Should evolution be taught in high sc...

Should evolution be taught in high school?

There are 179706 comments on the www.scientificblogging.com story from Feb 24, 2008, titled Should evolution be taught in high school?. In it, www.scientificblogging.com reports that:

Microbiologist Carl Woese is well known as an iconoclast. At 79 years of age, Woese is still shaking things up. Most recently, he stated in an interview with Wired that...

"My feeling is that evolution shouldn't be taught at the lower grades. You don't teach quantum mechanics in the grade schools. One has to be quite educated to work with these concepts; what they pass on as evolution in high schools is nothing but repetitious tripe that teachers don't understand."

Join the discussion below, or Read more at www.scientificblogging.com.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#163088 Jan 26, 2014
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, the weather is so incredibly beautiful down here this time of year, well, all year long actually! Today it was sunny, calm wind and 80 degrees! Today I took a long walk on the beach and a long bike ride along the shore. It is my habit. I see how you could love the idea of retiring in Arizona. As you know, I love southern New Mexico. But I guess I would miss the beach too much. I have a get-away cabin in the horse country of central Florida where I go on some weekends. But I also love the big city for the stimulation of concerts, sports and such as I mentioned, the orchestra, among other things. We'll see what happens!

I have a cousin that owns horse stables in FL. I am not sure exactly where. I can see the beach as being addicting. I would want to live out of the city but with close access to it. I currently live in the burbs of Indy. It is every bit as dull as it sounds. But I a 5 minutes from the interstate and no more than 20 min. to downtown Indianapolis. Indy is nice in the spring and fall. It sucks the big one the rest of the year. Gastly hot in the summer and not fit for human habitation in the winter. I lived for a short time in Tallahassee. The panhandle is very deserving of such a colorful name.

Time to get back to calling each other names? Or would you rather discuss why moonlight is Beethovens best piano sonata?

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#163089 Jan 26, 2014
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you imagine the whales' food sources nonexistent during the flood? You are correct in that you have provided no evidence for your viewpoint.

Dataless people should be the last to criticize those who provide data.

Since: Jan 14

Stoke-on-trent, UK

#163090 Jan 26, 2014
Urban Cowboy wrote:
But I repeat two of my three previous points that you avoided: 1. None of this explains how the genes originated in the first place;
1. How did genes originate in the first place?
Good question, and one that I can't answer definitively because I think it is tied to the origin of life. I can give you the version of events that I think is most likely and that fits with the evidence I know about, but this is a personal hypothesis.
If we go back in time to about the beginning of life as we'd recognise it, we would find single-celled organisms unlike those we see today. Sacs of chemicals with the ability to create concentration gradients and catalyse reactions. Still, some of their chemistry would be familiar. They would use a nucleic acid as their hereditary units and lipids for membranes. Instead of proteins, they might have used their own nucleic acids as catalysts. RNA can be used as both a hereditary unit and a catalyst, so this is not an illogical leap. But did they have genes? Well, maybe not, if your definition of a gene is a sequence of DNA that is used to produce a particular protein. But I'd argue we should widen the definition of "gene" when looking this far back and allow a gene to be defined as some sequence of an inherited nucleic acid that has a useful biological function. Different RNA sequences have different catalytic abilities.
Nucleic acids are polymers of bases. Random sequences are only rarely useful. I imagine a previous environment, relatively rich in lipids and free RNA strands (short and random), where little lipid bubbles formed like foam, each containing a different set of RNA strands. Most just float around until they burst. However, with time, eventually some lucky combination of RNA strands found themselves together and actually catalysed a useful, but unimpressive, reaction. Perhaps all it did was make it slightly easier for similar RNA strands to enter the bubble, enlarging it. Sometimes, these bubbles split in two. The new bubbles continue to enlarge, selectively filling themselves with more similar RNA. Very slowly, this type of bubble would have become more common than other types. At this stage, I think it would be likely that each bubble would contain many short RNA strands. Over a long time, those combinations that were better at reproducing themselves would become more populous. I imagine there would be a great advantage to some of the biologically-active strands linking up to form larger units that could be inherited as single blocks. None of these interactions are directed. They are initiated at random and most are fruitless. However, the few that happen to make these bubbles reproduce themselves more effectively would eventually dominate.
Ultimately, I suppose my answer to your question is that the very first genes arose randomly. This was only possible because they were very short, and probably isolated (i.e. maximum of 1 "gene" per strand). This allowed billions of combinations to come and go. Those that were able to hang around did. Those that were able to encourage their own reproduction did very well. I would expect these tiny building blocks to be much smaller than the genes we are used to now, and I would also guess that these early forms were very different to life we see now. They would have been less permanent than modern cells, and it might be difficult to separate one "organism" from another.
I hope this answers your first question. As I said before, this is a personal hypothesis and I can't defend it with much evidence. We do know: RNA can catalyse reactions, lipid bubbles (micelles) can form spontaneously and are a good way to concentrate chemicals for reactions, micelles can self-replicate based on their contents alone. But we don't know exactly how life began, and that's when I think the first genes appeared. I'd really like to know though, and I'm sure the answer will be surprising.

