What does "Intelligent Design" even mean?

Why this understatement of humans' ability to confront animals?

If you meet a wolf, all you need is a solid branch. If there are rocks in your area, you can throw them. A 10 pounds rock is a pretty dangerous thing to get hit by, you know? Then you have torches. Animals don't like torches. People are producing flatbows for some time, they are producing spear shafts and spear tips for some time.

Sometimes a big cat kills a monkey. It doesn't happen often though, mostly because monkeys also throw stuff and cats don't like it.

Confronting a group of brick sized stone throwing humans is something that not even an elephant would be keen on.
Humans make up for their physical weaknesses through the use of tools. It is one of their primary distinctive characteristics. It may have been developed in fact originally as a survival/nature equalizer.

Without tools humans are "lunch".

Thanks!
 
Last edited:
Well, my point was that sometimes tools are just lying around the place, like stones and sticks, and it doesn't require human intelligence to use them as monkeys demonstrate.
 
Well, my point was that sometimes tools are just lying around the place, like stones and sticks, and it doesn't require human intelligence to use them as monkeys demonstrate.
Wrestle, one on one, with an angry chimp and you will very quickly find out and understand what I mean.

They have about 5 times the human's strength, pound for pound, and could just literally tear us apart, limb by limb, if so motivated. :)
 
Last edited:
Well, o.k., but it is entirely possible that we are monkey like creatures that specialized in throwing rocks and hurling clubs.

EDIT. And it was surely only a matter of time until the first of our ancestors came up with the idea to fasten a rock to a club and hence produce the first ax (or hammer, depending on the shape of the rock.)
 
Last edited:
http://anthro.palomar.edu/evolve/evolve_3.htm

Evidence of Evolution


The Nobel Prize winning scientist Linus Pauling aptly described science as the search for truth. Science does this by continuously comparing its theories objectively with evidence in the natural world. When theories no longer conform to the evidence, they are modified or rejected in favor of new theories that do conform. In other words, science constantly tries to prove its assumptions to be false and rejects implausible explanations. In this way, scientific knowledge and understanding grow over time. Religious explanations for the order of things are not science because they are based primarily on faith and do not subject themselves to be objectively falsified. Because of this fundamental difference in the approach to understanding our natural world, the U.S. Supreme Court in effect decided in 1987 that the Biblically based "creation science" is not a science and cannot be taught as such in public schools as an alternative or in addition to the mainstream evolutionary theory of the biological sciences. However, religious creation stories and the idea of "intelligent design" can be taught in philosophy, religion, or history courses. Religion and Science provide different approaches to knowledge. It is important to understand both.


What is Evolution?

Biological evolution is genetic change in a population from one generation to another. The speed and direction of change is variable with different species lines and at different times. Continuous evolution over many generations can result in the development of new varieties and species. Likewise, failure to evolve in response to environmental changes can, and often does, lead to extinction.

When scientists speak of evolution as a theory they do not mean that it is a mere speculation. It is a theory in the same sense as the propositions that the earth is round rather than flat or that our bodies are made of atoms are theories. Most people would consider such fundamental theories to be sufficiently tested by empirical evidence to conclude that they are indeed facts. As a result of the massive amount of evidence for evolution accumulated over the last two centuries, we can safely conclude that evolution has occurred and continues to occur. All life forms, including people, evolved from earlier species. Furthermore, all still living species of organisms continue to evolve today. We now understand that there are a number of different natural processes that can cause evolution to occur. These are presented in later tutorials of this series.

For those who have difficulty in accepting evolution because of what they perceive as contradictions with their fundamental religious beliefs, it may be useful to distinguish the ultimate origin of life from its later evolution. Many, if not most, biological scientists accept that primordial life on earth began as a result of chance natural occurrences 3.5-4 billion years ago. However, it is not necessary to believe in that view in order to accept that living creatures evolved by natural means after the origin of the first life. Charles Darwin modified his religious beliefs, as did many others, as a result of the discovery of convincing proof of evolution. Darwin's religious faith was also severely challenged by the death of his 10 year old daughter Annie in 1851. Apparently, he came to believe that his God created the order of the universe including the rules of nature that result in biological evolution. His famous book, On the Origin of Species, was not a denial of his God's existence. However, he did reject a literal interpretation of the Judeo-Christian Bible. His religious beliefs were probably very similar to those who advocate "theistic evolution" today. Isn't Evolution Just a Theory--video clip from PBS 2001 series Evolution
requires RealPlayer to view (length = 6 mins, 15 secs)
Darwin's Personal Struggles--an interview with Darwin's biographer, James Moore
This link takes you to an audio file at an external website. To return here, you must click
the "back" button on your browser program. (length = 7 mins, 38 secs)
Evolution of the Eye--an explanation by zoologist Dan-Erik Nilsson
This link takes you to a video at an external website. To return here, you must click the
"back" button on your browser program. (length = 4 mins, 8 secs)



How Do We Know That Evolution Has Occurred?

