The Evidence of Evolution

praetor605,

first, when you lack forceful argument, don resort to you pathetic: "what is it you don't understand"? Or the benignly condescending: "You should read" etc. That only makes you seem ridiculous. In other words, please try to understand that you are debating at newsvine on equal terms: you are not here to dispense your "Word".

I will come back on the rest later

I was going to respond to this but I see rminkler took the words right out of my mouth. It is not the evidence we have a problem with, it is the interpretation of that evidence. As rminkler said, the fact that our genes are so similar can actually be used to show that it is more likely that there was a creator. After all, wouldnt a creator use the same blueprint, instead of starting over from scratch every time? This makes perfect sense to me.

Secondly, as I have noted elsewhere, evolution and origins are two entirely different things. Evolutionary theory does not speak about origins.Even if evolution were proved beyond a shadow of a doubt, this still does not prove the non existence of God. Why? Because God could have created the circumstances and environment in which life could flourish and then program in the ability to evolve to the surroundings life finds itself in. That is a beautiful concept if you ask me. Just as in other areas of life, such as politics, things are not always as black and white as people want to make it seem. Just as people complain about Bush saying "You are either with us or against us". Well that is what evolution wants to say. "You either believe our interpretation of the evidence of you are against science" Well, it's not that simple. I believe in evolution, but I believe God created evolution. Can that be proven with science? Of course not. But it can't be falsified either. And as someone said, if something can not be falsified then according to Popper, it is not the proper realm of science. Science needs to recognize this fact and stop trying to make it seem like their theories preclude God because they don't and were not meant to. Even Darwin believed in God. Science may explain the how of things, but it can never explain the why and the who. In my mind, a creator is still needed, unless as I said before you want to say that the multi-verse itself is eternal. But if the multi-verse were eternal, with no beginning, then we would have infinite number of universes now. In the end, all I'm saying is that even with science there is still plenty of room for a belief in God. Read about the history of science, if you don't believe me. Some of the most important scientists in history were themselves firm believers in God. As a matter of fact, some of the greatest scientists in history were catholic priests. Gregor Mendel comes to mind. He obviously believed in inheritance and the like, but he also believed in God.

Similar to Dreamweavr, I also believe in evolution as well as some higher power. I am totally opposed to organized religion, the idea of an omnipotent, loving god who created man in his image, etc, but where did the elements involved in the Big Bang come from? I think my views are drastically different than rminkler or Dream's, and I agree with almost everything you have said, praetor, but how would you answer my above question about the Big Bang?

I feel like this is a situation where the tactics normally employed by a curious toddler would be a completely valid argument: where did [insert item] come from? It came from [parent item/process]. Ok, where did that come from? And so on and so on. At some point there must be a beginning. I may be getting off topic here but that is the reason I could never quite justify outright atheism to myself. Praetor, what do you see as the absolute beginning?

If I may interject, I think it's important to note that Praetor's argument does not imply that there is anything wrong with religious faith. He's not trying to suppress it in the interest of any agenda or anything like that - he simply means to say that you can't incorporate God into a Scientific Theory, for reasons well-outlined.

But Mykola, he has said that God is not needed period, or implying that evolution proves that a God is not needed. This is where I disagree. I'm not saying he has an agenda either way. I 'm just trying to show people that religious faith and science can peacefully coexist. I would say the same thing to anyone who wrote a post saying that evolution is a lie and that God created the universe in 7 days.

Sure, they can coexist peacefully - but the theory of evolution works just as well with or without the presence of God. He's not claiming that Darwin made God obsolete - just that, since you cannot perform any experiments with God, you can't use him in a scientific theory. You can still use him in your life, in your own personal belief structure - you can even integrate religion and science into your complete picture of The Way Things Are. The only caveat is that you cannot use God in your scientific explanation. Does that make sense?

No it doesnt make sense for those of us who believe that God is the author of science. Science should stop making judgements either way about the existence of God and all would be fine.

@Praetor65:

We can debate the "origins" of life (there is no scientific consensus) but the bottom line is that the molecules readily found on early earth and the laws that govern how they interact can explain the gradual formation of life

What are you saying here? I found the rest of the article very interesting and eloquent, though didn't really read anything I haven't already heard, but this part confuses me. It sounds to me like it's saying: "There is no scientific consensus but the bottom line is that it works this way," essentially.

