the bible only teaches a path to, and not about how the heavens go, were wrong. I didn’t say that he never read his bible but if he had just read page one he would not have said such a statement. His scientific statement however was right and I believe it was and is right, the church was wrong. Earth most definitely revolves around the sun.
But we are forgetting the basics. Scientific method: to be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on gathering OBSERVABLE, EMPIRICAL and MEASURABLE evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning. Based on Scientific method, which we all hopefully learned in sixth grade, does evolution fall? It is unproven but is stated as truth. It cannot be observed and is stated as fact. What is the measure, there is no ‘middle species.’ There is no evidence of evolution. It is simply the Hypothesis of Evolution.
With Love
Michael
Michael Plante
November 3, 2009 2:41 pm at 2:41 pm
That fact that the Vatican may have decreed that evolution is compatible with Christianity and has decided that the debate is over, means absolutely nothing. To suggest that such a decree is the end of the discussion is an example of the logical fallacy know as an appeal to authority.
Don Bethel
November 8, 2009 4:08 pm at 4:08 pm
First let me state that I hate the creation vs. evolution debate. In that vein, this post is not really about creation vs. evolution. What this post is really about is how Christians are apt to use science when it supports their world view and apt to condemn science when they are threatened by its implications.
Though evolution does lay at the base of biology, the thought I am working at here could as easily apply to any scientific claim that is found obverse to an interpretation of the a Biblical text.
And for records sake, it’s an often embraced misconception that evolution claims apes evolved into humans. The search for a missing link was cooked up by those threatened by the implication that things happened in a naturalistic manner. These same people didn’t stop to think of God as the causa sui or the unmovable mover.
Personally I don’t give a shit about the causa sui or unmoved mover, whether God created in 6 days or through millions of years. It’s all a distraction from the fact that Christians—in the here and now—are deceitfully relying on science in some cases and dismissing it in others. Not even according to reason but moreso according to selfish desires and responses to percieved threats.
Dave Bennett
November 3, 2009 2:50 pm at 2:50 pm
Don’t both sides pick and choose?
With Love
Michael
Michael Plante
November 3, 2009 2:56 pm at 2:56 pm
Can you think of a non-Christian example of a gay person or evolutionist refuting science in one arena and backing up to it in another?
I’m confused. Lead me through the shadows.
Dave Bennett
November 3, 2009 3:01 pm at 3:01 pm
The use of science is to prove yourself. No matter where you fall. Where is the proof of Evolution.
Whether homosexuality is genetic has yet to be proven. If it were true to genetics the genes would have already phased out simply by process of elimination. You cannot create from nothing. Therefore it is only cultural.
Evolution vs creationism is always going to be one vs the other. One says we came from chemical and biological reactions, and ignores the lack of evidence. While the other says each and everything was created by an intelligent designer (Crap, I said it), and the separation between them is their proof. However many birds, however many reptiles, however many fish. But they evolved from what?
What is wrong with Christians using science that is proven and ignoring theories that are unproven?
With Love
Michael
Michael Plante
November 3, 2009 3:22 pm at 3:22 pm
“There is considerable evidence that human sexual orientation is genetically influenced…” ~Zietsch, B., Morley, K., Shekar, S., Verweij, K., Keller, M., Macgregor, S., et al. (2008, November). Genetic factors predisposing to homosexuality may increase mating success in heterosexuals. Evolution and Human Behavior.
The allele has not been identified and named, if it is that simple, but I will not stand for your garbage statement Michael: “If it were true to genetics the genes would have already phased out simply by process of elimination. You cannot create from nothing. Therefore it is only cultural.” That is so absurd it actually caused my physical pain to read it. Deviation is deviation, please read even a high school biology book before saying things like this. There are latent genes and clear mutations that crop up again and again, when neither direct lineal ancestor carries the trait. E.G. Neither mother nor father have blue eyes but child does. This is the same reason that most hereditary diseases are still around.