The evidence for evolution has primarily come from four sources:1. the fossil record of change in earlier species
2. the chemical and anatomical similarities of related life forms
3. the geographic distribution of related species
4. the recorded genetic changes in living organisms over many generations



The Fossil Record
Geological strata containing an
evolutionary sequence of fossils


Remains of animals and plants found in sedimentary rock deposits give us an indisputable record of past changes through time. This evidence attests to the fact that there has been a tremendous variety of living things. Some extinct species had traits that were transitional between major groups of organisms. Their existence confirms that species are not fixed but can evolve into other species over time.

The evidence also shows that what have appeared to be gaps in the fossil record are due to incomplete data collection. The more that we learn about the evolution of specific species lines, the more that these so-called gaps or "missing links in the chain of evolution" are filled with transitional fossil specimens.


Chemical and Anatomical Similarities

Living things on earth are fundamentally similar in the way that their basic anatomical structures develop and in their chemical compositions. No matter whether they are simple single celled protozoa or highly complex organisms with billions of cells, they all begin as single cells that reproduce themselves by similar division processes. After a limited life span, they also all grow old and die.

All living things on earth share the ability to create complex molecules out of carbon and a few other elements. In fact, 99% of the proteins, carbohydrates, fats, and other molecules of living things are made from only 6 of the 92 most common elements. This is not a mere coincidence.

All plants and animals receive their specific characteristics from their parents by inheriting particular combinations of genes. Molecular biologists have discovered that genes are, in fact, segments of DNA molecules in our cells.

section of a DNA molecule


These segments of DNA contain chemically coded recipes for creating proteins by linking together particular amino acids in specific sequences.

simple protein molecule


All of the tens of thousands of types of proteins in living things are made of only 20 kinds of amino acids. Despite the great diversity of life on our planet, the simple language of the DNA code is the same for all living things. This is evidence of the fundamental molecular unity of life.

Human arm bones
(typical vertebrate pattern)


In addition to molecular similarities, most living things are alike in that they either get the energy needed for growth, repair, and reproduction directly from sunlight, by photosynthesis , or they get it indirectly by consuming green plants and other organisms that eat plants.

Many groups of species share the same types of body structures because they inherited them from a common ancestor that had them. This is the case with the vertebrates , which are the animals that have internal skeletons. The arms of humans, the forelegs of dogs and cats, the wings of birds, and the flippers of whales and seals all have the same types of bones (humerus, radius, and ulna) because they have retained these traits of their shared common ancient vertebrate ancestor.

All of these major chemical and anatomical similarities between living things can be most logically accounted for by assuming that they either share a common ancestry or they came into existence as a result of similar natural processes. These facts make it difficult to accept a theory of special and independent creation of different species.


Geographic Distribution of Related Species

Another clue to patterns of past evolution is found in the natural geographic distribution of related species. It is clear that major isolated land areas and island groups often evolved their own distinct plant and animal communities. For instance, before humans arrived 60-40,000 years ago, Australia had more than 100 species of kangaroos, koalas, and other marsupials but none of the more advanced terrestrial placental mammals such as dogs, cats, bears, horses. Land mammals were entirely absent from the even more isolated islands that make up Hawaii and New Zealand. Each of these places had a great number of plant, insect, and bird species that were found nowhere else in the world. The most likely explanation for the existence of Australia's, New Zealand's, and Hawaii's mostly unique biotic environments is that the life forms in these areas have been evolving in isolation from the rest of the world for millions of years.


Genetic Changes Over Generations

The earth's environments are constantly changing, usually in subtle and complex ways. When the changes are so great as to go beyond what most members of a population of organisms can tolerate, widespread death occurs. As Charles Darwin observed, however, not all individuals always perish. Fortunately, natural populations have genetic diversity. Those individuals whose characteristics allow them to survive an environmental crisis likely will be the only ones able to reproduce. Subsequently, their traits will be more common in the next generation--evolution of the population will have occurred.

