some truth about science and creation?

Question

Here's the deal. On one hand I hear that evolution is only a theory (not fact) that has absolutely no evidence to support it. I hear that it is just as much a faith and religion as any other crazy creation myth. On the other hand, I hear that almost all (if not all) evidence against evolution and for biblical creationism is either a gross misunderstanding, or a gross misinterpretation of existing facts. I also hear that evolution is virtually uncontested in the science world, and that no scientist disagrees with it.

My question is how can I, not a scientist and not connected with the scientific world in anyway, be sure who's telling the truth? I don't doubt that people on both sides say thy are telling the truth (or atleast think they are), but obviously someone is lying. How can I discover the truth?

I will also be posting this question in the Biology board. I think the responeces should be interesting.

"Rev" Albert Einstein:
I just thought I'd point out that you quoted Stephen Gould in your reply, so I did some research on Dr. Gould. It seems Dr. Gould did quite a bit to fight the teaching of creationism and even testified in McLean Vs. Arkansas as an expert witness for evolution. The quotes you used stem for Dr. Gould's belief that natural selection doesn't play a big part in evolution (a belief he was very controversial for).

This is exactly what I was talking about with "a gross misinterpretation of existing facts". The "Rev" was trying to make a noted and widely citied evolutionary scientist out to be a creationist.

Answer 1

Before I lose you, go to http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html. Then read the rest of my response.

That's a good question and an important point. I often lose sight of the fact of how difficult genuine, truthful answers to the more difficult questions can be to come by. I've a great deal of background in evolutionary biology, so I actually understand the various flaws that creationists make when they make their claims. To put it bluntly, I've yet to see a single claim put forward by creationists that has any veracity to it. Not a SINGLE ONE. But, you shouldn't take my word for it, as it would be doing the same thing as agreeing with them, only inverse. The easiest way to tell if some claim is legitimate or not is if the person includes citations and references. It's easy to say that I have seen 58 studies that confirm that the eye is too complex to have evolved naturally, but another thing entirely to back it up with evidence and supporting studies. This is an especially sticky situation, given that the creationists have no reason to publish anything that would make their claims look bad. The same can be said for many atheists. Real science does not pick and chose its evidence; it looks at the best evidence and then draws conclusions. Pseudoscience works the other way around. Creationism starts with the claim "God made the universe" and tries to find supporting evidence. Evolution has been accepted because we started with the observation that life exists, and then worked on why and how it came to be in its current state. It's also critical to note that evolution says nothing about the origin of life; it is merely an explanation of how it got to be in its present shape, hence the original observation.

Anyways, THE BEST SOURCE that I have found is from talkorigins.com, a great site that discusses the evolution/creation "debate." It's called the index to creationist claims. It indexes all the claims that have been made by the creationist and provides a rebuke in a simple manner. What's unique about the index is that it not only cites and hyperlinks to studies that support its refutations, but it also cites where the original claim comes from. No creationist site can make that same claim. Don't be fooled by the glitz of sites like answersingenesis.com, look instead for hard evidence. Talk origins has it all. Check it out.

If you have any questions on this, I'd be happy to help you navigate these convoluted waters, to the extent of my knowledge. It just happens that my knowledge is more exhaustive than approximately 99% of the American population. That's not saying to terribly much, read The Origin of Species, take a class on evolutionary biology, and glance over the index that I've cited, and you're essentially there. Anyways, if you want help understanding something, I'd be quite willing to break it down into as simple terms as possible. Either way, kudos on questioning what you've been fed.

Okay, I've just read Duck Phup's answer, and that is a great overview of what evolution is and is not. He hits on a lot of important points. On the chance that you haven't, I encourage you to read it.



And one more thing. Creationism=Intelligent Design. Same thing, new name.

In addition, I couldn't help but to notice 9_Ladydi's answer. I must point out that all of the scientists are either several hundred years before the Origin was published and that NOT A SINGLE ONE IS A BIOLOGIST. I would never be so arrogant as to debate the validity of gravity on my own religious beliefs, given that I am not a physicist, so why would you listen to people who do the same thing for evolution?

Answer 2

Didn't i tell you youd get more fun answers here? Because this is were the good juicy debate is ill answer in more detail.