At this point I strongly question what you know of genetics. I would further like to point out that if it is “cultural” how is it that almost all mammals have segments of their population with observed homosexual tendencies… I guess canines, ursines, felines, and the like all have developed gay culture as well…
Finally, “Genome researchers at the University of Chicago have identified more than 700 regions in human DNA where apparently strong selection has occurred, driving the spread of genes linked to a broad range of characteristics.” ~Nat Geo this article is looking at a study taking a genetic look at ourselves and finding actual points of strong selection (i.e. evolution). Further, look at the bacterial world, or in fact the world of the fruit fly, researchers can see in a span of minutes (in the case of bacteria) small mutations from one generation to the next, and in the case of fruit flies one can observe it in months. This is “proven” evolution, the creationists like to call this “adaptation” or “micro-evolution” but they do not understand the theory enough to realize that there is no distinction. Evolution is speciation by process of adaptation (natural selection). When these small differences occur over long periods of time, the chain of small mutations adds up and in the end the product observed at any given point on the line can, and likely will look completely different.
I am sure you have played the “telephone game” that elementary children often play, imagine if you will one billion children playing this game, how recognizable will the final sentence be? But remember, at each child there was only one minor deviation from the original statement. This is why saying adaptation is different from evolution reveals a lack of understanding. It would be akin to saying “I accept that you can take one step, but two is impossible”.
Finally, I often wonder why it is that creationists never take a look at mans best friend. Canines have several varieties, some that are incapable of breeding with certain others. Creationists will look at a chihuahua and a Labrador and accept that they have a common ancestor, they will do the same for cats. Ask them to do the same for humans/great apes, or certain reptilians and they will turn red in the face.
Genetics has done its job, biology has shown you the transitional forms, you just refuse to accept them. I hate to do this, but this is the easiest way to show a rough list… http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils.
Evolution is “proven”, the reason it is still the “theory” of evolution is because of the scope of the idea, new information is added, it is not “complete”. The same can be said of gravity, there is the law of gravity (much like the law of nat selection) and the THEORY of gravitation.
I am done here, I have said my piece and disturbed Dave’s blog enough. One of my biggest pet peeves are those who reject valid and important scientific theories without a robust knowledge of them. In all seriousness, most modern work on genetics, biology, modern medical engineering etc works only because of advances provided via evolution.
I apologize Dave, and Michael I know I will not change your mind, you still sit in your “dogmatic slumber” as it were. I just hope that you have the intellectual honesty, integrity, and curiosity to at least read the breadth of books on evolution by biologists explaining the theory, not crackpots (i.e. scientific super minority) taking unjustified jabs at it.
Andrew
November 3, 2009 10:26 pm at 10:26 pm
I am not denying homosexuals their rights to do as they please. I could careless what someone enjoys for their sexual pleasures. Its up to them. As far as genetics for this argument I don’t see women inseminating other women or men (real men) giving birth to babies without hormonal and surgical assistance.
As far as the ‘mutations’ go what mutations have advanced our genetic spectrum. As you brought up Chihuahuas and Labradors. I would say let a Chihuahua out of your house and see how long it survives as a species without humans intervention. Even a more robust breed like Labradors are breaking down and without human intervention will lack to survive. Do we call people with downs genetic marvels that are changing the face of the planet for the better? That is evolution right? What genetic advancements have their been in humans?
To me there is no argument. I am not asking you to believe what I believe. Why are you wanting to make me. There is a large argument, as we can see, and I am not denying that. I don’t believe it. Science is what we should all be able to see. If there was no argument to be had then it should be able to proven plain as day. You’re telling me how they did this and that fruit flies and bacteria but still not showing me proof in how its a lasting change that continues on and on into forever for the better of the species. I believe there are 30000 types of the common cold. But its mutating daily, or are we simply discovering more. Of course I am just supposed to take your word that this is evolution. The thing is I can see gravity work. I can see models of the planets rotating. I can see a lot in how genetics have added to disease prevention with information that was already present and discovered in cells and DNA. In my opinion and I don’t have a PhD in any science but evolutions mutations are not predictive. They are reactive if anything, making them an adaptation. If evolution is true it should be able to be proven and repeatable and seen through generations. Why is it taking humans and other complex beings so long to change? And I shouldn’t have to look at unproven and undiscovered theoretical sketches of animals.
“We believe they have feathers.”
“Okays where is your proof.”
“This bone?”
“Oh okay. Good enough for me.”
This is all in my opinion. I am not asking you to believe it I am just stating my unbelief in a science that has yet to show me true and real evolution.
And lastly my biggest problem with this whole argument from beginning to end is calling someone who believes differently an intellectual numbskull when they can even vaguely argue their point to provide flaws in your argument as you can in theirs is unfair and inconsiderate. Just because someone believes differently doesn’t make them less respectable or less intelligent. When you insult them it makes you a ass, and harder to listen to. When you insult someone how would you ever expect them to ever take you seriously.