This process of natural selection resulting in evolution can be easily demonstrated over a 24 hour period in a laboratory Petri dish of bacteria living in a nutrient medium. When a lethal dose of antibiotic is added, there will be a mass die-off. However, a few of the bacteria usually are immune and survive. The next generation is mostly immune because they have inherited immunity from the survivors. That is the case with the purple bacteria in the Petri dishes shown below--the bacteria population has evolved. Evolution of antibiotic resistant bacteria




This same phenomenon of bacteria evolution speeded up by human actions occurs in our own bodies at times when an antibiotic drug is unable to completely eliminate a bacterial infection. That is the reason that medical doctors are sometimes hesitant to recommend an antibiotic for their patients and insist that the full dosage be used even if the symptoms of illness go away. They do not want to allow any potentially antibiotic resistant bacteria to survive. Antibiotic resistance--how mutation and fast reproductive rates of
microorganisms can outpace modern medical breakthroughs
This link takes you to an external website. To return here, you must click
the "back" button on your browser program.


Dog variety resulting
from selective breeding
over many generations


People have developed many new varieties of plants and animals by selective breeding. This process is similar to the bacteria experiment described above. Selection of specimens to breed based on particular traits is, in effect, changing the environment for the population. Those individuals lacking the desirable characteristics are not allowed to breed. Therefore, the following generations more commonly have the desired traits.

Insect with a high
reproductive potential


Species that mature and reproduce large numbers in a short amount of time have a potential for very fast evolutionary changes. Insects and microorganisms often evolve at such rapid rates that our actions to combat them quickly lose their effectiveness. We must constantly develop new pesticides, antibiotics, and other measures in an ever escalating biological arms race with these creatures. Unfortunately, there are a few kinds of insects and microbes that are now significantly or completely resistant to our counter measures, and some of these species are responsible for devastating crop losses and deadly diseases.

If evolution has occurred, there should be many anatomical similarities among varieties and species that have diverged from a common ancestor. Those species with the most recent common ancestor should share the most traits. For instance, the many anatomical similarities of wolves, dogs, and other members of the genus Canis are due to the fact that they are descended from the same ancient canine species. Wolves and dogs also share similarities with foxes, indicating a slightly more distant ancestor with them.

Genetic Tool Kit--evidence of a common set of genes for body parts shared by many,
if not most, creatures
This link takes you to a video at an external website. To return here, you must click the
"back" button on your browser program. (length = 4 mins, 47 secs)
Science and Faith--roundtable discussion about resolving conflicts with religion
This link takes you to an external website. To return here, you must click the "back"
button on your browser program.
Evolving Ideas: Why Is Evolution Controversial Anyway--reconciling a belief in science
and religion
This link takes you to a video at an external website. To return here, you must click the
"back" button on your browser program. (length = 6 mins, 36 secs)


Given the abundant evidence supporting the theory of biological evolution, it is highly probable that evolution has occurred and is still occurring today. However, there remains speculation in regards to the specific evolutionary path of some species lines and the relative importance of the different natural processes responsible for their evolution.

Much has been added to our understanding of the nature of evolution since the 19th century. It is now known that there are six different processes that can operate independently or in consort to bring about evolution. The understanding of these processes has become the basis for an overall synthetic theory of evolution . This theory encompasses multiple causes, including Charles Darwin's concept of natural selection, Gregor Mendel's experimental results concerning genetic inheritance, as well as a number of crucial 20th century discoveries. The synthetic theory of evolution will be revisited with more detail in the 6th tutorial of this biological anthropology series.


The Public Perception of Evolution in the United States

Biological evolution is far from being universally accepted by Americans. Annual national polls carried out since the mid 1980's by the Center for Biomedical Communication at Northwestern University School of Medicine indicate that the percentage of Americans who accept evolution has dropped from 45% to 40%. Curiously, the number who reject evolution have also dropped from 48% to 39% over the same time period. Those who are uncertain about whether evolution occurs or not have increased from 7% to 21%. While it is encouraging that fewer people are now hostile to the idea of biological evolution, the U.S. still has a higher percentage of its population who hold this view than 33 of the 34 European nations and Japan. This is very likely a consequence of the relative emphasis placed on teaching science in public schools in the different countries. In addition, anti-evolution sentiment is far stronger in American national politics, especially in the Republican Party.

NOTE: Some critics have said that the kinds of rapid evolutionary changes in insects and bacteria referred to above are not good evidence of the process of natural evolution because they occur as a result of human interference. However, there is abundant evidence of rapid evolution occurring today independent of people. An example was described by Cristina Sandoval in the May 23, 2002 issue of Nature. A species of insect called the "walking stick" (Timena cristinae) found in the Santa Ynez Mountains of California now exists in two distinct varieties or forms that are in the process of evolving into two separate species by adapting to different environments. The insect forms differ in terms of genetically determined color patterns--one is striped and the other is not. The striped ones hide from predators on the striped chamise plant, while the unstriped ones hide on the unstriped blue lilac plant. Those that have inherited the appropriate camouflaging color pattern for their chosen environment survive the onslaught of lizards and birds. In this case, the natural predators, rather than humans, are the driving forces of natural selection. Mating experiments show that each variety of "walking stick" prefers to mate only with others having the same color pattern. This breeding isolation is leading to the evolution of two distinct species.