Since: Jan 14

Stoke-on-trent, UK

#163091 Jan 26, 2014
Urban Cowboy wrote:
2. none of this will ever lead to any macroevolution or inter-speciation or transmutation of species, or vertical evolution or whatever you want to call the type of evolution that leads to a completely different organism.
This is just bacteria being bacteria.
2. How can "microevolution" ever lead to "macroevolution"?
Another good question, but there are answers to this one: Slowly, and gradually. Of course, the rate at which it happens can vary immensely, but usually it's slow enough for humans to get bored while waiting.
My first point is that I don't think there is any distinction to be made between "microevolution" and "macroevolution". I read a lot about evolution for a long time and never encountered either of these terms until the Internet came along and introduced me to Creationists - people I didn't know existed. The two terms imply, to me, that there are two different mechanisms at work, but there aren't. A large evolutionary change (what you might call "macroevolution") is just the result of lots of smaller changes over a very long time ("microevolution").
However, I understand it is difficult to imagine intermediate stages of evolution in many cases. Here's something to remember: evolution has no memory of the past, and it can't see into the future. It only operates on living things right now. That means that there may be things alive today that look normal to us, but that might represent important transitional forms in millions of years to come. A transitional form is not a special kind of animal, it just happened to be alive half-way between two other animals that we think are important.
I see no reason why the traditional speciation idea is not true. One species, split in two by whatever means, evolving in isolation from each other to the peculiarities of their own ecologies, eventually so different that we would call them different species. We have lots of evidence to support this - cave species, cichlids, the London Underground mosquito, etc. I know you might not be happy with these examples of speciation as representing the scale of change you want, but you should accept they are evidence in support of some of evolutions predictions.
If you're interested in the much larger changes (mammals from reptiles, etc.) then you need to remember these are very rare events. Fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds, mammals - those are all the big, interesting groups (sorry botanists, mycologists, etc!), and they've taken billions of years to appear. If you are interested in whether single-celled bacteria will ever evolve into multicellular worms (for example), well, probably not. They would have to compete with worms that now exist, and they would probably just get eaten. They would be better off become even better bacteria. I expect we will have to wait for a catastrophic event to wipe out a good portion of life on Earth for a new major group to appear - competition is just too high right now.
I don't think I've said anything there you've not heard before, so I'm sure you won't be swayed. But if that's the case, what biological mechanism prevents small evolutionary changes adding up to large ones? How does the organism know when it's evolved enough and should stop? What proteins are involved? Is their action communicated across the population, or does it operate on an individual basis? We don't see a difference between micro- and macroevolution, but you do. I've never seen evidence to back up this claim. Do you know if any exists, and could you point to it?
KAB

Wilson, NC

#163092 Jan 26, 2014
appleboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh my gosh. Who woulda thought, only a creationist would come up with the idea that the whales ate all the bacteria to store them for the future. It would be a good thing too, if those whales didn't die from contracting lethal infections. You might want to send this answer to that Texas school board so they can put it in their textbooks.
That's not my idea. Such a mistaken notion, however, is to be expected from one who doesn't/can't consider things objectively and discern multiple possibilities present.
KAB

Wilson, NC

#163093 Jan 26, 2014
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>Given the right conditions, many things may be possible. However, you build your entire argument around "what if" and not around reality. In the case of a global flood, there doesn't even appear to be the possibility for it to occur. Some of the basic criteria cannot be met. Water quantity and where it came from and where it went. Logistics of gathering, housings and caring for all the animals. The destruction of all life save that on the ark against the existence of plant life, fish, and other organisms we have now. You have been shown so many pieces of evidence in addition to those mentioned and all you have done is ignore them or lie about them.
Ice floats and so would the ice caps.
With false premises you can make your erroneous conclusions appear well reasoned. Your side seems to specialize in it. The Guy was especially fond of such, but alas he is no more.
KAB

Wilson, NC

#163094 Jan 26, 2014
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text> He was correct that you haven't provided anything.
What specific single example of data confirming an assertion do you want me to provide?

