Evolution - Warning: post contains scientific opinion!

This is a huge topic and I wouldn’t even begin to think that we could cover the whole thing on this humble little webpage but perhaps sharing our ideas about the Evolution debate would be interesting. Note that what follows is my opinion and I welcome criticism to it.

I was watching a documentary in my philosophy lesson today about some fossils found in kenya which experts believe are fossils of common ancestors of humans and apes, dated 6 million years ago. The program went on to explain the evidence for it etc. but a few things struck me. Firstly how all the scientists on that program didn’t even consider the fact that evolution may not be true, it was just blatant fact, in the same way that the earth revolves around the sun is fact or that gravity exists. Why then, do some people accept what the scientists say about gravitational theory because it does not conflict with their beliefs, but they will not accept the evidence for evolution because it does conflict with their beliefs?

The evidence for evolution is pretty much solid. Natural selection can and has been observed many times since Darwin first put forward his theory and since then, an overwhelming amount of evidence has been discovered which supports the theory. On what basis then, does a theist, who is not an expert in the field of paleontology or evolutionary theory, say that evolution is “just a theory” and as acceptable as the Creation story which has no scientific evidence and only one flimsy documentary “evidence” contained within the Bible.

How can a theist justify the Creation story as a valid explanation for the world when he will rubbish evolution theory because it is not proven. Ok, so evolution isn’t proven in the way that 2+2=4 can be proven, but then NO science can be proven but that doesn’t stop you accepting that the benzene ring contains a resonating loop of electrons. You have never observed it but yet you accept it without question because it does not conflict with your beliefs.

Evolution does not disprove God, and when someone advocates evolution, they are not attempting to disprove God. That is the difference between a scientist and a theist. A scientist is out to find the truth about the universe while the theist is trying to fit in new discoveries with an already established set of rules which themselves have no scientific or historical evidence but rather are based on an irrational belief system.

My aim is not to rubbish religion because just as there is no evidence for God, there is no evidence for not God and so I would not be so bold (at this point) as to say there is no God. But our lives are dominated by science and we accept things far more dubitable than evolution theory without even batting an eyelid. Why then, has evolution become such huge issue among theists that in some states in America, Creation and Evolution are being taught as equally acceptable theories in school. It makes a mockery of all the scientific work that has been done on evolution and is spitting in the face of logic, reason and rationality which dominate our lives.

Evolution, for me, is an inescapable fact. It happened. Just as the world is round, we have evolved from a common ancestor through the process of natural selection. I find that a lot of the arguments against evolution come from a misunderstanding of it’s implications and the mechanistics of how it works. Theist propaganda will attempt to give scientific evidence against evolution including missing links in the geological column etc. all of which can and have been answered many times over. If you do not believe then feel free to put forward an argument which you feel totally disproves evolution theory. If then, you wish to join in the scientific debate then I would ask you to put forward one shred of evidence to support the story of Creation.

So, I open up the debate for opinion, criticism and scientific evidence…enjoy!

The situation in America is even worse than you stated, Ben. In two states (Kansas and Arkansas, I believe) it is ILLEGAL to teach evolutionary theories in schools, which is completely ludicrous.

I’ve not got a lot more to say because I effectively agree with Ben’s views. However I have heard from some Christians that they see the whole “and God created the world…” thang as symbolism for the stages of evolution, which sounds fair to me I suppose. As for full on fundamentalist creationists, I haven’t the foggiest. Anhow I’m just speculating so I’ll leave it for someone religious to face that almighty post

i see no problem as the 6 day creation thing as an explanation for it. 2000 years ago nobody had concieved the idea of evolution, so explaining it in simple terms is perfectly accetable.

i think it is degrading to holy books to search for scientific truths in them. even if i did believe that a particular holy book (say, the bible e.g.) was 100% true from start to finish, i think it would still be wrong to expect a scientific theory in a work which is concerned with religious truths - ethical and spiritual considerations.

so basically we shouldn’t look for science in the Creation story but rather for something which will teach us about how to live our lives or help us to view the world in a different way.

