Is this line of reasoning meaningless with regard to evoluion?

Question

The trouble with evolution is that it has only been tested in the court of human opinion. The trouble with the court of human opinion is that it can't really test anything - all you need here is for one body of evidence to seem more logical that another. In the case of the origin of life, if you prevent enough people from believing in God, evolution seems logical. However, if you tested evolution in a court of law, we would have to be more sceptical.
Key types of evidence may be required in a court of law: eye witnesses, forensic evidence and legal documentation (or any other type of doc.) In each of these areas, evidence is lacking. There are no eye witnesses to a single evolutionary event. Darwin's evidence points to variation, not speciation. The forensic evidence, fossils, points to sudden appearance and disappearance of distinct species, not gradual changes. There is no document of any kind that hints at evolution except that which has been published by modern evolutionists.

If there is no reliable evidence linking even one modern species with a prehistoric one, why are evolutionists so evangelistic about their beliefs. Would they be highly embarrassed if they found out God existed after all, and that He had some plan that was beyond their wisdom and imagination?

I didn't realise my question would cause so much offense. Please accept my profound apologies. Although I believe in creation,I am interested in a genuine evolution/creation debate. Unfortunately, we don't have enough room when asking a question - which is fair enough - only when answering one.
I have read a few articles and books on evolution,written by the likes of Richard Dawkins,and I have tried to understand them from an evolutionary point of view. I have found some parts of them enlightening, but others not so enlightening. I do not subscribe to the 'inteligent design' argument. Some of what they say is right, but some of it isn't.I did not know anything about evolution when I was a child, although I believed it.I was told that was the way it was,and I saw no reason to argue against it.It was only when I learned about creation,that I began researching evolution.Overall, the case for evolution has not been presented very well,whether true or not. Once again,sorry,sorry,sorrry...

If Creation is a matter of faith and Evolution is too, that surely at least puts them on an equal footing.

Answer 1

Other posters have mentioned this, but it's worth emphasising that evolution has been tested in a court of law, several times. The most recent legal knock-down of creation was Kitzmiller v Dover earlier this year. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District for more information.

A couple of points on your question. Why do you say "There is no document of any kind that hints at evolution except that which has been published by modern evolutionists"? What other document should there be? Surely "evolutionists" are exactly the ones who would publish the evidence on evolution. Who else would do it?

It is not true that there have not been eye-witnesses to evolutionary events. Scientists have observed speciation in the lab multiple times. See http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html for some examples.

However, the insistence on eye-witnesses shows the confusion in your question when you compare it to a court of law. Are you saying that in a law case someone can only be convicted on the basis of eye-witness testimony? What about a murder committed with no witnesses, are you saying that we cannot convict someone even though we have forensic evidence? This is factually and trivially false, as any reading of the newspapers would show.

And if the fossil evidence points to sudden appearance, how do you explain the many transitional fossils that have been found - for example Tiktaalik and Archaeopteryx? See http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html for many more examples.

Answer 2

Every fossil, every observation in biology points to evolution. There is nothing that goes against it or points to a different way to scientifically explain modern diversity. There is not one fossil or one piece of DNA that does NOT point to evolution. It would be hard NOT to see the concrete evidence, and only those blinded by faith can do this.

Evolution is 100% world-wide accepted fact, including the evolution of man.

There is ZERO evidence for a higher being causing anything. This is why people who are religious need faith, you can't see or study the actions of a deity, by definition. Evolution has ZERO faith and ALL evidence.

Scientists (real ones) have been studying and supporting evolution for over 150 years, and still nothing has pointed to creationism. There is clear links and transitional forms between everything in the fossil record to the Class-Family level, if not Genus-Species level. And this includes humans, which there are several 'missing links' which are well described and studied, people just choose to ignore this. Sure, there are still things we don't know, but that's why science is not stagnent and dead. We learn more every day, that's what happens when you keep an open mind and follow the scientific method.

There are some areas of evolution in which all of the pieces have not been found in the fossil record, but there is no counter theory that has even ONE piece of evidence that can not easily be explained by evolution.

