your views on Evolution?

Question

After reading several pro-intelligent design books, I decided to try to find an unbiased source about this debate(the books were based on faulty logic and I was mainly wondering about the points they raised). Basically what are your views on evolution and can you back it up?

as of right now I'm for evolution, can you change my mind.

Answer 1

I am not sure I qualify as an unbiased source on the ID debate. Let me quickly tell you my background. I have a PhD in biology and did research in evolution. I am currently working on a PhD in theology, studying how evolutionary and behavioral biology can inform a systematic theology. I fear that ID is neither science nor good theology, and unfortuantely it does not qualify as good philosophy, either.

Intelligent Design proponents like Michael Behe or Bill Dembski are not saying that there was no evolution, but that it could not have happened as described in the neo-Darwinian theory of evolution.

To wrap up the neo-Darwinian theory of evolution in a nut shell, let's just say that according to the theory species evolve in a step-wise fashion trough a process of natural selection, which acts on random variation. Or in other words, within a population you find a variety of individuals with traits that differ within a certain range due to random processes such as genetic mutations or environmental influences (epigenetics). Natural selection, as a non-random, directed process acts on this population in such a way that only those with a particular set of traits will get to reproduce. Their genes will thus be present in future generations and through generations of selection certain traits will emerge and become prominent within this population. As the evironment is changing, so are the members of the population. At one point, the newly emerged population is so different from the original population that you actually have a new species. This, in a nut shell, is what most biologists would argue today as the process of evolution.

Here is the rub for the ID folks: For one, they believe that you can detect a design in nature which therefore must point at a designer. While people like Dembski or Behe never really come out to say it is God, they nonetheless suggest an intelligent designer. For you and me that most likely translates into ... God.

Michael Behe also argues that stepwise evolution is not possible since their exist strutures that are irreducibly complex. Sounds complicated, but Behe's argument is compellingly easy - and, as you will see, amazingly wrong. Behe argues that there are structures like the flagellum of a sperm cell or complex biochemical cascades of enzymes, as in case of blood coagulation, that would not allow for a stepwise evolution. As soon as one part of these complex systems is missing, they cease to function and would thus lead to death. For example, if your blood clotting cascade would miss a certain enzyme, you would bleed to death. How then can there be a stepwise evolution when the absence of only one step would already lead to death?

The problem is that Behe ignores the fact that in biology already existing systems can be coopted into performing new functions. For example, one of the enzymes involved in blood coagulation is also involved in blood pressure regulation, reproduction, developement and possibly more. I a recent science paper, Joe Thornton showed very nicely how a system that seems to be irreducibly complex can actually evolve in a stepwise fashion.

So, what then is the problem with ID? Well, for one they get the science wrong. As I just showed, stepwise evolution is possible even if at first sight it doesn't seem possible. Moreover though, they insist that during evolution certain major steps had to be caused by an intelligent designer, a divine influence, or else these new ordered systems - or species - wouldn't be possible. The problem with that is not the idea of a God being involved in evolution; many models of theistic evolution argue for evolution to be the way "God did it." The problem is that now ID runs the ris of creating a god of the gaps, that is, a God who can only act where scientific explanation fails. But as Joe Thornton's work shows, science might become able to show what at one point cannot be shown. At that point, God's realm - and consequently God himself - has shrunk. In other words, a god of the gaps will disappear as science manages to explain more and more.

But there is another reason than the god of the gaps why ID is bad theology. ID folks argue that design is scientifically detectable in nature and that one can scientifically deduce the designer. That's not theology... Theology might best be summed up as *fides quaerens intellectum* (St. Anslem of Canterbury: faith seeking understanding). It begins with a revelatory experience and tries to understand this experience through means of expressing it in religious symbols. Those symbols can be Scripture, tradition, doctrine. But theology does not try to get from understanding to faith, which in case of ID wouldn't work to begin with, since their science is wrong.

ID is thus bad science and bad theological strategy. How about it being good philosophy? Well, the problem is what we call a category mistake. If I ask a scientific question I cannot use theological methods to answer it, because the question is outside the realm of the theological method. But injecting an intelligent designer based on dubious scientific interpretations is exactly that... Moreover, for a reasonable natural philosophy one needs to rely on the best science available, which as mentioned above is not the case with ID.

So, what are we left with? A position that is neither good theology nor philosophy, and certainly not science at all.

There are good reasons to be critical of the neo-Darwinian or synthetic theory of evolution, but those are not related to design. Rather, they are related to the synthetic theory placing too much emphasis on genetic programs and ignoring developmental biology. A true synthetic theory of evolution has to take into account developmental biology, as numerous wonderful studies in the new fields of evolutionary developmental biology (evo-devo) or developmental evolutionary biology (devo-evo) have shown.

A bit long, my answer, for which I apologize, but hopefully it helps.

