Question about Evolution

For you to debate.

Does it matter? Does it really matter in most of our daily lives whether or not we humans were created by God or evolved from monkeys.

Does it change who you are? Does it change how you live? Does it affect whether or not you can get a job or be educated?

Alot of people get hung up about it, because it's not good science, not provable (Edit: Took out personal bias, want to stick to the discussion), but at the end of the day... does it really matter whether or not you believe in evolution or not?

Original Post by gettinghealthy123:

That is why it is only a theory, there is no real proof or evidence.

 Well, as a "scientist", you should be aware that you appear to be misusing the term "theory" here.  A theory, in scientific terms, is not the same as a guess, and in order to be at the level of a scientific theory it means specifically that there is a lot of evidence supporting it.

Also, as a scientist, you should be aware that science doesn't "prove" anything - it investigates and finds evidence to support hypotheses, which in turn lead to explanatory theories.  Which, of course, can be altered when new evidence is presented.  

And I could get into why it appears you have a misunderstanding of the 2nd law of Thermodynamics, but I don't know if there would be a point.  You obviously have a strong grounding in what you believe - but if you would like a reference, please let me know.

Ummm...

the second law of thermodynamics ONLY works in an isolated (closed) system. Surely, as a scientist, you know that, right? You also, as a scientist know that the earth, as a whole, is not such a system. Our biggest input of constant energy (though not the only one) is the Sun. If the Sun were the ONLY source of energy, we could try closing the system, but in reality, it isn't. We get energy every time a meteor hits earth, as one example.

Gettinghealthy,

Thank you for taking the time to reply. I honestly appreciate it. I'm kind of flabbergasted, in that I knew there were scientists out there that dismissed evolution completely, I've just never heard one personally. I wish I had studied more science so I could comment on carbon dating, radio-isotrope dating and thermodynamics, but I can't. We are just going to have to agree to disagree.

I would like to point out that every single religion has a creation story. The original peoples of all the continents also have creation stories. You said you were unaware that any other creation stories existed, which suggests to me you have not explored beliefs outside of what you were taught as a child.

Original Post by gettinghealthy123:

"I am not fully aware of the other versions of creationism...

 This is a good summary of other creation stories.

So, you think all of these should be taught or mentioned?  Really?

Original Post by gettinghealthy123:

I'm not saying i was taught the "correct' way, but what made sense ot me was being presented both at pretty much the same time. creationism was presented as "some people believe" or something similar (maybe Christians believe...?) and evolution as 'some in the scientific community have accepted the theory of evolution" and then the facts were presented.

You were definitely lied to if told 'some in the scientific community have accepted the theory of evolution. 

The truth is scientists collectively support evolution.
Looking up numbers, the estimated count reported by Newsweek was
400,000 reached scientific consensus to accept evolution. 
       700 supported creationism

 

Original Post by gettinghealthy123:

I'm not saying i was taught the "correct' way, but what made sense ot me was being presented both at pretty much the same time. creationism was presented as "some people believe" or something similar (maybe Christians believe...?) and evolution as 'some in the scientific community have accepted the theory of evolution" and then the facts were presented.

I am not a scientist but I think your premise is faulty.
I am a parent and I do want just evolution taught.
That is if we are speaking of science class.  

A class addressing world religions and there beliefs of origination, creationism would be welcome among those of other religions as educational of religions.  Like I mentioned, I didnt learn of other religions until college and I do think it could be worthy of addressing but perhaps as an offshoot of history and religion, not science.

I'm a parent and I totally agree with sun.  Science in science class.  Religion in humanities/comparative religion classes.

Has anyone seen Ben Stein's ridiculous documentary on this topic?  Expelled.  I went to see it in the theater and I was SO disappointed.  He interviewed dozens of "scientists" that support the idea of intelligent design.  Not one of them provided a single scrap of evidence or even an idea for an experiment where evidence might be sought.  The only person who suggested a way to test intelligent design was Richard Dawkins, and he thinks the idea is ridiculous, but at least he can devise a scientific way to look for some sort of support for the idea.  The rest of the movie was a b*tch-fest about the fact that people were fired for teaching non-science in science class.  Imagine that!  Fired!  For not doing their job!  Shocking.