NEWS: On July 17, 2005, The Pew Research Center for the People and the Press conducted a national poll in the United States concerning the teaching of creationism and evolution. In regards to beliefs about how life developed, 42% of the respondents said that "living things have existed in their present form since the beginning of time." Only 26% said that they had evolved through time as a result of "natural process such as natural selection," while 18% said that evolution occurred but was guided by a supreme being. In response to the question of whether creationism should be taught in public schools instead of evolution, 38% said yes and 49% said no. When asked whether creationism should be taught along with evolution, 64% said yes and 26% said not. The older the respondent, the more likely he/she was to reject evolution and its teaching in favor of creationism. The sample consisted of 2,000 people and the margin of error was ±3.5%.

POSTSCRIPT: For additional information regarding "creation science" and "intelligent design", look at the 2007 PBS Nova documentary and the entertaining 2008 follow-up lecture by Dr. Kenneth Miller linked below. Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial--analysis of a controversial 2004 court
case and its consequences. This link takes you to a video at an external website.
(length = 1 hr 55 mins)
God, Darwin, and Design: Lessons from the Dover Monkey Trial--a 2008 lecture at
the University of Texas by Kenneth Miller, a noted biologist. This link takes you
to a video at an external website. You will be asked to first download the Envivio
plugin in order to view the video. (length = 2 hrs 17 mins)


Previous Topic Return to Menu Practice Quiz


This page was last updated on Sunday, April 06, 2008.
Copyright © 1998-2008 by Dennis O'Neil. All rights reserved.
Illustration credits
 
Well, o.k., but it is entirely possible that we are monkey like creatures that specialized in throwing rocks and hurling clubs.
"Evolutionarily", how did we "lose" the primate's physical strength "survival of the fittest" advantages? Where is it, in that 1% DNA difference with the chimps?
 
My Life After Darwin
by John R Morgan, MD

Like most people, I never really bought the idea that life just spontaneously developed out of nowhere, and then humans came from fish or whatever.

It just didn’t make sense.

A man named William Dembski with a PhD in mathematics from the University of Chicago and a PhD in philosophy from the University of Illinois has developed one good explanation why I always felt this way.

Let’s say that you go to see the carving of Confederate heroes on Stone Mountain right outside of Atlanta. Even though you didn’t actually see anyone perform the carving, you can infer that a designer made the images. Now if you go to the back of the mountain and see various amorphous shapes (although they are statistically as improbable as the carving), you assume that they were randomly formed by erosion.

Fallacy. How often do we see clouds that resemble real life items? I know I have more than once.

(Did I think to myself the pattern was made by a magical being? No.
To me it was just the particular arrangement of water droplets and also the wind factor).

How about arrangement of stars? Tea leaves in a cup? Ink Blots on Paper?

You get my drift. Chaos can lead to apparent order from time to time.

Is the order self-sustaining?

In the case of biological evolution there is an organism characteristic based
survival feedback loop, in the case of clouds/tea leaves/stars/blots there is no such thing.

I know what you are thinking. This is basic common sense. Unfortunately, however, we live in a time where common sense must be justified; hence, Dembski is creating mathematical models to test the validity of inferring design from something that is improbable and specific. He hopes to prove that life falls into the category of intelligent design.

I laud his efforts but in a way it is a sad commentary on our society.

Another man, Berkley law professor Phillip Johnson, has criticized the intellectual leaps of faith necessary to accept evolution as a life-creating force (leaps that I was never convinced to take). Johnson argues that Darwinism has ceased to be a scientific theory and is now a tautology that conveniently explains everything in nature. Although Darwin himself operated within the context of the scientific method by giving examples of empirical observations that would refute his hypothesis, modern-day evolutionists entertain no such claims. Their position is derived from a presupposed metaphysical belief that God cannot exist.

As Johnson points out, in 1859 when Darwin wrote The Origin of Species (actually entitled The Origin of Species by means of Natural Selection; or, the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life), the fossil record was relatively incomplete. Darwin predicted that further examination of fossils would demonstrate slow gradual change in living organisms. Paleontologists have since found the abrupt appearance of new organisms followed by long periods of static existence before abrupt distinction.

