Evolution question!!!?

Question

I want to know what different people's opinions are about evolution, intelligent design, and/or creationism.

Just tell me the following:

Which idea you think is correct?
Why do you think it's right? or Why do you think the others are wrong?
What do you think the definition of a theory is? (Do you think a theory is a proven idea, unproven idea, etc.?)


Please don't say anything to offend those who disagree with you. If you don't like someone else's response, just give them a thumb down, instead of calling that person an idiot.

azar_and_bath, your answer was fine, but evolution isn't completely spontaneous. Mutations are random, but natural selecton is not.

To all the people saying that they know evolution as a fact, doesn't science continually correct itself? Wouldn't that mean that the thery evolution as we know it could change a bit someday?

Since I think that I've gotten all the responses that I'll get, I'll reveal why I asked this question: I wanted to see how people on each side of the debate viewed the idea of a theory. After all, both sides use the idea that evolution is a theory to justify their positions.

In common usage, a theory is a guess or speculation.
However, in science, theory means something else. A theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a related set of natural or social phenomena. It originates from and/or is supported by experimental evidence. In this sense, a theory is a systematic and formalized expression of all previous observations that is predictive, logical and testable. (The definition is from wikipedia.)

My hypothesis, that creationists do not know the scientific use of the term, seems to be correct. However, my sample size was small and has only been tested once. Therefore, my hypothesis is not a theory in the scientific sense.

debarun p, theories do not have to be quantitative. Think about atomic theory. It just states that atoms exist and are made of protons, neutrons, and electrons.

Or let's take the germ theory of disease, which states that diseases are caused by microscopic pathogens.

Answer 1

Evolution is much more right than ID or creationism as it has evidence and reason on its side, whereas the others have a huge highly questionable assumption on their sides. The "god did it" people continually distort what evolutionists say, rather than refute us, because they CAN'T refute us. Evolution has tons of evidence, from a wide variety of areas (biology, geology, chemistry) that all support the basic concept. It's pretty well understood (by those who have studied it), though not completely worked out in all its details (a massively HUGE task).

The word 'theory' has many uses, including both of those you cite. While I'm watching, say, Law & Order, I often have a theory of who done it. That's the sense that people use when they dismiss evolution as "just a theory" (though current ID folks have finally given up that line of argument and recommend proponents no longer use it -- I don't have the url for the ID website where I read this). That is NOT the sense of the word that Theory of Evolution belongs to.

Another sense of 'theory' -- one that we evolutionists mean -- is an intellectual structure of concepts, evidence, lines of reasoning, that explains or makes sense of a gabunch of data or phenomena.

"I have a theory, it could be demons, a dancing demon, no something isn't right there." "I have a theory, some kid is dreaming, and we're all caught inside his wacky Broadway nightmare...." Whoops! Sorry, but this question put this song from Buffy in my head. I think I'll go now.

Answer 2

Theories of physics are expressed mathematically - they can be tested quantitavely. They are quantitavely true within the region under which they are tested. As scientists extend that region, theories may fail and new ones replace them. Then there is the interpretation of the theory - what does the mathematics represent? This is where the theories become subjective - for example different scientists have different interpretations of quantum theory although they all agree with the mathematical structure.

Oyvey, I am not trying to say that all theories have to be mathematically based, the point is there has to be some way of testing them. Even if the test depends on statistical results - say to prove that pathogens cause disease. The other point is that even a good theory has subjective interpretations.

Evolution is of course not based on any mathematical model so it cannot be tested quantitavely. But a theory must be testable. How do we test a process that takes millions of years? What we mainly have is the logical but subjective interpretation of the fossil records. Can we test that interpretation? How? A theory must also be predictive, what specific things has evolution predicted?

A theory must also be logical. But logic is a tool, by itself it's not a proof. For example it's logical that many hands make light work. It's also logical that too many cooks spoil the broth. So logic itself is not the final word, because what appears logical and consistent for one person may not be for another.

For those that are atheistic it appears logical that one species should gradually adapt and change into another. It sounds reasonable - after all even we adapt to our environment - get a sun tan in hot climates, devolop muscles when doing a lot of physical work. And all the details, exactly how one species changes into another, well that's just too complex to describe - the biologists will figure it out some day.

But for the theists they are concerned with all those exact details, how exactly does a foot gradually change into a wing without encumbering the species, without making it less fit to survive? Is there at least some credible explanation? And what about the mechanisms within the cell - they are so complex and interdependent. Remove one and the cell becomes disfunctional. How is mutation then going to not produce a disfunctional cell unless it's a highly organized mutation? So for the theists the theory is not logical.

The atheists don't accept God, their axiomatic truth is that the cause of everything is material nature, so for them creation is not logical. On the other hand the theists accept God as an axiomatic truth, so for them creation is a natural consequence.