I just think the option of what you are taught should be there. Like if you don't want your kids to learn about sex ed in school, they can be excused. If you don't want your children to learn about a certian method, then you as their parent should have the right to decided if your child participates in that area of the lesson.

 Yeah, you could send them to a religious school, but they are very expensive.

Original Post by m0m6:

I just think the option of what you are taught should be there. Like if you don't want your kids to learn about sex ed in school, they can be excused. If you don't want your children to learn about a certian method, then you as their parent should have the right to decided if your child participates in that area of the lesson.

 Yeah, you could send them to a religious school, but they are very expensive.

 It hurts my brain that parents would intentionally cause their children to be ignorant.

I'm militantly agnostic, but my daughter knows about religion, even though I don't believe in any or practice any.

Original Post by santonacci:

Original Post by gettinghealthy123:

That is why it is only a theory, there is no real proof or evidence.

 Well, as a "scientist", you should be aware that you appear to be misusing the term "theory" here.  A theory, in scientific terms, is not the same as a guess, and in order to be at the level of a scientific theory it means specifically that there is a lot of evidence supporting it.

Also, as a scientist, you should be aware that science doesn't "prove" anything - it investigates and finds evidence to support hypotheses, which in turn lead to explanatory theories.  Which, of course, can be altered when new evidence is presented.  

And I could get into why it appears you have a misunderstanding of the 2nd law of Thermodynamics, but I don't know if there would be a point.  You obviously have a strong grounding in what you believe - but if you would like a reference, please let me know.

 Yes, i knew I was misusing those words, and was actually wondering if anyone would notice. I am impressed. I was using those terms in the way I saw them being used here to try to uncomplicate the scientific language and try to explain in "laymen's" terms, i guess? I think that phrase laymen's sounds demeaning, but it's been a long day at work and I'm trying to think of the real term. Anyway, I wanted to make it as easy to understand as possible.

of course, a "theory" as used in science, actually means that the hypothesis (idea) was not proven false but cannot be proven true. It has evidence supporting it, and scientists interpreting that evidence, but there is no solid, reproducible experimentation available to "prove" it. Proof, as I am using it here, is the irrefutable facts that have been accepted, allowing a theory to become a scientific principle, or even a scientific law. Once that happens, it is viewed that the hteory has been "proven." Neither the Theory of Evolution, nor the hypothesis of Intelligent Design can be proven. We can only use circumstantial evidence, or the evidence we can find and interpret it as we see fit. Since neither can be tested now, and neither can be observed in vivo, neither can ever be proven, and this will remain up to debate.

Hk: I said that along with what we know about the law of entropy and physics we know about how old the earth is. I amnot a geologist, so I don't remember in detail all of the nuts and bolts, but I will try my best. Apologize in advance for mistakes. The earth is not closed, but keep in mind that energy can neither be created nor destroyed, only changed. Of course, it can be introduced into a system, but unless done so by a scientist or in some other methodical way (Intelligent Designer, 'aliens," other life forms, etc), this is in a disorderly fashion. Most of the meteors that hit earth cause destruction, not the creation of order. Taking the full picture, it would seem that if meteors were hitting the earth regularly (as they actually are), then they would be creating more disorder, rather htan order. In addition, the amount of carbon in the atmosphere would be much greater if the earth were millions of years, rather than thousands of years old. The ocean is by far the largest contributor of carbon to the atmosphere, and I know this method has been used to date the earth, although I am not sure of the 100% accuracy of this method, I do know from my studies that it is impossible that the earth is that old.

Carbon dating and radio isotope dating are based on assumptions that cannot be proved. For one, it is not known if the rate of breakdown has always been the same, it is not known how much outside systems have interfered (adding to or removing radioactivity) and it is not known how much was there to begin with. These factors cannot be known unless someone was there. Of course, this is not hte case. In fact, it is known that it cannot be accurate above a 30,000 - 50,000 year old date due to the increasing radioactivity in the earth system (due to a diminishing magnetic field). There have been studies (by creationists, but that doesn't mean they are without integrity) of sending dinosaur bones to labs to have them tested blindly (the lab did not know what kind of bones they were) and they came up with much younger ages (9,000 and 16,000 years old) than the dinosaurs were claimed to be. here is the link, but just scroll to the documented and signed letter, I believe his language will offend some on here. If you are interested, he quotes some other researchers and supplies more information on current dating methods.

http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/carbond ating.html

Here is an interesting quote I found on the site in relation to Potassium-Argon dating. Not sure how accurate it is, but it is interesting.

