Evolution vs. Creation (Two Questions)?

Question

First Question:

Is the controversy between these two topics warranted on any factual basis (living things sharing DNA, but not originating one from another), or does the controversy simply disguise the ongoing dispute between the two opposing forces of atheism and religion?

Second Question:

How does the dating of fossils go from hypothesis to theory/fact?

Answer 1

1) It's not atheism vs. religion, it's religion vs. science. Religion deals with the supernatural, and science with the natural. There's not reason for them to interact, as science has nothing to say on the subject of a god, unless religion tries to interfere with science. Which it often does. Creationism is not science.

2) They usually use radioactive dating methods. Certain elements, such as carbon and uranium, decay at very well understood and predicted rates, and we can use the ratios of one isotope of the element to the other to determine the age of the fossil. Radioactive dating is a theory in that it encompasses many facts and laws and includes other theories (atomic theory, quantum theory) and it is a fact because it is demonstrateable. It works.

Answer 2

First there is no serious debate in scientific circles. Any thing the creationists present as "evidence" does not come anywhere close to passing a peer review process to get it published in any scientific journal. And those journals would fight for the right to publish it if it did. The controversy is entirely generated by the religious because it conflicts with their texts.

Science almost never calls anything a fact. Gravity is still a theory. Unless you have a competing theory to explain the radiological decay, then it is widely accepted as fact. There are several methods used to date fossils (not all radiological-there are 10,000 years worth of tree growth patterns mapped in areas) and they all agree on the dates which makes them a very good bet. FYI - The order of the fossils can be determined by stratification alone. Deeper layers of rock are older than the top layers. Life started simple and got more complex and that is the only way to read the fossil record.

Answer 3

It has nothing to do with atheism or science. The Biblical literalists are challenged by the evidence against the story of Creation as written, since it collapses their doctrine that every word in the Bible is true. They try to make it sound as if atheists are the source of the problem, but of course, it's reality that contradicts their doctrine.

Radiodating started as a hypothesis. It was tested against evidence (e.g. rocks and fossils) and a scale was set. When new isotope combinations were tested and gave similar figures, the hypothesis was confirmed to the level of a theory. Fact is a dangerous word. It should only apply to the truly known:
"Repeated experiments gave similiar results."
"The rock was measured to be 4.3 billion years old."
NOT
"The rock is 4.3 billion years old."

Answer 4

It's a question of how we got here Creation or Evolution?

Some quotes:

"Many scientists succumb to the temptation to be dogmatic,..over and over again the question of the origin of the species has been presented as if it were finally settled. Nothing could be further from the truth..But the tendency to be dogmatic persists, and if does not service to the cause of science." The Guardian, London, England 12/04/80 p. 15

"If progressive evolution from simple to complex is correct, the ancestors of the full-blown living creatures in the Cambrian should be found; but they have not been found and scientists admit there is little prospect of their ever being found. On the basis of the facts alone, on the basis of what is actually found in the earth, the theory of a sudden creative act in which major forms of life were established fits best." Liberty Sept/Oct 1975 p. 12

Regarding fossils:

"The fossil evidence could be consistant with the idea of a Great Designer" Carl Sagan, book Cosmos pg 29

"If numerous species..have really started into life at one time, the fact would be fatal to the theory of evolution." Charles Darwin "The Origin of Species pg 83

"Darwin's theory of (evolution) has always been closely linked to evidence from fossils, and probably most people assume that the fossils provide a very important part of the general argument that is made in favor of darwinian interpretations of the history of life. Unfortunately, this is not strickly true...the geologic record did not then and still does not yield a finely graduated chain of slow and progressive evolution." The Bulletin of Chicago's Field Museum of Natural History 01/79 Vol. 50 No. 1 pg 22,23

"Beginning at the base of the Cambrian period and extending for about 10 million years, all the major groups of skeletonized invertebrates made their first appearance in the most spectacular rise in diversity ever recorded on our planet."
A View of Life, Salvador E. Luria, Stephen Jay Gould, Sam Singer, p. 649

Answer 5

All the science we have points ot evolution. None of it to Creationism. In the scientific world, there is no debate. There are some false scientists who claim to be "creation scientists", but they are rejected by the other 99% of scientists.

The dating of the fossils is based on radioactive dating. It is a science just like taking fingerprints. Atoms emit radiation on a very predictable scale which decreased as time goes one from the organisms death.

Answer 6

The "evolution vs creation" discussion had its origin in the publication of "The Fundamentals," which was written in response to the publication of Darwin's "Origin of Species." It arises out of a concern that the theory of evolution somehow destroys faith in God, rather along the lines of the concern over Gallileo's pointing out the difficulties of a geocentric universe.

The controversy is an artificial one.

The dating of fossils goes from hypothesis to theory by the same process as other ideas in science, by the accumulation of supporting evidence.