The pattern of life as portrayed by the fossil record prompted Nobel Prize-winning scientist, Francis Crick (he co-discovered DNA), to suggest that space aliens must have visited earth at different times bringing new species. Even the guy who discovered DNA has doubts about evolution!

(Crick is actually an interesting fellow. He signed the "Resolution in Scientific Freedom" with 49 other scientists noting that left-wing institutions are censuring and punishing some scientists for politically incorrect research.)

In Darwin’s time it was also believed that cells were made of simple vitalistic goo that contained life. Molecular biology has since revealed that even the most primitive organisms contain amazingly complex, interdependent parts. Micheal Behe, a professor of biological sciences at Lehigh University, has adduced the concept of irreducible complexity that challenges the logic of natural selection driving the creation of complicated mechanisms with multiple independent parts. (How can a sophisticated structure like a wing develop piecemeal if its only functions in its completed form?)

My personal intellectual journey with Darwinism began at the University of Georgia as an undergraduate. I majored in microbiology (graduating 1st in my class of roughly 5,000 students in 1991) and did non-human genetic cloning research. I was overwhelmed with the diversity of life and the power of genetics. In fact, I came to understand that genes really matter. At the same time, I didn’t buy the weak little theory of survival of the fittest creating life.

I saw intraspecies change like bacterial anti-biotic resistance (microevolution) but I needed missing-link evidence (macroevolution). No one could give it to me.

I sincerely resented my professors conflating my skepticism in Darwinism with irrational anti-intellectualism. I loved science and truly respected the power of DNA. I just didn’t think they had proven how life was created.

I began reading everything I could get my hands on about evolution. I put aside my biology textbooks that presented evolution as a universally accepted law and started devouring the primary writings of the modern-day evolution experts. It was at this point that I realized that millions of students were being taught bad science for religious and political reasons.

I also learned that a potentially internecine civil war was raging within the Darwinian Nation.

On one side were the strict constructionists led by Richard Dawkins of Oxford University in England. Dawkins was more like a religious zealot than a political ideologue. He had long since accepted the fundamental primacy of survival of the fittest, and was applying its logical corollaries to human behavior.

On the other side were left wing ideologues led primarily by the brilliant but ruthless Stephen Jay Gould. Gould, a self proclaimed Marxist, loved the metaphysical liberation and culturally transforming power of Darwinism. He despised, however, "the universal acid of natural selection … reducing human cultural change to the Darwinian algorithm."

Basically, he wanted to have his cake and eat it too.

Remember, leftists like Gould require a worldview where human behavior is 100% culturally conditioned; and here was Dawkins stating that culture itself was an extension of human genes. (At this point I should note that Dawkins is not a right winger, and received the Humanist of the Year Award in 1996)

Gould viciously attacked the "ultra-Darwinists."

In a perfidious stab in the back to those committed to keeping "the divine foot out of the door" (to borrow from another left-wing ideologue, Richard C. Lewontin) Gould proclaimed, "Darwin is dead!" He went on to attack the inadequacy of natural selection to explain the complexity of life. He also cogently argued that the fossil evidence did not support slow gradual change.

He proposed a new theory of (macro)evolution that he called punctuated equilibrium. Basically, he suggested that (macro)evolution must have occurred in quick spurts not captured by the fossil record. In addition, he attempted to down play the importance of survival of the fittest. Using his talented literary skills, he painted the world of biological change as a non-threatening nebulous impression. He fashioned himself an "evolutionary pluralist."

Now what was a confused young student to do?

I knew Darwin had stated that any reliance on macro mutations (or saltations as he called them) would cause him to reject his theory of evolution because it is not plausible; and here was Gould asking me to accept (macro)evolution based on some unknown rapid genetic change, basically a macro mutation. (Phillip Johnson has argued that punctuated equilibrium is a euphemism for miracle)

I also didn’t trust Gould. His primary concern seemed to be maintaining the leftist moral code of life rather than the scientific understanding of life.

I also couldn’t buy Dawkin’s historical narrative of life. The power of Darwinism rested in its claim to a plausible mechanism (which Gould destroyed) and its claim to a process without intentionallity. Dawkins was writing about "selfish genes." How could the substrate of evolution (DNA) be selfish and at the same time be without intention?

In addition, I was learning about other mechanisms of genetic inheritance called genomic imprinting. Without going into detail, the evolutionists were touting this phenomenon as a genetic "battle of the sexes." Again, they were asking me to accept Darwinism because DNA changed without purpose while simultaneously rejoicing that female DNA held a grudge against male DNA (I hope to fully describe the inconsistencies in logic of genomic imprinting and natural selection in another setting).

