One thing I cannot stand, is when someone tries to act so 'scientific' and 'intelligent' by saying "I believe in evolution because it can be proven". False statement right there, and you have already lost my ears on trying to hear your side of the subject.
What other options are there? This debate thread was 'Evolution or Creation' which I believe represent the two sides of the debate.
@Moegreche
I don't see any false dichotomy. I see someone with a PHD in biology making a statement that science has disapproved evolution and that he still rejects it due to 'not wanting to except the fact that God created everything'
The Miller-Urey experiment used the chemicals thought to be present in the Earth's atmosphere a few billion years ago and simulated lightning to form amino acids. This experiment has undergone criticism though, because the amount of lighting used in the experiment did not reasonably replicate the conditions of Earth at that time. Apparently, scientists left some ammonia and cyanide in Antarctica and amino acids and other nucleobases formed in like 20 years. Amino acids have also been found on meteors that have landed on earth - suggesting that they can survive in space! I didn't see any refutations of these last few experiments, although I'm quite sure some exist; I didn't really spend that much time looking for evidence, though.
Way to own, Dan, good job finding that Pasteur comment. In reality, that is what it comes down to though - you do not want to believe in God because you want to live life the way you want to, with no higher authority to have to submit yourself to one day.
I think it clearly is a false dichotomy - just because he's a biology professor doesn't mean he knows the first thing about logical fallacies. If he's a PhD then it seems he should have understood the difference between spontaneous generation and the formation of amino acids. Those are two very different routes. If he's referring to Pasteur disproving spontaneous generation, then he clearly did not understand what aspect of spontaneous generation Pasteur disproved, or he was simply not aware of these other routes to life.
I believe that science, time and new discoveries have done more to disapprove Evolution than they have to strengthen its case.
Also, a very interesting fact that some people don't know, is Charles Darwin's book 'On the Origin of Species' is missing over 1/2 it's title.
The real title to his book is 'On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life' which has clear undertones to Micro-Evolution. (Not Macro)
And Micro-Evolution is something I agree with, and has been scientifically proven.
Some people adhere to that view and they are called 'Creation Evolutionist', but it still falls under the 'Creation' category since the initial 'spark of life' was caused by something outside of science.
Again, the false dichotomy comes into play in the way the biologist used the example of Pasteur to say that he disproved spontaneous generation. Pasteur only disproved that large animals can't be spontaneously generated - not that some form of biological organism can't be created from non-living substances. But it doesn't really matter whether it's a false dichotomy or not, my point is that we have explanations for the origins of life that are not God and they have more scientific evidence supporting them than god does. Furthermore, I'm not really getting the micro-evolution implication of Darwin's book. I mean, the term microevolution does not really appear until about 100 years after Origin so clearly this is not what Darwin meant by the title.
Also, I've met several people who accept micro but not macroevolution. They seem to imply one another to me, so I don't really how that view can be held. I know you're very intelligent and have some good reasons to accept one without the other, so perhaps you can enlighten me.
When you all argue, creation vs. spontaneous generation what is the definition of those? Yes, we could have been created by god, but what is god, do you see him as a person, a spirit, nature? No one on earth knows what god is. So lets say we were created by "god" , if god is not a person, but a spirit, or essence of nature (it really doesn't matter, its something that created nature and controls it), its almost the same thing as saying we were spontaneously generated. I don't see why it matters what you call it, we got here some how, but we probably will not know how for a very long time, only possibly after death may we find out how all of this came to be.
I am an engineering student and I study tons of science, physics, etc. I see science as humans being clever enough to notice patters within the world that was created by "god". So just because someone believes in science does not mean that they do not believe in god. God created something magnificent (whoever, or whatever god is) and its complexity can be described by certain laws. Everything that is created is made by blue prints, laws, and rules, and our world is included. Evolution is another pattern we noticed. Does god come down and edit his work everytime something happens? No, because he /she/it was clever enough to create a system that would sustain living things, by enabling us to adapt and survive whatever comes our way (natural selection, etc.) But why would he do this, if he could have created whatever he wanted? I dont know, and there are too many complexities to both arguments.
I am not going to make any decisions to be completely against evolution or completely against creation. I don't see why I need to, both side of the argument are way too vague and uninformed to completely chose one side. I am gathering information as I live, admiring the beauty and complexity of what was given to us, no matter how it was given.