Have a good day.
With Love
Michael
Michael Plante
November 4, 2009 9:45 am at 9:45 am
Dave
Ah, so I see that you have jumped on the “only intellectual dimwits would deny evolution” bandwagon. You are sadly mistaken, my dear Nephew. Those Christians who are possessed of both logic and even a rudimentary understanding of science understand that science doesn’t conflict with the Bible. Evolution is the sacred cow of the secular-humanist worldview–and it takes much more faith to believe in evolution than it does to believe in the creation account in Genesis.
What’s one of the first things a young student is taught in his first elementary school science class? The law of abiogenesis–life only comes from life, it never comes from non-life. Well, you know, except when life actually began. Except for that. Because that’s what the evolutionary model postulates. Gee, if the necessary components for life just randomly assembled in the primordial soup, then it shouldn’t be difficult at all to reproduce that result under precise laboratory conditions, right? I mean, come on, surely these omnipotent and omniscient modern men of science can do under carefully controlled conditions what happened purely by chance and accident in the muck and mire, right? Well . . . mo. Not for lack of trying, though. Despite their best efforts, they just can’t seem to pull it off.
How about the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Doesn’t that teach us that entropy (disorder) is always increasing? Why yes, it does. Well, again, except in the case of evolution. Somehow that system–randomly and purely by chance–manages to increase in order and complexity all by itself. Huh, how does that happen? Where does the new DNA information, for instance, come from that allows an organism to evolve to a more complex state? Ooh, no one seems to know the answer to that scientific mystery.
Here’s one for ya, Dave. Why would organisms ever have evolved from asexual reproduction to male and female reproduction? Asexual reproduction is far simpler and easier to sustain. Why then would nature, in all its randomness, ever have selected male/female reproduction over asexual reproduction? The simple answer is that it wouldn’t–not even in billions of years. Better question: how did we even get male and female gendered organisms, anyway? Sure was lucky for that first male that evolved that one of his asexual comrades was evolving female reproductive organs at exactly the same time, huh? And each time subsequently that one species involved into another it sure was a pure stroke of dumb, random luck that apparently a male and female were evolving into exactly the same new species at exactly the same time. Wow, pretty darned amazing. I mean, gee, what are the odds?
Charles Darwin, like you, was a dropout Christian (his father planned for him to attend seminary) who was searching for a way to explain the world without bothering to involve the God of the Bible in its existence. Of course, at the time he was wandering in the wilderness for a theory he had no electron microscope he had no concept of the incredible complexity of even the simplest one-celled organism–a degree of complexity that we now know makes it patently absurd that it could have ever simply randomly assembled, no matter how much time went by. In fact, I suggest to you that only a “numbskull” could believe something so fanciful.
No, evolution isn’t about science, it’s about faith–it takes far more faith to believe evolution than it does to believe “In the beginning God . . .” Evolution has its own holy trinity–time, chance and matter. Personally, I think I’ll stick with the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. You believe if you want in the self-existence of atoms, I choose to believe in the self-existence of God Almighty.
Thus endeth the lesson.
Don Bethel
November 8, 2009 4:46 pm at 4:46 pm
Number one, I’m not a drop out Christian. I’m still a Christian.
Number two, I still think you’re missing the point.
Number three, insults won’t cancel the fact that you’re my uncle and I love you.
Last but not least, I’m more of a theistic evolutionist than an atheist.
Dave Bennett
November 10, 2009 4:46 pm at 4:46 pm
I am missing the point.
The name calling came in the beginning of this blog.
What in the world is theistic evolution? That God made evolution happen? So what God said was good really wasn’t good?
Michael
November 10, 2009 11:08 pm at 11:08 pm
Insults? What insults? I’m not the one who calls people with whom I disagree numbskulls and dumbasses–that would be you. I used the term numbskull only because you used it, and thereby to make a point.
Don Bethel
November 10, 2009 11:08 pm at 11:08 pm
Refer to number 1.
Dave Bennett
November 13, 2009 9:20 am at 9:20 am
Refer to OP.
Michael Plante
November 13, 2009 9:38 am at 9:38 am
OP?