Answer 7

Yes it is

Big Bang fly in the face of science and the laws and principals of thermodynamics. Lets be logical people.

In the First Law of Thermodynamics: matter cannot be created or destroyed. In the beginning to the Big Bang, there is nothing present to explode, and zero energy to explode it. There are zero observations, or documented test results for spontaneous generation, let alone matter from nothing.

Expecting to have matter, and energy just show up, when none is present is like taking an absolutely empty box, and after billions of years, or any other amount of time, expect to open that box, and inside have a operational world in all its complexity. Spontaneous generation something out of nothing, used to support the Big Bang is in direct conflict with the first scientific Law of Thermodynamics.

Answer 8

Imagine if you were accused of a crime and every piece of circumstantial evidence suggested that you did it, but you have an untouchable alibi: you can prove that you were in another country at the time of the crime.

To the scientific mind, you are innocent because the evidence doesn't fit the argument. To the religious mind, they will ignore the most important piece of evidence because they want an easy answer, even when it's unproven or demonstrably wrong.

Would you want to depend a court system that works on that basis?

A theory is an explanation that accounts for ALL of the known evidence. Not some, not most, ALL. If an existing theory cannot explain a new piece of evidence, it means doing one of two things: amending the theory to fit the evidence or discarding the theory altogether.

Evolution is a valid theory because it explains every single piece of known evidence, and most new finds within the Earth support the theory, rather than contradicting it. And when a piece of evidence does contradict the theory, biologists change the theory. Scientists don't ignore, hide, or attempt to discredit the facts.

The religious argue that this is not acceptable, but just as a prosecutor has a right to change his argument in the case of new evidence, so does the scientist. (Back to the hypothetical crime: the prosecutor learns that the crime did not happen on the date originally thought, but acutally occured on a date in which you _were_ in the country. His accusation may now be valid, though unproven.)

Religion is based on the ridiculous premise that the "truth" was known centuries ago by people who thought the sun went around the Earth. Though thousands upon thousands of pieces of evidence have contradicted their claims, the religious still cling desperately to their ignorance. Among the religious laity, they believe that to admit their argument is full of holes would mean they must abandon religion entirely; and the religious leaders _know_ that if they admit their argument is full of holes that they would lose members, money and influence in society.

Creationism is not a theory because it does not explain anything, it is in total contradiction to better than 99% of the evidence. The religious depend on avoidance, not evidence; the only way they can continue to perpetuate their fable is to lie, deny, and decry the facts. All scientific claims are based on testing and retesting evidence again and again; creationism is based upon never checking their claims out of fear that they are wrong.

Would you consider it censorship for the NY Times to refuse to publish a story entitled "Bat Baby Escapes From Secret Government Zoo", or would you say the writer is not a journalist? In the same way, creationists claim their dogma is discriminated by scientists because none of their claims has been published in any reputable scientific journals. The reality is, few have ever submitted a paper to a reputable journal for peer review to be checked and verified by scientists, and the few that have contained glaring errors and falsehoods (eg. Kent Hovind, who is currently awaiting sentencing for tax fraud).

Just as my hypothetical prosecutor seeks to manipulate the facts because he knows he can't prove the case on merit, so do the creationists seek to manipulate the facts. But even worse, just as the US government seeks to claim "We don't arrest innocent people" as an argument for holding people prisoner at Guantanamo Bay without trial, so do the religious seek to shift the burden of proof.

It is those who make the claim that must prove it, not those who refute it. Whether that be a prosecutor, a scientist, or even a child at "show and tell", those who want others to believe them must put up or shut up.

Scientists do. Creationists don't.


.

Answer 9

My two answers:

1. One has empirical evidence (evolution) and the other denies that the empirical evidence (religion) has any merit or refutes it based on a literal interpretation of the Bible. Evolution has NOTHING to do with atheism.

2. Dating fossils is based on the scientific method called "carbon dating" which has been proven to be accurate to a certain percentile, depending on the condition of the object being dated, so it's empirical evidence.

_()_

Answer 10

the debate is between two groups of people who insist they're firmly right, without proof. everyone else is in the happy middle, and there is no debate.

1. clearly evolution happens. Humans get taller. Bacteria grows resistant strains.

2. But there is no proof that humans have evolved from apes. There is no missing link, and the more info they find on Neanderthals and Homo Erectus,etc the more they look like valid humanoids, and contemporaries, not a link in a chain.

3. so, I'm willing to believe in things changing, etc, just as I'm willing to believe G-d created the world, and dinosaurs, and humans, etc.

4. But just because people are scientists, doesn't mean they're right. it means they're constant studying and theorizing and doing the best they can. And because someone is religious does not mean that they're stupid. Some of the best scientists in the world have been religious- who else would have a more vested interest in science, if only to further showcase/prove the wonder of G-d?