Basically, I came to realize that Dawkins and Gould were not the sophisticated atheists they wanted to be. They actually had faith in a god – the DNA molecule. They seemed to believe that it was omnipotent. To Dawkins it was a selfish god. To Gould it was an egalitarian god.

Personally, I decided to pass on worshipping the double helix. No, sir, I decided to keep the Christian faith of my ancestors.

But maybe it wasn’t actually free will that brought me to my decision. Maybe it was determined by the genes God gave me.

February 17, 2000

John R. Morgan, MD, is a practicing physician in Atlanta.

Copyright © 2001 LewRockwell.com

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/morgan5.html

Good on you for keeping the faith.
 
Last edited:
Well, we are not the children of chimps but their cousins. So, we might never have had that strength.

Also, muscles need energy. You know that yourself, if you don't exercise, your body will absorb your muscles. Nature doesn't produce luxury models, you only have what you need.

As for the genetic similarity between chimp and man, well, perhaps all the phenomenal difference is there in this 1%. I would be cautious there, the DNA consists of instructions, like a programming language. You can make quite a big difference with some lines of code changed. It's also non-sense when journalists say that a species has been fully understood, because its DNA has been fully documented. The interplay of all genes is far from understood.
 
"Evolutionarily", how did we "lose" the primate's physical strength "survival of the fittest" advantages? Where is it, in that 1% DNA difference with the chimps?

Survival of the fittest subject to the environment and the organism itself.

As a general rule humans 'traded' exceptional physical strength for superior (to animals) intellectual potential and development for survival purposes.
(although the word traded is a bit misleading, more accurate would be to say, certain traits were encouraged/amplified over time by environment/mutation more than others)

Not every organism has to evolve the same way.

Nethertheless, there are many humans with exceptional strength, ever watched WWE?
 
Last edited:
Fallacy. How often do we see clouds that resemble real life items?

How about arrangement of stars? Tea leaves in a cup?

You get my drift. Chaos can lead to apparent order from time to time.



Good on you for keeping the faith.

Isn't the universe just the eternal interplay between the forces of chaos and order?

YINYANG.jpg


In the end, I'm betting on an ultimate win for chaos. :)
 
Last edited:
@evildetector.

I think you are not quite fair to call tw's example a fallacy. There are a lot of structures that seem to us to be similar to things that are artificial, but consider this:

If you heard this knocking pattern: * ** *** **** ***** etc., wouldn't you know that its source is not natural?
 
Well, we are not the children of chimps but their cousins. So, we might never have had that strength.

Also, muscles need energy. You know that yourself, if you don't exercise, your body will absorb your muscles. Nature doesn't produce luxury models, you only have what you need.

As for the genetic similarity between chimp and man, well, perhaps all the phenomenal difference is there in this 1%. I would be cautious there, the DNA consists of instructions, like a programming language. You can make quite a big difference with some lines of code changed. It's also non-sense when journalists say that a species has been fully understood, because its DNA has been fully documented. The interplay of all genes is far from understood.

1% DNA difference from chimps, over how many millions of years? 5% DNA difference from gorillas?

Hell, by the DNA alone, chimps are closer to us than they are to gorillas.

Very clever and/or lucky those accumulated purely physical random chance non-lethal genetics species' mutations, no?

:)
 
@evildetector.

I think you are not quite fair to call tw's example a fallacy. There are a lot of structures that seem to us to be similar to things that are artificial, but consider this:

If you heard this knocking pattern: * ** *** **** ***** etc., wouldn't you know that its source is not natural?

I would assume it is man made knocking because 999/1000 times when I hear knocking on my door it is a human.

However, it could be that 1/1000 any time.

If you are talking about general knocking sound, I would not know what the source is,.

For example, it could be a random arrangement of small rocks falling of something onto wood due to a gust of wind,
that could possibly make a sound like that.

Patterns do occur in nature, so it is possible to hear visual and audio patterns from natural sources.

http://britton.disted.camosun.bc.ca/fibslide/jbfibslide.htm

The point of the original post by Truth Warrior, was that if I see something that looks 'designed' in an
environment which is normally 'chaotic', then what I see is in fact designed by some sort of intelligent being.

I replied with an explanation of why I think that view is false.

As for your example, it does not provide an environment which I can fix as being either normally chaotic or ordered for proper comparison to the original point.

You might need to provide more details about the situation.
 
Last edited:
No, no, no... knocking signs can be water drops falling or anything.