Dave Bennett
November 13, 2009 9:58 am at 9:58 am
Mike,
I don’t see why not. Change is basically a constant, why wouldn’t evolution be pronounced good?
Besides, no one really knows how it all started. Isn’t it less important to get connected to the specifics and argue for creationism or evolution? My point is that because science is so dependent on that theory, to accept almost any scientific theory is to accept methods that have reinforced evolutionary theory.
So the new wave of thought focuses on string theory, so what!? God created it. It’s a win–win situation.
The distinction here is that scientific knowledge is different than religious knowledge. Namely that they are not the same. Religious knowledge is experiential and scientific knowledge methodological. The same method that gives us evolution gives us gravity and the theory of relativity.
Taking a literary mythology like creation stories in Genesis and turning it into a ground for 21st century science is ridiculous (in any case: evolution, creation, nihilism, string theory) so why bother using it as a basis at all?
And if we deny that Genesis is a mythology, why Genesis over any other creation story? Welp basically, our experience or arbitrary choice, or the culture in which we were raised (Church culture often teaches us that disbelieving in the literal interpretation of the Bible is to be a doubting Thomas or even worse a disbeliever. Oh my!). In any case using a literary text that is 2500 years old in written format and even older in oral tradition seems like a really bad place to start off explaining the scientific origins of the universe.
Honestly I don’t give a shit whether people are creationists or evolutionists. I do give a shit that people stop backing up to texts as an excuse to live their life and start admitting that even reading a text is interpretive on their part. Ie. based on their experience, cultural mores, etc. To conflate the two is big fat fucking lie. The Bible and your Church culture have significance in your life because you allow them to have it. Or rather YOU give them significance.
Saavy?
Dave Bennett
November 13, 2009 10:10 am at 10:10 am
I don’t feel like people back up to old texts as much as you think they do. At least I don’t. But even though its age is prominent its message is still the same. There are always going to be people who use anything to get their agendas accomplished. There is some loss in translation but not as much as is made to believe there is. I don’t use the bible as a science book and for anyone to do so is idiotic. But as a basis for belief is not wrong.
Using science I have to agree with your uncle that evolution scientifically doesn’t make sense to me. It doesn’t just disagree with what is cataloged in Genesis. It disagrees with basic science. And that is fine if people want to put their trust in something like that.
But I just wanted to hear you say it was ok for me to believe what I believe.
OP=Original Post
Michael Plante
November 13, 2009 10:32 am at 10:32 am
Dave,
I am sorry I have returned, but your uncle’s comment has forced my hand. As a student of science, converted to the humanities I ended up with a broad range of knowledge (which helped my application to my current school… but I digress). I will now address your uncles comments, and I will restrain myself from insults or other ad hominem methods as I have respect for you and your family by extension.
First Don, on the misuses of terms…
Abiogenesis is not “life only comes from life” rather, it describes life emerging from non-life, and there is no real law of abiogenesis. Currently there are many attempts at describing the initial conditions for life, however the most popular are the primordial soup explanation and the deep sea vent theory. There are two ways in which researchers attempt to model these theories, the bottom up approach (which you were referring to when you took a horrendously inappropriate pot-shot at scientists) wherein one attempts to create similar conditions and thus find life from inorganic forward. There is also the top down approach where scientists reverse engineer simple cells in an attempt to find the most basic requirements for life. So far the bottom up research has come very close to what the top down look tells us is what is necessary for life (essentially a few amino acids short of creating life from chemical slurry). The research has been bolstered by finding chains of amino acids in nebulas, proving that “random” chemicals can come together even in horrendously uninhabitable conditions to produce basic building blocks for life. (Fun fact, nebulas in our galaxy have created the same amino acid that makes raspberries taste like… raspberries… the milky way tastes like fruit). So yes, while we have so far been unsuccessful in generating life from non-life it is accepted that this can and has occurred (I refer you to the anthropic principle for proof of occurrence… more on that later). Don, you claim that it shouldn’t be all that difficult to recreate these conditions… that statement is horribly misleading and completely inaccurate, it is very difficult to recreate those conditions… We understand how fusion works, it is simply hydrogen (or other simple gases)fusing with each other creating helium etc and letting off tremendous amounts of heat and light through the exothermic reaction, therefore it should be simple to recreate… Don, I am sure you understand how the hydrogen bomb works, it shouldn’t be all that difficult for you to make one by hand in your garage right? (See how ridiculous that sounds, you lack the expertise, much as scientists currently lack the expertise in abiogenesis). It is a horrible logical fallacy to assert that because it hasn’t been done it is impossible to do.