Answer 2

Evidence strongly supports evolution. Although I can explain the concept of evolution, it's impossible to adequately list and describe in detail all the supporting evidence on YAnswers and do it justice. Evolution does take some basic knowledge in biology to fully appreciate, and unfortunately many people seem to lack a solid foundation in the sciences. As a result, you see many people here argue against evolutionary theory from an emotional perspective ("my gut feeling") or religious perspective ("that's not what the bible says") or use flawed arguments ("the bacterial flagellum is proof against evolution"). The more you study evolutionary theory, the more compelling it becomes. The website below is a very good link to understanding the process of evolution better.

Answer 3

When I was a lad about 10 or 11, I was out in the back yard playing with the dog. I noticed he had a scratch on his nose which had scabbed over. It suddenly occurred to me that the scab looked just like ones I had got from time to time. So a dog's blood was red and worked the same way as mine. Within a few seconds I realised that except for his tail and coat of hair every part of the dog was analogous to every part of me.

Head with two ears. - Check. Two nostrils and two eyes - Check. One mouth with tongue and teeth. - Check. Spine and ribcage. - Check. Four limbs. - Check. Toes. - Check
and several other bits.

Cats were similar. So were horses and cows. Chickens had four limbs, two eyes, but they were rather different. Lizards and frogs had heads, two eyes, and also five toes on each foot. It was therefore pretty clear that all large animals were related to some extent.

Now an 11 year old can work that out from looking at a dozen or so different types of common animals, none of them closely related.

Back in the 1700s natural philosophers were classifying thousands of animals and plants and it was very obvious that some of them were closely related. It was about that time that these natural philosophers realised that evolution was a fact. And that was almost 100 years before Darwin and Wallace published their theory of evolution.

Evolution is a fact. Darwin and Wallace had a theory about it. which was backed up by evidence they had, even then. Since then more facts have meant the theory has been slightly modified but their original ideas were essentially correct.

If evolutionary theory is 100% wrong, most of biology is wrong and so is much of geology. However practical applications of geology and biology seem to work. If the age of the earth is just a few hundred thousand years then most of geology is wrong. So is much of astronomy and a good deal of nuclear and even electrical physics.

If a good deal of nuclear and electrical physics is wrong, then virtually all of nuclear and electrical engineering is wrong. Yet engineers still manage to build working nuclear and ordinary power stations, computers, television sets and all the rest.

If the Earth is no more than 6011 years old and the Old Testament is 100% correct, then all the ancient Egyptians drowned in Noah's flood. That was after they built the three great pyramids. However they did not seem to notice that they were all dead and kept on building, writing things down on papyrus and carving them on rock. Living, loving, laughing and lousing things up. So history must be wrong too.

"Intelligent design" is just the thoroughly discredited "creation science" under a different name, and is led by the same crowd of frauds and liars.

Answer 4

So, I'm assuming you are familiar with the faulty concepts IDer's have of irreducible complexity, the second law of thermodynamics, the analogy of the 747 forming in a junkyard, and so on, right?

I can't think of any argument from ID that is defensible and based on empirical, scientific evidence. Many of them want to offer as evidence analogies and thought experiments, or claim that the parts of the cell are so intricate they must have been designed, or that one part of a organ could not have developed without another part, etc. No new empirically-based evidence has ever come from an IDer (or creationist, for that matter) that can refute any of the theory of evolution. I'm going to star this so secretsauce gets in on the debate...he'll tell you what I'm sure I've missed. And, we're both Christians, too...go figure.

EDIT: Perfect oputz. I couldn't have (and didn't) said it better myself.

Answer 5

Intelligent Design is not a scientific theory! Supporters of ID are neo-creationists that base their pseudo-theory only trying to disprooving evolutionism...
Who works on evolution is aware about all the problems with the darwinian vision (for example the rhythm of evolution), but there are not valid reasons to refusal the theory in toto.

for Oputz on a step-wise evolution.... "Michael Behe also argues that stepwise evolution is not possible since their exist strutures that are irreducibly complex"... already G.Cuvier developed this idea on 1800!! Does he know the works of Elredge, Gould, Lewontin? Does he know "punctuated equilibria"?? Does he know hox-genes?? I agree your speech, thanks for your explainations.
Ciao

Answer 6

Evolution is a fact, backed by the evidence of fossil records, atomic decay dating and DNA comparisons. The Theory of Evolution explains how evolution happens. The only people who deny macro evolution are Creationists. They believe in a reality for which there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever to back up their claims.

Answer 7

I basically believe with Oldguy. I believe in a "creation" so to speak, but I don't believe in what people write on "intelligent design." I believe in evolution through what I have observed in the environment. I see (not just look at in karyotypes) different subspecies in different environments. This means that the species in the two areas have changed size, shape, color, etc. but can still mate with each other and produce fertile offspring. This obviously occurs through natural selection. The animals that are better able to survive in an environment or adapt to changes in an environment survive to pass on their genes. All others that don't are considered "biological failures." Then I see (much as Darwin saw on the Galapagos) similar species in different environments. This means that those could not mate with each other and produce fertile offspring. Such similar species must have a common ancestor (such as a domestic iguana and a marine iguana). Then, further on, I see different species that have some type of similarities (such as a panda bear (and YES it is a bear) and a grizzly bear). These must also have a common ancestor, just further back in time. It eventually comes to the point where there are one to several common ancestors that many to all animals/plantae/etc. must have to some extent.