But in nature, there is not a single process I know that would generate 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 etc.
 
Logical fallacies in this thread are rampant. If the fallacies were all to somehow be, "magically" removed, there'd be maybe 10 posts left ................. max. :D
 
Actually, there is probably really no process in nature that would generate 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 etc. Even computers and humans would either stop or loop at some point... That is of course a problem, humans function according to the laws of nature too.

But funny point to make...
 
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-god.html

God and Evolution
Copyright © 1994-1998 by Warren Kurt VonRoeschlaub


This is a collection of frequently asked questions and answers about the compatibility of belief in evolution and God from talk origins. This text presupposes the reader's belief in the Judeo-Christian God, but many answers are general enough to include most religions. There is no attempt to prove or disprove the existence of God, or the validity of any religion, as that is not the intent. Please contact me at [email protected] with any questions or suggestions.

1. Definitions
Science
A method of determine how the universe works by use of the scientific method.
Scientific method
The process of proposing a hypothesis, and then testing its accuracy by collecting data on events the hypothesis predicts. If the predictions match the new data the hypothesis is supported. Generally the best supported hypothesis is considered correct.
Evolution
The fact the frequency of the apperance of alleles in a population of organisms changes over time.
Allele
The pieces of DNA that cause a particular trait, ie. "blue eyes".
The theory of evolution
A number of theories that explain, to the best of current knowledge, by what mechanisms evolution occurs.
The theory of common descent
The theory that all living creatures on earth share a common, remote ancestor. More specifically, given any two living creatures there was a creature that is ancestor to both.
Creationism
One of several beliefs that incorporate a literal interpretation of Genesis. There are variations that allow some figurative interpretation.
Young Earth Creationism
An interpretation of Genesis 1 in which days are taken to be 24 hour events, and that by saying animals reproduce "after their kind" evolution is precluded.
Old Earth Creationism
An interpretation of Genesis 1 in which days are taken to be figurative lengths of time, and the time scales given by geologists are generally correct. However, the special creation of man precludes common descent.
Theistic Evolution
An interpretation of Genesis 1 in which the story line is considered as an explanation for the why and who of creation, but not the exact method. The purpose of this FAQ is to show that this position is not contradictory.

2. Evolution and Religion
Q1. Doesn't evolution contradict religion?

Not always. Certainly it contradicts a literal interpretation of the first chapter of Genesis, but evolution is a scientific principle, like gravity or electricity. To scientifically test a religious belief one first must find some empirical test that gives different results depending on whether the belief is true or false. These results must be predicted before hand, not pointed to after the fact.

Most religious beliefs don't work this way. Religion usually presupposes a driving intelligence behind it, and an intelligent being is not always predictable. Since experiments judging religious beliefs cannot have predictable results, and may give different results under the same circumstances it is not open to scientific inquiry. St. Augustine commented on this in _The Literal Meaning of Genesis_.

Some religious beliefs do make predictions. These predictions can be tested. If a religious belief fails a test, it is the test that contradicts that religious belief. The theory which makes the correct prediction should have nothing to say on the matter. This does not mean that scientists don't sometimes make the mistake of saying a theory contradicts something.

Q2. Isn't evolution a religion?

Evolution is based on the scientific method. There are tests that can determine whether or not the theory is correct as it stands, and these tests can be made. Thousands of such tests have been made, and the current theories have passed them all. Also, scientists are willing to alter the theories as soon as new evidence is discovered. This allows the theories to become more and more accurate as research progresses.

Most religions, on the other hand, are based on revelations, that usually cannot be objectively verified. They talk about the why, not the how. Also, religious beliefs are not subject to change as easily as scientific beliefs. Finally, a religion normally claims an exact accuracy, something which scientists know they may never achieve.

Some people build up religious beliefs around scientific principles, but then it is their beliefs which are the religion. This no more makes scientific knowledge a religion than painting a brick makes it a bar of gold.

So the answer is no, evolution is no more a religion than any other scientific theory.

Q3. Does evolution contradict creationism?

There are two parts to creationism. Evolution, specifically common descent, tells us how life came to where it is, but it does not say why. If the question is whether evolution disproves the basic underlying theme of Genesis, that God created the world and the life in it, the answer is no. Evolution cannot say exactly why common descent chose the paths that it did.

If the question is whether evolution contradicts a literal interpretation of the first chapter of Genesis as an exact historical account, then it does. This is the main, and for the most part only, point of conflict between those who believe in evolution and creationists.

Q4. If evolution is true, then isn't the whole Bible wrong?