Now to the entropic argument… You are right, the law of entropy tells us that matter breaks down over time (until the heat death of the universe). This is true of living organisms as well, the matter that makes up those organisms breaks down over time (we oxidize/age and die). However, in the course of living organisms lives they compound their genetic map with that of another (reproduction). This requires energy and materials and eventually a new being replaces the old one. This material doesn’t just appear out of thin air, in sexual reproduction the material is quite literally added together to produce new offspring. That is what allows one organism to evolve, the species as a whole is changed generation to generation much like dogs have changed over time thanks to our doing, or plants have been altered via cross pollenation… new information is added and the new generation possesses a mutation that will continue if said mutation creates a sustainable (slightly adapted) organism. We can observe simple organisms with fast lifespans doing this under laboratory conditions, however we do not observe speciation in these entities as bacteria and viruses do not reproduce in a way that allows it. Nonetheless, the transitional forms for organisms that sexually reproduce can be seen, and the genetic map clearly shows common ancestry (which is always accepted when talking about dogs, cats, or even plants).
This brings me to your next point… asexual reproduction… yes it is efficient, however it is cloning, in most cases the offspring are literally a carbon copy of the parent, and as a result those organisms do not speciate, but rather undergo mutations (strains) however, as they cannot ever truly speciate they are prone to completely dying out due to an intolerable change. Sexual reproduction on the other hand has been the method for larger organisms to reproduce, and no it wasn’t lucky that a female happened to evolve at the same time, the mutation for sexual reproduction would have caused the entire next generation to change (and I am talking about a very simple organism like a worm when this change occurred). Asexual reproduction does not allow complex creatures to be sustainable… some insects if conditions are right can switch types allow for the species to survive (a neat trick to be sure). Some larger animals are capable of it (all of whom are egg-laying) and the generation that emerges from the egg are all male, and all incredibly sickly and barely capable of survival, this is another survival trick so that in the absence of males the animal gets one more attempt to mate even with its own offspring before dying out. Basically, asexual reproduction does not allow for large amounts of data (complex creatures) to successfully survive, male/female reproduction was a necessity, and some animals (mostly insects, but other ancient ones such as sharks) are capable of switching, or utilizing parthenogenesis if the circumstances require it.
We have observed adaptation and natural selection, we have seen the exact mechanics that evolution requires to work. Evolution is a scientific fact, the problem with most creationists is simply that they refuse to accept that the mechanics work… even though we have observed them working, they demand to see speciation in one generation which is definitionally impossible. When we present fossil records and transitional forms, this is often met with skepticism sometimes going far enough to assert that God is a charlatan who was planting bones to trick us…
In closing evolution (the actual theory) does not mandate the big bang theory, nor does it answer the question for the impetus to life itself. Rather it describes how living organisms change and adapt over time. Those who do not understand evolution tend to group the big bang/loop quantum gravity, abiogenesis and evolution together and call the whole thing “evolution” when in reality only the part describing that adaptation of living organisms is in fact evolution. My telephone game analogy was an apt one for describing evolution through adaptation, and I hope it helps describe the actual theory of evolution, not the amalgamation of scientific thoughts that you are asserting is evolution.
If you believe in an all powerful God, stating that evolution is impossible is stating that the all-powerful god can do all things, except create adaptable, sustainable, evolving organisms… which to me seems absurd. From a theological standpoint theistic evolutionists are consistent, they believe their god can do anything, and allow him to do so. Creationists who say evolution is impossible are doing a disservice to their god telling him what he can and cannot do.
-ASM
Andrew
November 14, 2009 11:25 pm at 11:25 pm
Addendum: Anthropic principle
This states that no matter how unlikely the conditions were to generate life, those conditions must have been as life was generated.
This can be applied to other probabilistic events… my favorite analogy is a poker game. In any given poker game the cards coming out of the deck in the exact order that they do are astronomically high… imagine a game with 4 players each being dealt five cards, and an average of two more per person are dealt out (exchange). 28 total cards are dealt out amongst our four poker playing friends… you end up generating a probability sequence that suggests that the cards being dealt out in exactly that order is around 1 in 1×10^20, basically that card game is statistically impossible. However, it just happened, the anthropic principle, essentially no matter how unlikely an event is looking prospectively, retrospectively after an unlikely event it clearly occurred, therefore it is possible.