Let me turn the question around, if Creationism was correct and science could definitively prove Creationism (and thus the existence of God), why would they not? That would be the greatest scientific discovery in the history of the world. No one would pass that up to maintain the 'status quo'. There is no conspiracy to hide creation evidence. Anyone who knows real scientists knows they are glory-mongers first. They love to prove others wrong to enhance their own standing. And if any scientist could prove Creation/God, it would've been done a long time ago.

Go to a museum, take a class in biology, go to reputable sites on the Internet (like AAAS: http://www.aaas.org/news/press_room/evolution or http://www.talkorigins.org ) and find out for yourself.

Answer 3

Yes, that line of reasoning is meaningless.

Evolution has been tested scientifically which is somewhat more than "the court of human opinion" since it involves evidence and prediction etc. Evolution is a scientific fact.

You need to distinguish between the fact of evolution and theories of evolution. As it happens, the theory of evolution is one of the most successful in the history of science.

As a comparison, I assume that you will agree that gravity is a fact. However, there aren't any very good theories of gravity - we really don't know exactly what the nature of gravity is. Would you deny the existence of gravity just because the theories of gravity aren't very good? Would you be willing to test the "non-fact" of gravity by, say, stepping off a cliff? No? So why do you do that with evolution?

What has the theory of evolution got to do with the origin of life? Evolution relates to speciation of organisms that already exist.

Evolution is logical because it is fact, rather than anything to do with your god.

Why would we test evolution in a court of law when science has higher standards than that? Or are you OJ Simpson? ;-)

You are incorrect to say that there are no eye witnesses to a single evolutionary event since, for example, evolution can be reproduced at will with microrganisms in test tubes, we are seeing the different strains of the AIDS virus evolve exactly as expected, elephants are evolving to lose their tusks and every extinction we have witnessed is an evolutionary event.

Darwin's evidence points to variation and speciation and we have acquired a huge amount (~170 years worth) of further evidence since then. So don't limit yourself to old data.

The fossil evidence points to geologically sudden appearance and disappearance of distinct species AND gradual changes. We are making species extinct at a very rapid rate!

There is evidence linking modern species with prehistoric ones. For example, the fossil record explains why we have four nostrils (really - we do - 2 visible and 2 hidden).

I'm glad that you do not subscribe to the 'inteligent design' argument since, as you say, some of what they say isn't right. If you've ever choked on your food you'd have to wonder about the intelligence of someone who put your food intake so close to your air pipe.

Evolution is not a matter of faith, it is a matter of fact. Not only is creationism a matter of faith, but it is a faith based on a particular interpretation of a much rewritten, much altered text originally written during a more superstitious, more ignorant point in human history.

Answer 4

Science is not a matter of "human opinion". Science works by putting forward hypotheses and then rigorously testing them. When the tests indicate that a hypothesis appears to explain accurately what is observed it becomes a theory. When scientists are very confident of a theory, they may call it a "law" - like Newton's laws or Boyle's law. Most scientists believe in the theory of evolution because the evidence for it is so compelling.

Incidentally I don't believe that the theory of evolution precludes the concept of a creator god (which I believe in). Many people seem to believe this and, believing in such a god, feel they must consequently reject evolution, despite the very strong evidence for it.