I think there are many problems with evolution and I think almost certainly the current theory will change, the distinction which Ben made is important. When we talk of evolution we are encompassing two different ideas, one is of natural selection (survivaly of the fittest) and the other is the idea that one organism evoloved out of another.
Ben talks of evolution not disproving God, I wonder… the age old question when exactly then do we EVOLVE a soul ?!

Ben…you by any chance have an example of a rational belief system ?!

History teaches us that we should take nothing for granted- therefore I ought to treat both evolution and creation theories with equal scepticism until somebody shows me incontrovertible proof of one or the other.

However, I believe it’s wrong to take any documentary evidence to be literal fact- especially when there were no primary sources (i.e. witnesses) to the Creation- therefore how can people blindly accept any Biblical account?

Also- as to ‘when did we ‘evolve’ a soul?’, the whole point about the process, as far as I can tell, was that it took place gradually over millenia.
So it’s pointless to try and pinpoint a period of change as if it were a single event.
I assume when you refer to ‘soul’, you really mean consciousness? (controversial!)

I don’t understand how you can possibly treat evolution and creation with equal skepticism. Evolution is based on scientific theory, scientific knowledge and scientific evidence. When Darwin put forward his theory, which has come a long way since then, he did not have a hidden agenda. He didn’t go to the Galapagos islands to prove evolution, he had a look at the overwhelming evidence presented to him and then formulated the theory that best fit the evidence.

The creationst, on the other hand, has a hidden agenda. He has been told by the Bible, a non-historical, innaccurate text written thousands of years ago when they thought that rain was sent by God, that the world was created in 7 days. The Creationist now MUST prove that this is true or his religion falls to bits. There is no scientific evidence for Creation just “attacks on evolution”. If i put forward the Purple-headed Salamander theory in which a big salamander vomitted up the Universe are you going to take that with equal skepticism as evolution because it’s “another theory”.

You would be crazy to do this and no-one is going to take you seriously if you are going to rubbish science by saying it has equal validity to religious texts. What about other religions who have conflicting stories about the creation of the Universe, why is the 7 day story more true than that? Fact is, all religious stories are total fabrication and it is time we face facts and move on. We’re living in the past because religious believers refuse to accept they are wrong.

In answer to the question, “where does the soul come from?” the simple answer is, there is no such thing as a soul. As much as it fills you with angst and despair that you don’t have an immortal soul within you, there is no biological evidence for it and why should there be? If you want to say it comes from God, when does God put it in you? Does it zap down from above when you are born? Or perhaps it’s contained within the sperm?

Where is the evidence for a soul? Conciousness is the closest thing to a soul we have. It has not yet been fully explained because we don’t fully understand it.

‘He has been told by the Bible, a non-historical, innaccurate text written thousands of years ago when they thought that rain was sent by God, that the world was created in 7 days’
please point out these inaccuracies ben? specific examples? because everytime you say something like this you never ever back it up and you never ever read the bible when i reply.

personally i am a creationist, but i do believe that it has no effect on the christian faith whether or not the world evolved or whether God literally made it in 6 days… however if it did evolve God was the cause behind the big bang… (what was there before the big bang for those of you atheists?)…

my reason for being a creationist is the lack of missing links so to speak… there may be the odd one heard and there but then whose to say that they arnt just freaks… just like the elephant man??? would he be considered a missing link if he was dug up in 1000 years time? (maybe a poor example but worth thinking about). Fair enough there is diversity within a species, an adapting to suit particualar surroundings but some changes that would have to occur for a species to change into another just arnt possible in my view. take for example our anncestors… these are originally tree dwelling creatures… now for this they walked on all fours and had an arched back, no when they decided to come down from the trees… they would be picked off easily by prediators and eaten… so consequently no advantage, hence does not comply with natural selection, further, if by some chance they did come down from the trees and move to the plains… it would not be an advantage to walk upright… firstly it would cause great back pain, secondally it would make them more visible to preditors… although they would also be able to see them earlier, their leg muscles would not be sufficiently developed to run away fast enough. Also being crouched over in the long grass provides more cover and protection than standing upright! this is just one example.