"On one hand I hear that evolution is only a theory (not fact) that has absolutely no evidence to support it" Theory does = fact in the scientific community. (when in the context of evolution, Quantem Mechanics, Reletivity etc) As far as the evidence or lack there of, http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/ and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_evolution

"I hear that it is just as much a faith and religion as any other crazy creation myth." For some time Creationists (in the 6000 year old sense, and this will be how i define it for the rest of the answer) have said it takes more faith to believe in evolution. For them it is correct. If you've been indoctrinated your whole life about a certain belief system then you are introduced into something completly new you'd think it was proposterous. But the open minded individual will see that evolution is fact.

"On the other hand, I hear that almost all (if not all) evidence against evolution and for biblical creationism is either a gross misunderstanding, or a gross misinterpretation of existing facts" See the talkorigins website i listed earlier. Because you are correct about this statement.

"I also hear that evolution is virtually uncontested in the science world, and that no scientist disagrees with it." Nice to include the world virtually. Virtually it is uncontested. no actual scientist disagrees with it. many scietists are now trying to push intelligetn Design, which is psuedoscience and has been recognized as such my the Court system in America.

"My question is how can I, not a scientist and not connected with the scientific world in anyway, be sure who's telling the truth?" Two options, ask God (as many have suggested, although they do so hoping youll form a pro creation belief) or go with facts. however the two can be reconcilled in a belief that God used evolution to create man. (This is what the many church belive heres an excerpt
"Churches that have no problem with
evolution are nonliteralist. They include:United Methodist Church, National Baptist Convention USA, Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, Presbyterian Church (USA), National Baptist Convention of America, African Methodist Episcopal Church, the Roman Catholic Church, the
Episcopal Church, and others."
http://www.emporia.edu/biosci/schrock/docs/Eagle-25.pdf


There is a more indepth answer.

Answer 3

firstly a scientific theory is of a higher order than fact it is the explaination of the factual evidence on the topic and is held in more scrutiny than any faith based postulate . hope you learn to research this and you shall find what you are looking for eventually . A lot of what you have heard is very true and can be substantiated . Even the pope of the Catholic Church as John Paul the Second came out with an apology for the treatment of Gallileo and conceded the truthfulness of Darwins theory .
that was a major step for science and vindication hope you can satisfy your need to know as well.

Answer 4

Evolution is a scientific theory, and is the best explanation for the biodiversity we see in archipelagoes and islands. The principles seen in these semi-isolated environments can be applied to continents as well. There is plenty of evidence supporting evolution (and I'll bet that secretsauce posts his list again).

Biblical Creationism is not a scientific theory. It is a speculation. There is no evidence or observations which support Biblical Creationism -- the only source for Biblical Creationism is a "revelation" from Moses. To believe Biblical Creationism, you must have faith in Moses. Your faith may be misplaced. Moses is known to have exaggerated the extent of the Great Flood; such exaggeration casts doubt on the other stories he told that have been gathered in the Pentateuch (the name for these books of Moses may vary depending on your religion).

Answer 5

Both the Bible and good philosophy report that God is non-physical - spirit. In John 4:24 it is said that God is spirit (see also Luke 24:39; Romans 1:20; Colossians 1:15; 1 Timothy 1:17). This is why no material thing was to be used to represent God (Exodus 20:4). But this can also be shown by reflecting on what God is. Philosophically the same truth comes through. All that is created is necessarily finite and limited. But the first cause (God) is uncreated, and therefore must be non-finite, or infinite. That which is beyond the finite must, by definition, be infinite, and the Bible states that God is beyond creation (1 Kings 8:27; Job 11:7-9; Isaiah 66:1-2; Colossians 1:17). That which is physical cannot be infinite - for you cannot add finite parts together until they reach infinity. Therefore God is spirit as opposed to physical/material in His Being. This does not mean He cannot localize a physical appearance. God is not composed of matter nor any other imaginable substance. He also cannot be measured, is not spatial, and has no true location (presence is a different concept). Thus, I believe that evolution is God's process of creating. I don't think He twitched His nose like Bewitched and "poof," there is a cow! A day to an eternal being could be millions of years. But the evolution record is scant at absolute best and evolutionists cannot explain what causes life, or evil, or love, or why we feel naked, or fulfilled prophecy. Nor can they explain irreducible complexity. Man is the crowning act of creation. We are not just animals. That's what the opposing force wants us to believe. And finally, no one creates to destroy. At the very least, evolutionists cannot explain why there are polar opposites from good to bad. Something is going on, I believe, to cause conflict on earth which would indicate not random happen chance occurrences. P.S. I am a Geologist and my studies led me TO God.