Could you maybe clarify how you feel this issue stands in the scientific community? I understand being the "strict atheist" that you are, what you think we'll eventually show, but what information is there now? Last I heard, we haven't been able to recreate life springing up in a lab, but have a general idea of how molecules may have joined up into the biological soup that eventually gave rise to a cell.

I think it's been stated before, but Praetor's comments don't specifically exclude or try to disprove the existence of God. Science and God/higher power can coexist -- the issue with most people is that science can not specifically include God in a hypothesis. God has no scientific basis (I won't go into this but Praetor explains this well, I think); therefore God cannot be factored into a scientific hypothesis/theory. This exclusion from a hypothesis/theory does not mean God isn't there; it simply means his existence is not neccessary for the theory to hold. Who knows, perhaps God did initiate the Big Bang or whatever phenomenon that led to the universe as we know it. Whether he did or didn't should probably be a matter of faith, not science (at least at this point in time -- if science were to advance to a point where God became somehow grounded in the basis of science (i.e. measureable somehow), then all discussion about God could change dramatically).

I can't believe the statements that people are making indicating Praetor is "close-minded." I find Praetor to be very open-minded for a self-described aetheist, and I applaud the effort to educate others as neutrally as possible. An open-minded person would see that there is plenty of space to interpret your own thoughts, beliefs, and faith within the context that evolution and science provides.

Dream, science isn't making judgements about the existence of god in this case. What Mykola, and I think praetor are trying to say is just that this piece of theory does not include god directly. Continuing my earlier attempt at conveying my personal viewpoint, I see "god" as the starting point and evolution as an ongoing segment of the overall timeline of existence. God is midnight and evolution is 2:30 a.m. to the present (or something). Since evolution is only concerned with 2:30 on, god is excluded from the equation, but without making a statement about its (god's) existence and/or role one way or the other.

All I'm saying is that if Praetor wants to be an atheist that is fine, but that he can not use science to show why he is an atheist. If God can not be factored into a scientific theory, then leave him out altogether. If you want to be an atheist you have to use philosophy and metaphysics for that, not science. You keep saying that science does not preclude God, ok, if you believe that, as I do, then stop trying to make it seem as if it does.

I can explain the theory of wind and the weather without having to bring in the concept of nuclear physics, but that does not mean that nuclear physics does not exist.

Japhiah, I agree wholeheartedly with you, but Praetor and others do try to use science to show that a God is not needed for origins. If he and you admit that science says nothing about it, then he shouldnt use science to back up atheistic beliefs. That is the realm of philosophy and metaphysics.

We can debate the "origins" of life (there is no scientific consensus) but the bottom line is that the molecules readily found on early earth and the laws that govern how they interact can explain the gradual formation of life

We arent just talking about the origins of life, we are talking about the origins of everything. Where did those molecules comes from? Atoms? Where did they come from? Electrons, neutrons, and protons? Where did they come from? Energy? Ultimately you have to ask where it all came from? The essential building block of life and everything, energy.

Dreamweaver: nobody here disagrees with you.

Good, but I wonder if praetor does, I would like to know how he came to his atheistic beliefs, because if he says science, I can rip that apart. If science says nothing about God as he and you guys have said, and I agree, then you can't have it both ways. Either it says something about God or it doesn't. If it doesn't then you can't use science to validate atheism.

nicking writes:

I think it's been stated before, but Praetor's comments don't specifically exclude or try to disprove the existence of God.

Yes, it has been stated before (thank you for noting that). I also want to say that praetor605 has shown a great deal of openness. He has, in no way inferred that because science is independent of God it therefore shows God does not exist. As a matter of fact, he's said the complete opposite (one of the many things that made this post appeal to me so much in the first place):

Finally, evolution does not interfere with the belief in a higher power.

At the risk of being accused of leaping to his defense again (heaven forbid more than two people be involved in a Newsvine discussion!), he has shown a great deal of openness toward discussion which, to me, has not been fairly focused on the topic of his post: the science of evolution. There's been some extended discussion which strikes me as much more philosophical than hard science so far. Further, this appears to me as looking for causation in the mechanism of action. Of course, mechanisms may give hints at causation, but they don't necessarily given any hard facts of it.