Another fun thing to do is to think of all of the times you have rolled a dice, and put the numbers you have rolled in order throughout your whole life, to find out how likely that was you would simply take 6×6^ so for most western adults 6×6^200+. However those numbers were in fact rolled in that exact sequence.
Andrew
November 14, 2009 11:36 pm at 11:36 pm
I forgot this would attempt to adapt things in certain types of brackets into coding and as such not display them, where it says “simply take 6×6^ so” it should say 6×6^x where x is how many times the dice was rolled throughout your life.
Andrew
November 14, 2009 11:39 pm at 11:39 pm
Andrew,
Are the fruit flies no longer fruit flies? When does the fruit fly becomes something not a fruit fly? When it does I will believe in evolution, but until then its simply playing with genetics. Nothing more.
“This material doesn’t just appear out of thin air, in sexual reproduction the material is quite literally added together to produce new offspring.” This cancels evolution. If it is added together, from what third party is the new information coming from?
Michael Plante
November 16, 2009 10:53 am at 10:53 am
Michael, that does not “cancel” evolution. The gamete created via sexual reproduction uses parts of both parents genetic information, when you combine and disregard you can end up with changes to the dna based on a mutated combination. You are splicing (naturally) partial code from each parent, one alteration can have large repercussions. The “new” information comes from the combination of partial strings changing the code. This can mean the child has a small deviation (blue eyes) a larger one (genetic disorder), or in some cases a massive disorder that causes death in utero, or a massive change to the living being.
And “playing with genetics” is evolution, the concept is quite literally minor change after minor change up until the being in question is altered completely. Don’t just look at fruit flies, look at all flies. They are all from the same common ancestor group, each one going through minor changes compounding with each other to become, fruit flies, deer flies, horse flies, house flies etc. Its basic biology, family, genus species etc. The tree continues to expand, there is common ancestry. To accept the minor is to accept evolution, to argue otherwise is showing a lack of understanding of the robust theory. Like I said, think of it like the phone game, we only live long enough to see so many changes, however when the game is played with billions of children over thousands and thousands of years… you get the idea. You are arguing that you accept that the sun can rise and set once, but not twice, three times, four… etc. You are willing to accept the individual footsteps but not the path they create.
It is clear that you are unwilling to accept it out of some literal adoption of scripture, so I would like the change the argument from evolution (on which there is clearly mixed expertise) to biblical literalism and the biblical conflicts (if any) with evolution.
If you are a biblical literalist do you eat shellfish, stone men with long hair? etc… if not I would like to hear an explanation of your exact stance on accepting one book as literal and not others.
Also why accept that god can create all species, but not accept that god is capable of producing the circumstances that gave rise to life, that can then adapt as per the theory of evolution? Why is god incapable of creating sustainable, evolving, adaptable life, and creating the chemical slurry that gave rise to it?
Andrew
November 16, 2009 1:19 pm at 1:19 pm
Shellfish? Really? That is explained in Acts 10.
Stoning, Jesus said this to the men who presented him the prostitute, Whoever has not sinned cast the first stone.
So back to the actual argument:
Documentation of animals and their ancestry has been taking place since lets say as short a time as the past 20 years, with such short lifespans as the fruit fly has or flies in general could it not be postulated that we would have seen a new species from one of them by now? How much time do you need?
Its not that I don’t accept what God can do. Its that I don’t see that God would have done this. God, in the bible, created the world in six days. He was done and saw that the world was good and that man was very good. What changed on the eight day? Nothing. He had set life in motion. What else was there to create? On the sixth day He began creating relationship with man. Nothing more.
Michael Plante
November 16, 2009 1:56 pm at 1:56 pm
Fruit flies have been studied closely for over 100 years. Roughly 3500 generations of fruit flies. Its still a fruit fly.