another would be the hypothalomus in the fore brain just above the pituitary body. Now life could not survive without this… so when did this vital thing evolve? as without it the body would die before reproductive age. also say the body evolved without it in a simpler form… it can not predict that is might be a benefit in the future so it wouldnt evolve it and if it NEEDED it in the first place, it would die straight away… (i spose chicken or egg syndrome but bit more complex)

this can be taken way back to the original stages of evolution. when did the ‘fish’ (use it guardedly) decided to move out of the sea… why would it be a benefit? did they come out of the water without being able to breath Oxygen? or did they predict the future and forsee that they would indeed be leaving the water soon so must get there lungs ready??? ok, say a being had both gills and lungs? wheres the benefit in that? the very amount of tubes and space needed to support both would slow a fish down and mean it would be eaten easily… also… did the fish predict that it might indeed be a benefit in the future to have both?? also, the time scale needed for working lungs to evolve is enormous, it is not possible that is would be a benefit… it would hinder any being developing them!

right i will stop there for now, it is late… but there are so many examples where natural selection does not fit! simply so many things would not be beneficial without the full being being formed.

(ben this is biology i know… but when philosophers attempt this it bugs me as you/they generally dont have a grasp of biology… i know you may say neither do i, but at least i have looked at the supposed fatcs and made up my own mind, whereas you havent!)

oh and a couple more things… i think that evolution takes sooo much more faith than creation… the implications and necessary conditions for it to all run smoothly and actually work have so little chance that it takes so much more faith to believe every condition was right purely by chance. But the belief that it was all planned actually makes much more sense taking into account the necessary conditions… say for example, the big bang did not result in carbon being formed… nothing would exist!

i am sure them chemists out there can appreciate how the conditions for a reaction have to be right in order for the out come to work as you wish it to, and this is only a lab experiment… now imagine the universe!

now, for me it makes so much more sense that creation happened, further, for a scientific ‘proof’ there is very little science involved much more philosophy and then scientists clutching at what ever straws lie around!

either way you can argue that there is no conclusive proof, but even if evolution did happen there must have been something before and someone to mkae sure everything was right. eg. if the earth was any closer to the sun it would be to hot for life to survive and/start, or if it was any further away it would be to cold for life to survive… (all to do with enzymes and cell division - biology again!)… so the positioning of the earth relative to the sun is pure chance?

one more thing that i would like to open up to debate… do you think that people are intent on looking for other answers than God and trying to ‘disprove’ his existance because they are scared of being subject to him, they dont want to be controlled? the idea of eternity scares them? they want to get rid of God so that they dont need to justify what they are doing wrong? i believe that many people are trying to disprove God because they are actually frightened of the idea he exists, i am not saying whether he does or not… but the mere idea that he does scares people and the way so many people have faith in him scares those that dont know him???

anyway thoughts please, not abuse!

Whilst most of the examples you’ve used, Daniel, are rather random and in my eyes don’t make evolution any less likely, I’m a biology dunce so I won’t pretend to know what I’m talking about.

Perhaps a rather obvious point here, but one that I feel has been rather overlooked. Creationists - if God just created humans and BAM, there they were on Earth, why is there archaeological evidence of beings in various stages of ape → man all over the shop?

there arnt… dont know what you have been reading? but there are about two examples… many time people have faked them but there are very few ‘all over the shop’ and i addressed this in my original post… they could be freaks or something… further i also said that there is development within a species, eg black and white… changing surroundings… however i am not agreeing with coming from apes in any form what so ever!

also, the examples i picked are because they are part of the ones we have looked at in biology… but as i said, almost any can find a fault…

thankyou for the oppurtunity to repeat myself!

basically, if any of you were interested in believing in creation there is enough anti evolution evidence to support that claim, similarly if i actually wanted to be an atheist there is anough pro evolution material to give a half decent claim… but it is all subjective, no-one will change based on this disscussion, everyone has pre-conceptions and is arrogant enough to think that they are right and no-one else view is valid! the fact is neither side can prove their existance although both would say that they have proof and that the others are fools for believing what they do!

the only thing i dont get is why atheists persist in trying to stop believers believing? surely, they shouldnt be bothered either way, i mean if the believers want to waste their life… all the more fun for the atheist!