Answer 8

I think the idea of evolution is quite interesting however in my gut I get a big no on this one. But I really have no ax to grind. I am open to listen to anything about this subject. I find it very interesting.
I like the idea of creation and the idea of a power much bigger than me who can make such a thing happen. I am totally amazed about the idea that in this universe the only life is on planet earth. At least so far. When you stop to consider how many stars, planets, and what ever there is out there. I find it fascinating.

Answer 9

I'm in the relatively rare position of neither accepting nor rejecting it...and in my experience, it drives those who have chosen a side, either side, crazy that they can't guilt, shame, debate, or otherwise coerce me into accepting their position. I find both sides amusing. After all, we're talking about people who have already assumed (accepted on faith) that the creation claim of their "God" is valid...and they still think it is important enough to know when and how he did it that they're willing to put some measure of faith in an answer to those questions. In a way, the funniest part is that because I choose to play "devil's advocate" with both sides, people on both sides have accused me of actually "representing Satan". In essence, such people are not only saying that knowing how and when God created everything is important enough to use faith to assume an answer, they're also saying that failure to discover and embrace the correct answer is against the "will of God". The reaction when I ask for a biblical reference to support the idea that God told us to use the resources he gave us to figure out how and when he created everything is the best giggle of all. Edit: for RJ...I agree that it is more logical to go with what science says that with what religion says...it is more logical to go with evidence over the opinions of other people. HOWEVER, have you ever considered the fact that logic demands you have a valid/rational purpose for asking the question before you bother choosing the "most logical" answer.

Answer 10

If you study the subject carefully, you should find the evidence in support of evolution quite compelling. The oldest fossil organisms are of stromatolite mats more than 3 billion years old. No multicellular fossils date back to that time. The next oldest fossils are of marine organisms dating back more than 600 million years. Primitive fish dominated the world's oceans long before the first land plants and insects came to be. The fossil evidence clearly indicates all of this.

Some 400 million years ago we find the first fossils of terrestrial animals. These are all amphibians, bearing uncanny resemblance to rhipidistian lungfish of the devonian. Why should that be the case, if evolution was completely wrong, and all plants and animals were created almost simultaneously a mere 6000 years ago? Why would God create long extinct amphibians with such remarkable characteristics, as though God WANTED people to conclude evolution had occurred?

Microbiology also indicates evolutionary trends. Charles Darwin speculated whales (marine mammals) must have evolved from some terrestrial mammal. Sure enough, we have found ancient legged cetaceans, and mesonychids--a likely ancestor of whales. Why did God give the evolutionists such incredible evidence in support of Darwin's theory, if evolution is completely false? What could have God been thinking? What was His purpose?

Evolution does not imply that God does not exist. If there is a God, He did not design the universe in such a way as to compel belief in His existence. That is why we can see galaxies billions of light years away--clearly beyond the 6000 light year recent "creation" boundary. We have detected supernova in the light from distant galaxies, such that if God created trails of light from earth back to those far away places, did God also embed within those trails of light information concerning events that never actually occurred?

Creationists prefer to simply dismiss almost all scientific findings. They deny the validity of dendochronology (tree ring dating), which has been cross correlated with radiocarbon dating. They deny that nuclear physics can yield reliable radioisotope dates. They deny the accuracy of astrophysics (stellar processes such as nucleosynthesis) and they deny cosmology, which was built upon particle physics. They deny biology, genetics, geophysics (standard models for plate tectonics, subduction and orogeny), and the elementary physics upon which these are based. They instead appeal to metaphysical and magical explanations. I have heard creationists explain, for example, that lunar craters were the result of the sin of Adam, as though God rained asteroids from space upon all the planets of the solar system because one disobediant dude ingested proscribed fruit. Now, no doubt Adam's wickedness deserved reprimand. But why pelt Mercury, Venus, Earth, Earth's moon, Mars, Phobos & Deimos, Ceres, Ganymede, Titan, and other celestial bodies? And why omit that interesting detail from the record?

I guess I have wandered a bit off track here. But Occam's Razor suggests one ought to go with the simplest explanation. That boils down to one of two scenarios. Either God created our universe 13.7 billion years ago, and perhaps guided the course of metazoan (multicellular) evolution upon our world over the past 600 million years, or God doesn't exist and all this occurred naturally. Intelligent Design is not necessarily wrong just because we lack any concrete evidence for a Designer. Accepting that is a matter of faith--of personal choice. And I know you weren't talking about creationism, but about I.D.

Some things are a bit difficult to fathom. We have not been able to create life yet. Most biologists admit a significant gulf separates the organic chemicals that do occur naturally (amino acids, etc.) from even the simplest prokaryotic bacteria or the archea (other single celled non eukaryotic [nucleated] organisms).

My views on evolution: 1) God guided evolution. 2) God didn't guide it, but allowed it to occur "naturally." 3) God doesn't exist. At the present time no scientific proof exists for any of these propositions--so Intelligent Design simply remains outside the domain of science. It is philosophy, until we can devise some reliable test for the existence (or non existence) of the "Intelligent Designer."