Michael Plante
November 16, 2009 3:48 pm at 3:48 pm
Then I ask you, if god was done and evolution cannot occur, where did new species of plants come from (ones that were previously cross pollinated and now are completely different from their former selves). How exactly are we able to breed and observe changes in modern animals? My point is still valid and is something you have never addressed: You accept the individual steps (you accept small genetic variation from generation to generation) but you refuse to accept the path. When we are talking minute and tiny changes slowly compiling the time for a new species to emerge is huge, thousands of generations. I previously mentioned an article talking about the evolution that man has gone through, the loss of muscle, the increase in brain size, the change in physique, capability, stature etc. It has happened to such an extent that they are different species, members of the same genus, but different species over time. When I previously mentioned this you refused to accept it because looking at fossil evidence isn’t enough (although it is enough to make you accept dinosaurs… curious idiosyncrasy).
Finally onto your fruit fly point, do you realize that there have been new species of fruit flies observed? This has been done, we have observed large enough changes to warrant new species of them. I say fruit fly, but in reality in the relatively small niche of “fruit flies” (melanogaster), there are 9 distinct species, with some of those being observed as new species of fruit fly.
We have observed speciation, we have seen it happen. Evolution is Speciation by means of natural selection. You seem to have no problem with natural selection, or unnatural selection (selective breeding by outsiders). So I would guess your last refuge is speciation itself, with this observed and trended (in FAR more than just fruit flies, several other insects, countless bacteria etc). And with a genetic map showing the links between modern species and their common ancestor (which in some cases still exists in a different environment than its progeny). Wherein lies the argument against evolution.
Speciation=accepted as matter of fact.
Natural Selection=accepted as matter of fact.
Speciation via natural selection=both matter of fact, and definitionally accepted.
And as for acts 10, please, you cannot be serious.
That passage refers to the upcoming meeting with Cornelius and has NOTHING to do with diet, it is an allegory explaining that you cannot consider anyone unclean that god has made clean. Even if they were previously unclean if god has accepted them and made them clean, so should you as a follower of god. That is what that passage means, the ancient christian commentary on scripture explains that, much like almost all other scholarly commentaries on acts (the literal interpretation is mentioned as well)**. In fact there are books remarking on the fact that while many christians (apparently including you) will only accept that story for what it isn’t (a dietary change in the new testament), they won’t accept it for what it is. A reminder that when the unclean come knocking, we should answer.
Finally, one more piece of allegory overlooked, the statement made by Jesus. That is meant to prevent judgment from man to man as all are sinners. However, it does not repeal overt biblical rules governing acceptable behavior. In fact, all those present that day must repent of their sins, or suffer the consequences.
But am I to take from your tone that you are in fact a biblical literalist? Do you accept that there are sins which can never be forgiven and therefore all of humanity is doomed to hell, irrevocably?
**Note, I realize that modern Christianity is built upon accepting acts 10 as nothing more than literal, but many profound Christian scholars have made an incredibly strong case for the allegorical meaning.
Andrew
November 16, 2009 4:05 pm at 4:05 pm
What you call steps are not steps at all. We’re getting lost in translation here. Dogs are still dogs. Fruit flies are fruit flies. Birds are birds. Owls are owls. On and on. You would then by using species this way call Aborigines different from Asians. And would say that one must be genetically superior to the other. As a Blue Heeler must be superior to a Shitzu. I hope this then answers your question about how I use these steps that are incorrectly attributed to evolution.
Furthermore, remember it was you who brought up the ethical issues that have nothing to do with the evolution conversation. I did not. If you want to play the scripture game that is fine. I will respond and hopefully that will be enough about the scriptures. If Acts 10 will not work, then use Mark 7:18b-20, and take it for what it is worth to you. As far as all doomed to hell, I refer personally to Romans 3:23-24, and I ask again to take it for what it is worth to you. I apologize for not being perfect in my response.
As I question the so called facts you have, you have reverted to using way off ideas in the bible that pertain in no way to evolution. I have an understanding that the old testament is mainly written as a historical book. Where the New Testament is written to draw us closer to God and to save our hearts. If we want to argue about matters of the heart then argue with God. I will live my way as you live yours. I will comment no further on scriptures or ethics. I believe I already addressed this November 4th. If you can’t keep it to science then we need to end this and agree to disagree.
Michael Plante
November 16, 2009 4:51 pm at 4:51 pm
Michael, game over… were done.
No the species argument does not make one group of humans different from another. There are genetic differences in humans, but we are all homo-sapiens.
quick biology lesson, homo-genus, sapien-species.
