Forums → WEPR → Evolution v. Creationism

The way they deconstruct the data is a fallacy, because they're not questioning the data the way you're saying they could. Yes, there are problems with evolution, and we have to constantly revise it, but let's see if creationists can catalouge an entire planet without any errors!

Perosonally, I am an evolutionist. Do you agree with me, or disagree and why?

A good book on this subject is The Science of God. It's written by an MIT physicist who says it's likely both creationism and evolution. He points out that most of the debates arise from the fact that both sides don't bother to really learn about the other. Anyone who wants to debate this, or any subject needs to learn about both sides of their debate objectively and get a thorough understanding of both.

I for one agree that creationists do tend to stick their heads into matters they have no educational background in but I stress they can do it in such a vague manner that it's really hard or almost impossible to prove that what they're saying is a fallacy.

To be fair, a lot of evolutionists don't know much about the Bible either.

There is also a distinct difference between a theory and a law. So please, just take the 10 seconds needed to verify statements like this before trying to play them off as actual information.

Much more than a God creating earth in 7 days...

Evolution is a theory which is no less plausible than Creationism.

Evolution does not answer all questions and that more and more problems point towards an intelligent creator.

The problem is, people look only at the positive evidence of Evolution and then only at the Negative evidence of Creationism.

And that is what I hate. When people believe that Evolution has the answer for everything.

For instance, remarks such as "Well, God must have started the Big Bang, and God is also responsable for all of those reasons!" seem to work since scientists can't seem prove there is no god.

The method of tenacity â" persisting in that which one is inclined to think.

The method of authority â" conformity to a source of ready-made beliefs.

The scientific method â" whereby inquiry actually tests itself and criticizes, corrects, and improves itself.

What kinds of questions are you thinking of? Nothing I've seen, heard, or read about points toward a creator; and I'm not alone in that - real scientists (and I say real as to differenciate them between creation scientists) stick with evolution because it actually makes sense.

Irreducible complexity is one of the better arguments; but it's also wrong.

The argument comes that biological components are irreducibly complex - the 'eye' is commonly an example used because without it being precisely the way it is, it could not function otherwise and would be pointless (much like the mousetrap).

There are however creatures that have evolved without eyes as they have no need for them. There are cave-dwelling or deep-sea animals that have no eyes - there's no light to interpret the information.

Additionally, we can tell through our studies of biology, that there are many different kinds of eyes. Some are better then others - our own eyes for example, are kind of rubbish when you compare them to that of an Eagle or an Owl. There are other creatures, take for example the Wolverine, that have terrible eyesight in comparison to our own.

From studies, we've found that there are many different kinds of eyes, at many different levels of sophistication. Did they just 'op' into existence, or is a more plausible explanation that they have developed differently for different species?

That's a hypothetical question by the way - it's entirely more plausible.


Something I thought quite accurate while reading "The God Delusion" - Richard Dawkins wrote this (along with a great amount more material on the subject of I.C.):

The logic turns out to be no more convincing than this: 'I [insert own name] am personally unable to think of any way in which [insert biological phenomenon] could have been built up step by step. Therefore it is irreducibly complex. That means it is designed.' Put it like that, and you immediately see that it is vulnerable to some scientist coming along and finding an intermediate; or at least imagining a plausible intermediate. Even if no scientists do come up with an explanation, it is plain bad logic to assume that 'design' will fare any better. The reasoning that underlies 'intelligent design' theory is lazy and defeatist - classic 'God of the Gaps' reasoning. I have previously dubbed it the Argument from Personal Incredulity.

Imagine that you are watching a really great magic trick. The celebrated conjuring duo Penn and Teller have a routine in which they simultaneously appear to shoot each other with pistols, and each appears to catch the bullet in his teeth. Elaborate precautions are taken to scratch identifying marks on the bullets before they are put in the guns, the whole procedure is witnessed at close range by volunteers from the audience who have experience of firearms, and apparently all possibilities for trickery are eliminated. Teller's marked bullet ends up in Penn's mouth and Penn's marked bullet ends up in Teller's. I [Richard Dawkins] am utterly unable to think of any way in which this could be a trick.

The Argument from Personal Incredulity screams from the depths of my prescientific brain centres, and almost compels me to say, 'It must be a miracle. There is no scientific explanation. It's got to be supernatural.' But the still small voice of scientific education speaks a different message. Penn and Teller are world-class illusionists. There is a perfectly good explanation. It is just that I am too naive, or too unobservant, or too unimaginative, to think of it. That is the proper response to a conjuring trick. It is also the proper response to a biological phenomenon that appears to be irreducibly complex. Those people who leap from personal bafflement at a natural phenomenon straight to a hasty invocation of the supernatural are no better than the fools who see a conjuror bending a spoon and leap to the conclusion that it is 'aranormal'.

I'm a Evolutionist and I'm Catholic I'm pretty open minded and both ideas have floors in them but evolution makes to most sense to me.

Which gets onto the argument I put up previously - this is all creationism does: feebly try to disprove evolution or other scientific theories, without actually putting up any genuine proof of it's own for the existence of a creator, and then *assume* that if you're capable of proving evolution wrong, that creationism is the best answer; and it just isn't.

But aren't all conflicting scientific theories as such? Each trying to disprove the other so that they can be the most accepted?

And really, isn't it Science which is trying to prove Creationism wrong since creationism came first?

For example, if someone were to remove the mitochondria from a cell, it would die as it would be unable to produce chemical energy for itself.

And, before you say anything else, cells are way too complex for them to have come together by random means.

So then how did cells come about? Does not even this small example point towards an intelligent creator?

Irreducible complexity is one of the better arguments; but it's also wrong.

Also, though cells could not have come about gradually, we have found that it could have been possible for ammino acids to have come together in a pottassium-rich stone that has layers, giving shelter and nutrients to early life. It would have been an unbelievable stroke of luck, but other planets with liquid water don't appear to have life, so our planet was the "lucky" one. Or unlucky, depending how you look at it... not like a planet can be lucky .

Also, though cells could not have come about gradually