Answer 6

No, it is the idiocy of the pseudo-science that makes creationism (no science involved) a laughing stock. If there were any truth whatsoever the creationism, the "science" would make it into mainstream scientific discussion, not kept behind the muffled doors of Apologetics.

Answer 7

less than 1% of every species ever to roam this earth are alive today. evolution is real and has a lot of evidence to support it. in no good biology text book will you ever find the crazy idea that we evolved from monkeys. what you will find is talk about something we call a COMMON ANCESTOR (CA). every living thing on this earth has a CA, they do not all have the same one, but they all evolved from something. Christians today who have no understanding of biology misquote a lot of things and claim things that are not true. now, I am a Christian, but unlike most I know my biological facts. and yes I do believe that God is in charge of every thing, and that He created every thing, but it did not happen in the time frame of the bible.


see if you can pick up the text book called LIFE (sixth edition) and read through it. you will discover a world of things you never knew before.

Answer 8

You will have to study it a bit if it's important to you.
Actually it will be pretty fast if you just look up what the meaning of a theory in science is.

Apart from that you may consider whether the kind of people who invented your car, your refrigerator and your coffee maker and your computer were really that incompetent dudes, who would not bother to look at evidence whether their theory is flawed or not.

After all I guess you are old enough to vote. That means you are trusted to possess the capability to figure out which politicians tell you the truth and which do do. Figuring out evolution must be a piece of cake in comparison

Answer 9

Dr. Louis Pasteur (1822-1895) was a creationist and proved in his experiments that "life can only come from life"

Other creationist are:
Sir Isaac Newton (1643-1727)
Robert Boyle (1627-1691)
Samuel Morse (1791-1872) inventor of the telegraph and morse code

Contemporary scientist:
Dr. Russell Humphreys (Physicist) wrote book "Starlight in Time"
John Woodward - Paleontologist
Dr. John Bombgardner - does theoretical modeling on the super computer at Los Alomos Lab
Vernon Von Braun (1912-1977) designed the rocket that put man on the moon
Dr. Danny Faulkner - PHD in Astronomy/M.S. in Physics

Check out the website answersingenesis.org

Answer 10

First... don't go to religious sources for information on science... don't go to scientists for information on religion.

There are a few important things to know about biological 'evolution'...

* DNA DOES NOT evolve... it experiences mutations.

* Organisms DO NOT evolve. Organisms are essentially the 'proxies' for altered DNA, playing out the 'game' of survival/procreation in 'meat space'. DNA whose proxy organisms manage to procreate get to move on to the next round... kind of like Jeopardy.

* It is the genetic makeup of POPULATIONS of organisms (the 'gene pool') that 'evolves' (changes, over time).

Science does not 'prove' things. 'Proof' is for mathematicians, coin collectors and distillers of alcoholic beverages. Proof in science is applicable only in the 'negative' sense... i.e., hypotheses and theories must be 'falsifiable'. When scientists do experiments (to validate 'predicted' results), they are NOT trying to 'prove' they are RIGHT... they are trying to FIND OUT if they're WRONG. NOT being wrong simply builds confidence that one is on the right track... it 'proves' nothing.

Evolution is not a matter of 'belief'. I keep reading in here that "... evolution is just a theory... not a fact." That, as it turns out, is true... although the word 'just' is inappropriate, and misleading... and it indicates that people just don't understand what a scientific theory is; they seem to think that a theory is just an 'idea'. Nothing could be further from the truth.

In science, 'theories' occupy a higher level of importance than mere 'facts'... theories EXPLAIN facts. The Theory of Evolution provides an explanatory framework for the OBSERVED FACT that the genetic makeup of populations of organisms changes over time (evolves). The theory identifies two (2) mechanisms which account for such changes:

** Genetic drift... statistical variations in allele frequency within a local population, over time.

** Natural selection... the non-random replication of randomly varying replicators.

There may be OTHER mechanisms in play which have not yet been identified and accounted for, and various scientists continue to quibble about that... but NONE of what I have described above is in dispute within the scientific community. Claims to the contrary by creationists are nothing more than a red herring, designed to bamboozle their scientifically-ignorant constituency... which is VERY easy to do. That's what happens when your 'trusted' sources are professional liars whose livlihood depends on keeping their 'flock' (sheeple) steeped in gullibility, self-delusion, ignorance and irrationality.