I, for one, have not taken Praetor605's self-described atheism to indicated he has any bias toward or against religion any more than I do, and I'm a Protestant Christian [Okay, so maybe I don't capitalize atheism like I do Christian, but you get the idea ;)]. We can debate the meta or spiritual all day long, but to praetor605's credit he left any assumptions to that end out of his post.

Dreamweavr, I disagree with your last statement, at least partly.

I think a person can use whatever they feel is neccessary to develop their belief system. If looking at the world scientifically leads Praetor to atheistic beliefs, then so be it. It might be a matter of someone uses logic to guide the way they view life and the world. Science is pretty darn logical, so then science would help shape a belief system that might lead someone to belive that God doesn't have to exist. Certain people will take this and conclude that if God isn't neccessary, then God isn't there. That's a belief -- beliefs are personal in nature, and you can use whatever you like to validate your beliefs.

Praetor: thanks for your hard work, this is gonna become the go-to point for all such discussion on newsvine.

I agree with a lot of what you all say, it is only a matter of what may seem small minor details. I also know quite a bit about science, I am trained in nuclear physics/nuclear energy. All I am saying and this is all I am saying is that if one can admit that evolution says nothing about God then they can not use evolution to prove God's existence or lack of existence. Evolution says nothing about it, that statement means what it says. You have to look elsewhere, philosophy, to come to conclusions about that.

Now you mentioned that your scientific way of looking at things, is what lead you to believe there is no God. Now that I could agree with a little more. I, myself, am not necessarily a theist. I consider myself an agnostic deist. I'm not sure if there is a God, and I really believe that without ultimate knowledge, agnosticism is the only intellectually honest way to live. But I call myself a deist as well, because if there is a God, I don't believe he is anything like the God of the Bible. I don't believe that he created the universe in 7 literal days and/or that the universe is only 60000 years old. I have my doubts about millions and millions of years old,but it is definitely much older than a few thousand. I like to cast my lot with the likes of Thomas Paine. I highly suggest reading his "Age of Reason" Great, fantastic read.

Some of my favorite quotes from that book are thus:

I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish Church, by the Roman Church, by the Greek Church, by the Turkish Church, by the Protestant Church, nor by any Church that I know of. My own mind is my own Church. [

t is necessary to the happiness of man that he be mentally faithful to himself. Infidelity does not consist in believing, or in disbelieving; it consists in professing to believe what one does not believe. It is impossible to calculate the moral mischief, if I may so express it, that mental lying has produced in society. When man has so far corrupted and prostituted the chastity of his mind, as to subscribe his professional belief to things he does not believe, he has prepared himself for the commission of every other crime.

...Thomas did not believe the resurrection [John 20:25], and, as they say, would not believe without having ocular and manual demonstration himself. So neither will I, and the reason is equally as good for me, and for every other person, as for Thomas.

As a matter of fact, I think I will write my own post on Thom Paine, but I can't leave without my all time favorite Paine "Age of Reason" quote.

The story of the whale swallowing Jonah, though a whale is large enough to do it, borders greatly on the marvelous; but it would have approached nearer to the idea of a miracle if Jonah had swallowed the whale.

Excellent work praetor605, both in your article and comments. This is an excellent resource.

I'd suggest a small correction to the original post. Stating that evolution of man thought [sic] the millions of years following our break from the chimps and bonobos could be interpreted as humans evolving from apes. I've found that this concept of man from monkey is problematic for many people. Humans and modern apes had a common ancestor, which is a wholly-different concept.

The only conclusion that Servetus and I agree upon is concerning the essential point of the present Evolution vs. Design debate. Does evolution make me settle for a God who is at the antipodes of the Biblical God? Not just evolution, but many, many things that are observable in this natural world. There is no debate between evolution and ID because science is a process and design is a foregone conclusion.

@dreamweavr72
Regarding your second-to-last comment, when you asked "how he came to his atheistic beliefs", one can assume that he did so in exactly the same way you came to your agnostic deist beliefs, and I came to my beliefs, and x person came to x beliefs, through socialization and cultural influences. Also, I do not believe that praetor605 was using this to validate his atheism to all of us, he is merely saying that that the ToE allows for the non-existence of a deity, not that it proves the non-existence of a deity. The ToE gives an individual the choice between being a non-believer, and a believer, albeit a believer of a world where the bible is not historical fact (which you seem to agree with, as stated above). As an aside, I do not mean to speak directly for praetor, nor do I mean to "talk down" to dream (if any of my wording seems that way).