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#163095 Jan 26, 2014
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
That's not my idea. Such a mistaken notion, however, is to be expected from one who doesn't/can't consider things objectively and discern multiple possibilities present.

Ooooh, more projection.
KAB

Wilson, NC

#163097 Jan 26, 2014
HillStart wrote:
<quoted text>
2. How can "microevolution" ever lead to "macroevolution"?
Another good question, but there are answers to this one: Slowly, and gradually. Of course, the rate at which it happens can vary immensely, but usually it's slow enough for humans to get bored while waiting.
My first point is that I don't think there is any distinction to be made between "microevolution" and "macroevolution". I read a lot about evolution for a long time and never encountered either of these terms until the Internet came along and introduced me to Creationists - people I didn't know existed. The two terms imply, to me, that there are two different mechanisms at work, but there aren't. A large evolutionary change (what you might call "macroevolution") is just the result of lots of smaller changes over a very long time ("microevolution").
However, I understand it is difficult to imagine intermediate stages of evolution in many cases. Here's something to remember: evolution has no memory of the past, and it can't see into the future. It only operates on living things right now. That means that there may be things alive today that look normal to us, but that might represent important transitional forms in millions of years to come. A transitional form is not a special kind of animal, it just happened to be alive half-way between two other animals that we think are important.
I see no reason why the traditional speciation idea is not true. One species, split in two by whatever means, evolving in isolation from each other to the peculiarities of their own ecologies, eventually so different that we would call them different species. We have lots of evidence to support this - cave species, cichlids, the London Underground mosquito, etc. I know you might not be happy with these examples of speciation as representing the scale of change you want, but you should accept they are evidence in support of some of evolutions predictions.
If you're interested in the much larger changes (mammals from reptiles, etc.) then you need to remember these are very rare events. Fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds, mammals - those are all the big, interesting groups (sorry botanists, mycologists, etc!), and they've taken billions of years to appear. If you are interested in whether single-celled bacteria will ever evolve into multicellular worms (for example), well, probably not. They would have to compete with worms that now exist, and they would probably just get eaten. They would be better off become even better bacteria. I expect we will have to wait for a catastrophic event to wipe out a good portion of life on Earth for a new major group to appear - competition is just too high right now.
I don't think I've said anything there you've not heard before, so I'm sure you won't be swayed. But if that's the case, what biological mechanism prevents small evolutionary changes adding up to large ones? How does the organism know when it's evolved enough and should stop? What proteins are involved? Is their action communicated across the population, or does it operate on an individual basis? We don't see a difference between micro- and macroevolution, but you do. I've never seen evidence to back up this claim. Do you know if any exists, and could you point to it?
All that you have provided in responding to 1. and 2. notwithstanding, do you know of a confirmed reason why design can't be involved?
Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Miami, FL

#163098 Jan 26, 2014
HillStart wrote:
I see no reason why the traditional speciation idea is not true. One species, split in two by whatever means, evolving in isolation from each other to the peculiarities of their own ecologies, eventually so different that we would call them different species. We have lots of evidence to support this - cave species, cichlids, the London Underground mosquito, etc.
Yes, these are just examples of what creationists have long predicted, that in a very short period of time, species adapt to their new environment utilizing the genetic variation already equipped with.

“Dinosaurs survived the flood!”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Jesus probably rode dinosaurs!

#163099 Jan 26, 2014
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
With false premises you can make your erroneous conclusions appear well reasoned. Your side seems to specialize in it. The Guy was especially fond of such, but alas he is no more.
There you go, pining away for Guy.

You have some serious projection going on there KAB. Fortunately, you aren't even any good at supporting your false premises and erroneous conclusions.

“Dinosaurs survived the flood!”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Jesus probably rode dinosaurs!