it comes back to what i was saying before that the atheist is trying to convince themselves that God doesnt exist, to make themselves feel better! (whether he does or doesnt is neither here nor there… they still need to convince themselves he’s not)… thats why they argue, and thats why when a true atheist they dont actually listen to any arguements against evolution, they dismiss them as rubbish…

i am not saying that this is atheists being arrogant or stupid or anything… i am stating that actually for those people that dont believe in God, they are more scared of his possible existance than anyone else! this is why they argue so much, when really they should stay out of it…

you see, if i had brought up this topic i could understand, as i am supposed to tell the Gospel and teach for God… however, why does it matter to an atheist, why do they need to convert believers into no-beleivers?
please enlighten me?

We did not evolve from apes. This is the biggest misconception of Darwin’s theory. Nowhere did he say that we had evolved from apes, rather we share a common ancestor.

That is the reason why we don’t find any ape to man progression, because we did not progress from apes.

Daniel you say you are a creationist because there are too many missing links. What exactly do you mean by that? Missing links between what? Have you actually read any evolutionary literature? Please can you qualify what you mean by missing links and why that causes you to not accept scientific evidence?

I already have a feeling what you are going to answer with and I already have the reply for it, but I’d like you to explain your position more clearly because at the moment your only argument for believing creation is “there is a lack of missing links” and “coming down from the trees isn’t advantageous”. Obviously it IS advantageous because we HAVE evolved.

Having said this argument, what then pushes you to believe in creation. Ok, so lets say hypothetically you disprove evolution (which you won’t), where is the evidence for creation? There is none. However, this topic is primarily about evolution so I’d like to tackle that aspect first. I’d like to see more scientific wording as to why you do not believe in evolution because at the moment it is muddled opinion.

This is not ben the atheist arguing against God, this is ben the scientist arguing FOR evolution which i believe should be accepted by everyone all over the world. I won’t try and impress it on anyone, but I will argue it to the death because I feel it is a very important issue.

this is my initial response.
‘why that causes you to not accept scientific evidence?’ quote ben. scientific evidence? sorry? as i have said, there is evidence for both sides both creationist and evolutionist… now you ask ‘evidence for creation?’ well… my first piece of evidence i refer you to the work of Dr. David Ellis, who has just finished his second PHD, this one in Evolutionary Genetics, it has been proved, though our current system of genetics that all human genes came from one male and one female… i think this is quite astounding and was only revealed two weeks ago at a evolution seminar at the british museum which i attended. Now this is evidence for creation of the highest level… but eitherway, as i said all along there is evidence for both.

yes i would say that quite a lot of my anti evolution view is based on the fact that i believe it couldnt work… but then again if i told you that i actually believe in creation because i can feel God and know he is speaking to me… you would not accept that as valid data!

as the coming from apes, i refer you to how i phrased this ‘however i am not agreeing with coming from apes in any form what so ever!’ note the any form what so ever part… whether that was a previous form or not i did not specify!

right, now where you say ‘only argument for believing creation is “there is a lack of missing links” and “coming down from the trees isn’t advantageous”.’ as i said this is not my only arguement and i am quite happy that if you want i will argue against evolution with facts all day. Further, we shared a common ancestor, by the evolutionists themselves (and if you actually believe walking with beasts) they orginally were tree dwellers… and i can assure you that in biological terms it is not an advantage!

you say use more science, well as far as i can see i am the only one using science in this arguement… where have you produced any evidence at all… you have not produced one piece! the thing is, as in many areas, evolution seems to be accepted and not need to be proved, whereas anything contradicting it is subject to so much scrutiny… so ben please produce some science rarther than spin! (further, evidence of natuaral selection within a species does not count as evolutionary evidence… so dont try it)

lastly, why would someone who believes in no God and everyone for themselves as long as it hurts no-one else (asumption i spose, but i did not say no morales… perhaps i mean the golden rule) why would you wish to upset people and cause them pain by argueing with them about the issue, when it makes no difference to your life and if your are right it makes no difference to their life either, as life has no point! so why stop someone that perhaps is doing good, making people feel better, making people have a worth and a purpose even if it is a placebo for the mind, whats wrong with that? and what makes you want to destroy it? making them feel bad again?

ps. quite a long initial response!