Fruit flies of different species look different, have different behaviors, cannot necessarily mate etc. Your first paragraph affirmed my suspicion, which is thus: your knowledge of biology and genetics could not fill a thimble. There is a large difference between species. That is the definition of species by the way, something that is taught in elementary school mind you…
You apparently do not think there is merit in this distinction (even though in many cases the differences are vast). You must realize that there are HUGE differences between species, hence the difference, in some cases the digestive system of these animals work in different ways, or they have different organs… It is a very very naive view to say sharks are sharks and only sharks. Sharks are a member of their family class to be sure, but there are many distinctions therein. But you have found something very damning to your own case. “Dogs are still dogs” points to something… a common ancestor. But we can if you want back up to the class level of biology, and then we end up with a new level of questions. For instance, all spiders are members of their family (clearly), they are also members of their class (arachnids). So would you assert that a spider is the same as a scorpion in the same way you would assert that a giant tarantula is the same as a common house spider?
For clarity these are both “fruit flies”
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6e/Euaresta_aequalis.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/22/Drosophila.jpg
they are drastically different in size, shape, diet, mating patterns, body structure, and components. They are both fruit flies, but different species incapable of mating. These are in fact steps, I have shown you this.
The problem we are having is that you apparently do not understand what is meant by species, and lack a knowledge of how large the overall taxonomic charts are. There are things which most people consider completely different that are still part of the same family or class, or species depending on the creature in question. Genetically they are still a member of the groups where they belong.
So again we end up with you obstructing facts with no purpose. I present them time and time again, and you either jam your fingers in your ears or rationalize them away (poorly).
You surely accept different species, you may try to deny it by saying “dogs are just dogs” but that statement is horrendously misleading. Dogs are members of the canine class, but there are substructures therein, wolves are members of the same class. Are wolves dogs, are scorpions spiders? is a tarantula a house spider? is the Aequalis fly the same as a Drosophila? No.
And as for you assertion that humans are the same (in terms of racial attributes) this further compounds your ignorance of the matter. All current humans are homo-sapiens. Same genus/species, we all possess close enough traits that there is not enough to speciate us. The only difference is one of melanin count, or incredibly slight bone structure changes. Aborigines do not possess a three foot tubed tongue, europeans do not have extra organs capable of processing different foods. These are the types of differences notable with actual speciation. In the case of dogs it is one of size, boneshape, survivable climates, etc. Without the assistance of man many dogs would not be able to live in their actual climate of residence.
I am once again done here, I have said my piece, but it is clear that there is a profound gap in expertise. I didn’t think it was possible for an adult to reject differences between species, much less assert that races of humans fit into different classifications (species). This is something that is covered in elementary school…
Andrew
November 16, 2009 6:25 pm at 6:25 pm
Andrew,
I am not as simple minded as you make me out to be. I am aware of mammals and reptiles. I was simply making a point. That as there are species it comes down to one thing: A fruit fly has been a fruit fly for the last hundred years. 3500 generations worth of fruit flies and its still a fruit fly. A fruit fly will always be that, a fruit fly. The only thing they have discovered in the different fruit flies is that there are less robust versions of their ancestry. You make it sound like I am comparing fruit flies to spiders. I was using analogies, you seem like a smart kid, you do know what analogies are right? When I was comparing the races and I said “You would then” I literally meant you, Andrew, that that is the way you have used it. If you want to call me a racist by all means make your assumptions. Remember you don’t know me, where I come from, or what I have been through and to do so is completely ignorant and absolutely insulting. With all the information you have making a simple argument to make your point seems to be a stretch. If evolution is the right answer it seems real hard to convince people or for that matter show real tangible evidence.
And this statment is where it should be at the end. We are done.
Michael
November 16, 2009 11:38 pm at 11:38 pm
I like how their are 34 (now 35) comments, three of which pertain to the original article written by you, Dave. You say one thing and suddenly a hailstorm of stones are cast this way and that. Ah, internet debate…
Interesting article by the way. I don’t think that it is necessarily the case that Christians need science to back up heterosexuality, but rather they don’t want science to back up homosexuality. I know that the latter can be assumed from the former, but it puts a damper on your “two horns” referred to in the article. It would seem that Christians (and I don’t want to included all Christians in this…there are some smart ones out there) dispense with science, or in broader terms, disagreeing arguements, becuase they are ‘human arguements’ challenging ‘God arguements’. Silly, I know.
Hope life is well in Chicago,
-Adam
R—
November 17, 2009 9:15 pm at 9:15 pm