#163100 Jan 26, 2014
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
What specific single example of data confirming an assertion do you want me to provide?
Why bother asking, when you know you aren't going to provide any.

“Dinosaurs survived the flood!”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Jesus probably rode dinosaurs!

#163101 Jan 26, 2014
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Ooooh, more projection.
He would have been useful in the 60's and 70's when it came time to show home movies.
Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Miami, FL

#163102 Jan 26, 2014
HillStart wrote:
But if that's the case, what biological mechanism prevents small evolutionary changes adding up to large ones? How does the organism know when it's evolved enough and should stop? What proteins are involved? Is their action communicated across the population, or does it operate on an individual basis? We don't see a difference between micro- and macroevolution, but you do. I've never seen evidence to back up this claim. Do you know if any exists, and could you point to it?
No, I don't of any evidence to support it. I do know that evolutions demand that the two be the same thing, but clearly they are not.

This is the crux of the issue. Even when intelligent people artificially breed animals, dogs for example, for thousands of years, representing millions of generations, the genetic variation and adaptation is remarkable. But dogs will always still be dogs because there are several strong barriers to prevent them from every changing into something else. The fact is dog breeds as wide a range as there is, can still produce fertile offspring, including coyotes and wolves, etc. So what are these barriers you ask?(Don't they teach this in school and university?)

First you must have a genetic mutation that creates new, never before existing information that leads to some new or nascent cells, tissue, organ, or limb that changes it from one type of animal into a different new type of animal. From a creationist perspective, even the smallest gene would require intelligence to create. Simple random chance can never create meaningful information. I am not talking about duplicating existing information because that does not explain the origin of the existing information! You don't have even a single example of this. If evolution were really true, you should have billions of examples everywhere!

Second of all, it's not in the fossil record. You have been searching for evidence ever since Darwin first wrote about it and you still have nothing. Think about all the millions of fossils collected in museums and universities worldwide. Think of the millions of species existing today and the "millions of years" they would have had to evolve to the present time. We should be up to our necks in clear sequences of transpeciation events but nothing but silence.

Third, there are strong barriers to prevent one species from breeding with another species. Although there are some minor exceptions (although results in sterile offspring), the sperm cannot locate the egg of a foreign species. The sperm also cannot enter the egg of a foreign species. Also, even this were to occur, the fertilization is not possible. And then even the very unlikely event that fertilization were to occur, there is no way for the meiosis or shuffling of the chromosomes to occur because there would be a mis-match. The meiosis process is very complicated and involves error checking and DNA repair processes. This is the heart of genetic diversity.

We have just seen where Lenski artificially bred E. coli for almost some 60,000 generations now, and at about 30,000 generations claimed that they developed an ability to digest citrate which demonstrates evolution in action. Stop. No it isn't. No need to beat a dead horse some more. This is the best chance evolutionists ever had to prove to us that evolution is true but nothing has changed. This is just bacteria being bacteria, even under lab conditions.
Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Miami, FL

#163103 Jan 26, 2014
HillStart wrote:
Instead, I will ask why you think genomes are degrading. Is this just because you believe the original forms were perfect, or is there some current observation that makes you believe this? I have heard you refer to genetic disorders. Under evolution, we would also expect to see genetic disorders. We would expect to always find them, but you would expect there to be fewer genetic disorders in the past. Is there any evidence to support this?
OK, I'm going to wait a while and post my answers to your questions.
Yes, there are hundreds of secular papers that report on the rate of genetic mutations. Mutations are simply copy mistakes. Most of them are nearly neutral and a very few of them are deleterious. A very few of these have inadvertent advantages due to the environment of the organism but always come at a cost.

I am sure you are aware of the second law of thermodynamics and entropy. This affects everything in the entire universe. It doesn't just affect things you are familiar with like watching your clothes wear out eventually or your house or car getting older or you getting older, it affects the earth, the sun, the planets, the solar system, the galaxy, and the entire universe. We creationists have discovered recently that this is the nature course of time and the only thing that can slow it down is intelligent intervention. Now we are unable to prevent our own bodies from growing old and dying but we can take care of ourselves with proper nutrition and exercise. We can repair and patch software in computer programs. We can use a spell-checker to correct mistakes we make as we write. We can take construction materials and build new houses. We can take sheet metal and steel and make cars, etc. But left on their own they wind up in the trash heap due to entropy. There is no shortage of examples of this as it is the one true law that has no exceptions anywhere.