First let me repeat that the underlying theme of the first book of Genesis can't be scientifically proven or disproven. No test has ever been found that can tell the difference between a universe created by God, and one that appeared without Him. Only certain interpretations of Genesis can be disproven.

Second, let us turn the question around. What if I asked you "If the story of the prodigal son didn't really happen, then is the whole Bible wrong?" Remember that the Bible is a collection of both stories and historical accounts. Because one part is a figurative story does not make the entire Bible so. Even if it did, the underlying message of the Bible would remain.
3. Evolution and God
Q5. Does evolution deny the existence of God?

No. See question 1. There is no reason to believe that God was not a guiding force behind evolution. While it does contradict some specific interpretations of God, especially ones requiring a literal interpretation of Genesis 1, few people have this narrow of a view of God.

There are many people who believe in the existence of God and in evolution. Common descent then describes the process used by God. Until the discovery of a test to separate chance and God this interpretation is a valid one within evolution.

Q6. But isn't this Deism, the belief that God set the universe in motion and walked away?

While it could be Deism, the Bible speaks more of an active God, one who is frequently intervening in His creation. If the Bible represents such a God in historical times there is no reason to assume that He was not active in the universe before then. A guiding hand in evolution could exist, even in the time before humans came around. Just because people were not there to observe does not mean that there was nothing to observe.

Q7. So if God directed evolution, why not just say he created everything at once?

Mainly because all the evidence suggests otherwise. If God created the universe suddenly, he created it in a state that is indistinguishable from true age. If he did create it that way there must be a reason, otherwise God is a liar. Whatever that reason may be, a universe that is exactly like one that is old should be treated as if it were old.

Q8. By denying creation, aren't you denying God's power to create?

No. Because God did not create the world in seven days does not mean that he couldn't. What did, or did not, happen is not an indication of what could, or could not, have happened. All evidence suggests that evolution is the way things happened. Regardless of what could have happened, the evidence would still point to evolution.
4. Evolution and Proof
Q9. Nobody can really prove anything anyway.

Except, of course, in mathematics. However, science does not require absolute proof, otherwise science textbooks would be empty. Science works by use of the scientific method: explanations are found, and tests made to tell which ones are correct. Evolution has passed thousands of tests, many of which separated it from theories indistinguishable to non-biologists.

Few people are aware, for instance, that Darwin's original hypothesis predicted the existence of genetic information. As said before, even if the theory is not correct in every detail, it is very close to the truth. Chris Colby's FAQ gives a clear picture of this.

Q10. Theories have been proven wrong in the past, why not evolution?

When Einstein proposed general relativity, he revolutionized physics. The theory replaced most of Newton's laws of physics. General relativity, though, still incorporates Newton's laws. This is due to the enormous number of observations and tests that Newton's laws had passed, so any new theory would have to account for them also.

Similarly, if another theory replaces evolution, the new theory must somehow explain why the current theory passed all the tests. So any new theory that replaces evolution would have to explain why it works so well. Creationism, then, is not a possible replacement.

Q11. Doesn't evolution promote evil?

Even if evolution did do this, it would not be a reason to assume it is wrong. Chemistry is responsible for millions of deaths every year, but we do not reject its findings because of this. How people use a theory is not a judgment of its accuracy.

Fortunately we do not face this dilemma. Evolution does not say what is right and what is wrong, but merely what has happened. A historical account of the sacking of Rome does not say that the act of sacking Rome is good or bad, just that it happened. Similarly evolution does not say that any conclusions people might draw from it are good or bad.

While many people have claimed the theory of evolution supports their injustice, never forget that many people have done the same with the Bible. One person's opinion should not be considered the whole truth.

Q12. So what would I need to have creationism accepted scientifically?

Read Chris Colby's FAQ for some evidence that must be explained. Also you need to propose a test that would give different results depending on whether creation or evolution is true. Most important, however, is the willingness to abide by the results, even if they disprove creationism.





Home Page | Browse | Search | Feedback | Links
The FAQ | Must-Read Files | Index | Creationism | Evolution | Age of the Earth | Flood Geology | Catastrophism | Debates
 
Well, the adding up of the last two numbers might occur somewhere, but there is a general problem with sequences that have no bounds, namely the number of molecules in the universe.
 
Well, the adding up of the last two numbers might occur somewhere, but there is a general problem with sequences that have no bounds, namely the number of molecules in the universe.
Only 4% of the universe matter is atoms. 95%, or so, of those atoms are hydrogen. :D

BTW, nature just uses the heck out of the Fibonacci sequence, once you know how and where to look. It's a primary nature building "tool". Growth and decay, order and chaos.

:)
 
Back
Top