Answer 5

Hello every one. The pure nature of the question asked will inevitably create more questions than answers. More opinions than factual points. More division amongst believers of individual thoughts. We are after all flawed with individualism's both inherited and trained through daily observations and what not. May I pose a simple concrete example that is often over looked on as an evolutionary concept. That being the breeding or inter breeding of cats, dogs, or quite possibly that of human beings. It is quite possible and well documented the inter breeding of a specific species to come up with a genuine blood line.(breed) I know this sounds rather rudimentary, but..........If you took lets say a Komodo dragon and a Gecko and if it were possible, and then re-mated the two most resembling offspring, and then do it again and again until you eventually reproduce a repetitive reproduction it is a manipulation of evolution, but evolution it is. Now let us take the inter breeding of several sub species of humans. Over the years will produce its own permanent lineage. That is some things that are well documented in royal blood lines dating back a thousand years or more. It has a traceable genetic line. The least changed line of species know is that of a certain type of shark. I think we know why there might not have been much room for blood lines crossing there as any thing remotely reassembling food would have been digested with total abandonment. Other examples of eviloution amongst sub species we are familiar with is that of cats and dogs to the point where we have breeds that did not exist hundreds of years ago. This may just be a few more points for us to ponder or debate. But it is not possible to ignore the advancments in human society over the last melinum. From our humble beginings to the complex cultures in wich we exist today. Good night every one. P.s. Is eveloution not merly the changes of something over a span of time. We see it in the plants even with cross polination. How any one thing human, or otherwise came to be.( thats the debatable mystery) The inherent risk of diviation from original conception (or concept) to what, or who we are today, and what or who we will be a thousand years from now will be determined as always with the passage of time. The added advantage we now have is a very well documentated and opinionated world. Lets keep some good records and track them. I'll let you know the changes in another melinium or so. P.P.s Let us not forget about the food chain. Not that I'm siding one way or another it is hard to fathom with one mighty stroke from nothing came survival of the fittest and the passing of genes for all eternity from one single idea of creationism. Oh how life goes on.

Answer 6

Sorry but your reasoning is based on false premises and the creation of false alternatives - maybe not meaningless, but definitely not sound or rigorous.

False premise: 'only tested in the court of human opinion'. If you had a piece of jewelry which you believed to be gold but weren't sure I suggest that you wouldn't look an arbitary opinion nor to a lawyer's sophistry. You would be looking for someone who was trained in the properties of precious metals to perform the correct test. It's easier to test for gold than for the nature of the mechanisms of change in the world but courts and beauty contests are not the only and certainly not the best way of getting at what really happens.

False alternative: 'there is no document ...'. If I tell you that a piece of cloth I'm holding isn't pink, can you conclude it is blue? No - of course not. The same applies in the evolution/ID discussion. The two positions don't come close to covering all the possibilities and aren't even mutually exclusive. There is no document of any kind that hints at cars, digital watches, and DVD players other than those produced by modern technologists. So presumably by the same logic these things do not exist.

So I am sorry to say that your line of reasoning is unsound and misleading.

Answer 7

That is why it is called evolutionary theory, not fact. I sense that you are a intelligent designist. Go home! We all know that evolution is a theory, and I will admit that intelligent design is a theory and creationism is a theory. Hey, and they are all great theories. More power to you, but why attack evolution? Why not attack intelligent design and creationism with the same fervor? Huh, why? Let me speculate. Becasue you are a whiner and loser, and don't know how to make a good arguement one way or another. Do your homework, write a few scientific publications and debate the issue. Meaningless attacks on the other side without substantiating evidence to your own side is called mudslinging and it is pathetic and sophomoric. Grow up and get a life.

Oh, and stop polarizing the political environment of the US. Last thing we need is a church run state. Remember that is why we left England to America: People like You.

Answer 8

May I point you to Occam's Razor.

This law suggests that where to theories predict the same outcome, the simpler of the two is likely to be the correct one.

Given the clear progression of development in organisms from a purely anatomical viewpoint compared to an antrophomorphised and poorly delineated supreme deity which created each anatomically related organism in turn (when the whim came), the former is the simplest and more likely to be the correct assumption given neither has yet been fully proved.

Answer 9

Some of the folk who are so convinced by the evolutionary hypothesis should do some homework. It is easily refuted, and does not warrant the label of theory.

The *actual* evidence that we can *all* observe in the present is much better explained by creation than evolution. Evolution is rejected by many, a priori, on *religious* grounds. That's not science.

Answer 10

I think your arguments are just as valid when turned against creationists. The difference is evolution can explain how things have turned out the way they have, whether or not there is a supreme being. Creationism denies any other theory.