Once again you have failed to provide evidence for Creation. I need to see REAL evidence, not “my mate’s mum’s dog’s brother said that creation was true so it must be!”. I have done a search on most of the major search engines for Dr David Ellis, Evolutionary Genetics and this so called “adam and eve” theory and there doesn’t seem to be anything on it. Some sort of support for you claims would be helpful, otherwise I’m not going to accept them as valid, and nor is anyone. Is there any more evidence for Creation or is that it?

You say I would not accept a religious feeling as valid data. Quite the contrary, I am perfectly happy to accept faith as an explanation for believing in the Creation. What i do not accept is people accepting Creation because of science, because science does not point to the Creation, it points to evolution. That is my argument.

You can assure me it’s not an advantage? Oh well great, thanks, phew, i can now sleep happily. I’m seriously going to need one shred of evidence to support this view before I’m going to accept it.

You want me to use science but there’s SO MUCH evidence for evolution that it would be impossible to put it all on here. Here are a few websites that you can read to start with:

Evolution is a fact and a theory:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html

Explaining the gaps in the fossil record and listing ALL the transitional fossils:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html

How God and evolution can exist together:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-god.html

And there is A LOT more where that came from. My initial reasons for posting this topic are purely philosophy related. I like to take part in this sort of debate and that is what drives me to argue my point. I do not find it acceptable for religion to put false hope into people’s minds just make them feel better. I feel very strongly that science should be embraced by all and that it should not be used to try and prove things which are obviously not scientifically supportable. As I said earlier, I can accept people who believe in the Creation from faith, but I cannot accept people who believe in it from science.

‘‘making people feel better, making people have a worth and a purpose even if it is a placebo for the mind, whats wrong with that?’’ (dan)

in a way i do agree with you. but you seem to be contradicting yourself somewhat. are you saying that you believe the above? that for you its a way of life and a form of guidance more than an actual belief? or are you simply saying that if god doesn’t exist, its harmless anyway?

because i personally went to church for a number of years (independently from my family) simply as a way of guidance, so i agree with the latter. but i wasn’t sure whether or not i believed in god. i truly hope that wasn’t blasphemous, but i don’t see anything wrong with it. i think its one of the best ways to be if you don’t actually truly believe in a god.

but surely if you think that this COULD be all faith is, you are doubtful as well?

i personally believe in God and in creation, however, this does not stop me from trying to think like others and understand them… hence my thoughts on the placebo of faith clarice!

as for dr. ellis ben, as i said in my post, it was only unvailed a week or two ago and as result is very very new. But believe me you’ll be hearing a lot from him soon. however i can understand why you dont accept this now. (further note, i didnt mention adam and eve… the proof of genetics has not yet concluded they were alive at the same time)

on the subject of faith, i do believe it because God has told me so… however, i can also see reasons through him that say creation happened… however, it is in the duty of christians to share the gospel with people and some cant believe it because of the creation issue, although this has no affect on the faith itself, but they cant see that… they wont look at Jesus until there is some arguement against evolution.

http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/top.htm… this one is good.

www.creationscience.com again this is a good site, have to read a lot

ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/bowdenmalcolm/evol.htm

www.rae.org/revevchp…

i can go on, however, as with your websites, they are subjective.

As i have said all along, NEITHER EVOLUTION OR CREATION CAN BE PROVED! Ben, you seem to take the thoughts on evolution further than scientists have, and further than almost anyone, as you believe that it has been proved… rubbish!

i will return with creation evidence, you seem to think that to disprove evolution there must be evidence for creation… well there doesnt have to be… and as you said, here we are discussing evolution! if courts worked with the ‘guilty until prooved another person guilty’ what would happen?

(ps i can find many more websites against evolution with scientific evidence as i am sure you could so really is there a point in listing site names?)

sorry… perhaps didnt answer clarice’s question properly…
yes i am saying that if God doesnt exist it is harmless anyway… for the most part, with the exception of extremists!