So back to the genome. We see the accumulating mutations in the human genome. Estimates of 100 new accumulations in each individual with every new generation. We are aware of genetic disorders. We have catalogued hundreds of genetic diseases caused by these accumulated mutations. Incest is prohibited because of this. We see the results of accumulated mutations in small endangered species. This is the major cause of extinction. There are numerous resources for you to read about this. The best book I've seen is John Sanford's Genetic Entropy. The evolutionists hate this book and will make unsubstantiated claims that "it was refuted", etc. But it is well written and well supported. It even has some surprising reasons besides the entropy about selection.(The Princess and the Nucleotide Paradox)

“Understand people,”

Level 3

Since: Mar 08

you must, understand people.

#163104 Jan 26, 2014
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
You can deny all you want but science is also about belief and assuption.
Working scientists usually take for granted a set of basic assumptions that are needed to justify the scientific method:(1) that there is an objective reality shared by all rational observers; (2) that this objective reality is governed by natural laws; (3) that these laws can be discovered by means of systematic observation and experimentation. Philosophy of science seeks a deep understanding of what these underlying assumptions mean and whether they are valid.
The belief that all observers share a common reality is known as scientific realism(click blue highlighted word in link). It can be contrasted with anti-realism, the belief that there is no valid concept of absolute truth such that things that are true for one observer are true for all observers. The most commonly defended form of anti-realism is idealism, the belief that the mind or consciousness is the most basic essence, and that each mind generates its own rbeality. In an idealistic world view, what is true for one mind need not be true for other minds.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science
Also in the beginning of abiogenesis there was no DNA to mutate and the RNA, it would be safe to say did not really have any "information" to build off of because if life just naturally formed and arose from a soup, puddle, pond or whatever you want to call it, where did any "information" come from for RNA to build off of? There was only one life form and only one of it? So how does all that pan out? And by what you believe we should be able to take the periodical chart, throw a some of it together with a little lightning and heat and it will produce life having RNA and then it will later produce DNA? Is that what the evidence shows you?
Very true. Evolution derives from some set of protocols. It is commonsensical that what evolves has a destination. Many evolutionists mainly ponder on events that have past as they do not exactly focus on what is to become; chance and natural selection is the only probable forecast. Wonder what had naturally selected specific organisms to flourish via natural selection.

Anyhow, a protocol defines order, so therefore natural selection is a type of order defined by a protocol.
And protocol is defined by an intelligence that science cannot define. Hell, science itself is a protocol so how can science define how it came to be?

Even we cannot exactly pinpoint how we came to be, but it is more hopeful to say that we have a purpose and are not fully susceptible to only the phenomenon of a tangible scientific domain.
If we are limited to such phenomenon, then it is safe to say that you only exist to just exist.
Not a very enthusiastic thought.

Evolution attempts to continually deny something beyond the universe. Strange and lonely for something to not know where its domain is expanding into...it just expands into dark matter...as that something becomes a victim to its own limited knowledge.

All it knows is what is naturally evident via proof to define its own purpose bc it does not want to hold the responsibility of knowing that itself is a protocol when actually it compliments what it denies.

So in evolution terms, we are as equal as the celestial bodies and the dirt of the earth. Creationism may seem vague, but as a conscious being, life would be more enthusiastic when i know that i am greater than the mere dust of a star or the earth, or a fly larva crawling in refuse.

“Seventh son”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

Will Prevail

#163105 Jan 26, 2014
UnderstandPeople wrote:
<quoted text>Very true. Evolution derives from some set of protocols. It is commonsensical that what evolves has a destination. Many evolutionists mainly ponder on events that have past as they do not exactly focus on what is to become; chance and natural selection is the only probable forecast. Wonder what had naturally selected specific organisms to flourish via natural selection.
Anyhow, a protocol defines order, so therefore natural selection is a type of order defined by a protocol.
And protocol is defined by an intelligence that science cannot define. Hell, science itself is a protocol so how can science define how it came to be?
Even we cannot exactly pinpoint how we came to be, but it is more hopeful to say that we have a purpose and are not fully susceptible to only the phenomenon of a tangible scientific domain.
If we are limited to such phenomenon, then it is safe to say that you only exist to just exist.
Not a very enthusiastic thought.
Evolution attempts to continually deny something beyond the universe. Strange and lonely for something to not know where its domain is expanding into...it just expands into dark matter...as that something becomes a victim to its own limited knowledge.
All it knows is what is naturally evident via proof to define its own purpose bc it does not want to hold the responsibility of knowing that itself is a protocol when actually it compliments what it denies.
So in evolution terms, we are as equal as the celestial bodies and the dirt of the earth. Creationism may seem vague, but as a conscious being, life would be more enthusiastic when i know that i am greater than the mere dust of a star or the earth, or a fly larva crawling in refuse.
Lots of misconception and gobbledygook here.
If evolution has a goal ...it's survival and.... survival is the end result of selections .
And this...