Answer 3

I believe that Intelligent Design is correct. I'm not a creationist (I don't believe the world was created 6000 years ago), but I do believe God created the universe and all the animals individually, including humans.

Evolution is a very loaded word. People use it to refer to something that has scientific evidence (microevolution), and something that's a ridiculous extrapolation, with no evidence, that comes mostly from Darwin's and Huxley's personal beliefs (macroevolution). I believe in microevolution, but macroevolution has a lot going against it: no fossil record (throughout history certain Darwinists have even lied to convince people there was a fossil record), irreducible complexity of microbiological systems, the problem of how consciousness arises from physical elements, the fact that DNA resembles brilliant computer code that could fill up 1000 Encyclopaedia Britannicas, empirically found limits to microevolution, the fact that macroevolution relies on mutations whereas most mutations are harmful, the mathematical impossibility of life even beginning in a (fictional) primordial soup, and many more.

Answer 4

Evolution is correct. There is a huge amount of research that shows it to be so. Recent evidence of changes in birds first studied by Darwin show that they have adapted to changes in their environment.

The Vatican support Evolution - their official position is that Intelligent Design is effectively a search for proof of god's existence, and that is counter to faith, which requires no proof.

Note that evolution does not rule out the existence of a god that started creation; it just explains how biological rules formed current animals, including humans.

The geological record very clearly shows us the timeline for the development of the world, and astronomical observation shows us the approximate age of the universe.

There is far too much good science available to ignore. ID simply has theories that are based on Genesis, and their scientific method does not stand up to scrutiny. Supporters of ID do not use good logic to support their arguments.

I'm sticking with evolution.

Answer 5

Well, I hope you're successful in keeping this calm and respectful.

My personal opinion (as someone who is college educated and has a Southern Baptist history), is that the earth is too complex to have been created from an explosion. I do not think this much order could have been created from nothingness or from chaos, without intelligent intervention.

I believe in the evolution of species to change over time and in some cases develop attributes that better suit them to an environment, but I don't think the world has been here long enough for so many thousands of types of plants, animals, viruses, etc. etc. to have developed spontaneously from one single-celled organism.

I do not believe in the Biblical account of creation. It is very plain to me from my study of astronomy, biology, and geology, that the earth and its surroundings are millions of years old. The biblical account was written in faith by people who were going on the knowledge and understanding they had at the time. That doesn't mean they were lying or making it up, but we see more clearly now when we use the brains God gave us to discover more truths in our world.

So I guess I'm in the middle. I believe some sort of God or intelligent force created and guided the world's development but no one religion, including mine, has this story all figured out yet. And for that reason I do not believe that my theory should be taught in any American public school.

Answer 6

As a Christian, I believe that the study of God's creation can help in understanding God. So I accept evolution as the best fit theory of the changes that have occured in biological and other natural systems. Evolution is correct. The body of work called creation science is a load of bs. There isn't a single piece of credible evidence to support creationism and tons to support evolution. Biologists have even witnessed the spontaneous creation of new species in nature and in controlled environments.

There is even a good set of arguments against "intelligent design," but the math is likely beyond the people here so I won't go into it.

We need to emphasize evolution in the schools in such a way as to destroy any privately held remaining beliefs in creationism.

Answer 7

I know that evolution is correct.
I know this because I've seen the fossil evidence and the DNA evidence. I have analyzed the evidence and can see no other way to interpret the results that is logically consistent and does not violate Occam's Razor.

A theory is a best model for a known and provable process. For example, we know for a fact that gravity exists. We have multiple theories of how it works (newtonian, relativistic, etc). We know that none of these theories is entirely correct because none of them handle quantum gravity. That doesn't mean gravity is false, it just means our models are slightly imperfect and that we improve them with each bit of knowledge.

Answer 8

1. I think evolution is correct.
2. I think it is right because it has physical proof. I think that the others are wrong because i have studied them and found them to be without physical proof other than a book written by a guy about 600 years ago.
3. A theory is a posed question that have physical proof to back it's standing but has not been proved nor disproved yet. When it is proved it becomes fact.

Answer 9

I agree with evolution all the way. The scientific proof about the existence of bones and the slow process of change that creatures and plants have taken over the last 65 million years.

But there may be something to creationism but it just didn't happen on earth. :)

Answer 10

Alright, mine's kind of two of these. I believe God created us to evolve. Why? There's too much evidence that humans EVOLVED for me to doubt it, but I also believe in God, and He wouldn't just be sitting around watching amoebas multiply; I think He nudged them along. But I don't think He waved a hand and humans appeared looking just as they do today. There is proof that other creatures evolve, and if humans don't, we are seriously behind.

And the definition of theory is an idea that there is currently no hard evidence for. Most things we believe are theories, because they are constantly changing.