"Evolution attempts to continually deny something beyond the universe."

Is pure hogwash, evolution makes zero predictions about the universe, only highly localized predictions of an organisms environment.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#163106 Jan 26, 2014
Urban Cowboy wrote:
Second of all, it's not in the fossil record. You have been searching for evidence ever since Darwin first wrote about it and you still have nothing. Think about all the millions of fossils collected in museums and universities worldwide. Think of the millions of species existing today and the "millions of years" they would have had to evolve to the present time. We should be up to our necks in clear sequences of transpeciation events but nothing but silence.
The mystery to me is how you can keep claiming this. As just one example of many, the ape/hominid sequence shows a continuum of change - cranium size and shape, jaw, dentition, brow ridge, etc, that is consistent with the transition of the genus over time exactly as predicted and explained by evolution.

These are not subjective changes. They are measurable, observable slight differences from one to the next. So gradual that there are arguments over the placement of some specimens in one group or the next - even the "groups" ie species being to some extent artificial divisions.

And by every dating method we have, they fall into the right temporal sequence.

We also have convergence, going back, of whole classes. 30+ species that blur the distinction between dinos and birds. Mammal like reptiles showing the transition from multiboned jaw to the mammalian 3-boned middle ear. Primitive tetrapods, the intermediate tiktaalik, and the lobe finned fish.

And on a smaller scale, the same general principle holds right through the fossil record.

None of it even imagined by YEC creationism, none of it remotely compatible with a 6000 year explanation where everything was supposed to be there from the start. But predicted and explained by evolution.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#163107 Jan 26, 2014
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
All that you have provided in responding to 1. and 2. notwithstanding, do you know of a confirmed reason why design can't be involved?
The issue is not whether design "cannot be involved", its whether the hypothesis of design is necessary. If its not necessary, why assume it?

There was a time when men attributed thunderstorms to the wrath of Thor. Now we have a perfectly natural explanation. An intelligent agent COULD drum up a good thunderstorm, but we do not assume that one did when we hear a thunderclap. Because we have no need of that hypothesis (tribute to Laplace)

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#163108 Jan 26, 2014
UnderstandPeople wrote:
Evolution attempts to continually deny something beyond the universe. Strange and lonely for something to not know where its domain is expanding into...it just expands into dark matter...as that something becomes a victim to its own limited knowledge.
Science does not attempt to deny anything except the reflexive tendency to explain the unknown by "God", which is no explanation at all. Neither evolution nor science in general denies the possibility that God exists, but using God to explain every mystery is as naive now as it was when we blamed Thor for thunderstorms.

Evolution explains ONE aspect of nature extremely well - the development and diversification of species. More generally, it shows a process by which ordered complexity can continue to develop and increase without conscious design input. Evolution is not attempting to explain the origin of the universe or even the origin of life which must logically arise from different processes, because evolution presupposes the existence of a self replicator with heredity. If life arose naturally, it was through non-evolutionary chemical processes. All we know is that once the self replicator is in place, evolution provides a good explanation for how it develops from there.

Its not illogical to still believe there could be a God and no scientist has ever been criticised for holding that view. It IS illogical though, to still believe in literal Genesis when all the evidence of the physical universe shows up the many errors of this myth.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Evolution Debate Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 24 min DanFromSmithville 35,464
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 34 min DanFromSmithville 199,525
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 49 min Reason Personified 14,986
Complex Systems May Evolve More Slowly - Calcul... 3 hr Creationtruth 3
Evolution is merely a subroutine 3 hr Creationtruth 1
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 4 hr Kenedy njoroge 151,365
My Story Part 1 5 hr Regolith Based Li... 3
More from around the web