"Scientists got dates of 164 million and 3 billion years for two Hawaiian lava flows. But these lava flows happened only about 200 years ago in 1800 and 1801."
("Dry bones and other fossils" by Dr. Gary Parker)

Furthermore, in my specialized area, microbiology, i have found evidence that disproves evolution enough for me to disregard many of it smain principles. namely, commensalisms, especially mutualisms deny the fact that many organisms could have survived iwthout the other one. However, taking the evolutionary timeline, it would seem that htey developed millions of years apart (bacteria and certain fish or corals, for example). In addition, the fossil record is all out of line with the way Darwin himself said it should be to support evolutionay theory.

Additionally, with all of the mutants and mutations I have made in the lab, I have never been able to change a species of bacteria to another one, nor give it characteristics similar to another species. And the scientific community generally assumes mutations to be defective, not a positive thing for organisms or the development of a more fit species.

I know someone will bring up antibiotic-resistance, but this is not directed mutation, rather it is selection. Selecting the more fit in the species (not creating a more fit species, please don't misread that) who, through random mutations that occur in each of us constantly, have developed an alternative route for nutrition than the antibiotic blocks. This allows them to bypass the poison's route and, therefore, continue to grow and divide. The offspring with this difference will be more numerous and will continue to survive the antibiotic, while the weaker colonies will be susceptible and die. Thus, "natural selection" of a random mutation within a species. This happens all the time. It should be noted that without the introduction of this antibiotic, the mutation would be defective, requiring more energy and more resources than the more common "wildtype" route.

sun123:

I do not actually remember the exact words, but from what i know now, I know that some scientists do believe, while others do not. It is true that older scientists have accepted evolution, but many (and I would not trust those numbers you quoted from Newsweek, fwiw) hold the opposite view, and still more concede to not knowing for sure. These are the scientists i know in real life, and scientists are well-networked (that is why in the scientific community never burn bridges - everyone knows everyone) so I kjnow I can speak with authority that scientists, or at least hte ones worth knowing about, don't universally accept evolution (but many do I am not saying that most don't).

Also, I am not saying that others should or would want to be taught both theories, but that I appreciated that I was. Again, creationists don't want evolution taught; evolutionists don't want creationism taught, but what is beswt for the students? I guess that is our debate. just offering my unconventional point of view - I could be wrong, of course. And I respect and understand where you are coming from. However, presenting evolution as though it is true is also a disservice to students. It is not true,and there is just as much evidence against it as for it, although everything in science is subject to interpretation. Yes, you read that right - everything. Luckily, everything is also subject to peer review and reproducibility, so breathe. This is why it takes so many years (13 on average) for new vaccines and drugs to actually hit the market.

And I said that I was not fully aware of other creation stories, not that I was completely ignorant of. I have studied Buddhism and Islamic beliefs, along with several religions in high school religion class tha tI don't remember them all (lots of Greek and mesopotamian area religions if i am correct in remembering? Native Americans, Africans, lot sof tribes - I wish I had my textbooks still - I loved it!) and I amaware that many believ ein a sort of creationism, I just don't remember the details of them, so I don't remember the major differences (except, of course, of God and 6 days and "man in His image" etc - i know that is different from other religions, but I don't think the accounts were that much different if I am right?) And I said, we can just lump them together and say, 'religions believe a version of... or some support creationism or Intelligent Design or whatever it is called now.) i don't think going into great religious detail is of benefit, just a mention now and again of the differences would be enough. It is up to the parents to fully educate the kids on their beliefs and accounts. The evidence for evolution should be presented, but so also should the evidence of creation. All else should be left out (except like i said, maybe a mention of 'religions typically believe...." so students know why it is included and where to look for more info)

But that is my own experience and view. many don't want the opposite view taught. I think more knowledge is better than none (cutting out unverifiable details, and just explaining the evidence and its limits, and the various ways it is interpreted like I was exposed to) instead of complete ignorance of the other sdie. I should think everyone would support this, especially evolutionists. You obviously feel evolution is more sound and more scientific, so let the students see how ridiculous creationism is right next to evolution! It's a win win for all, I think. I fyou think your side is right, creationism or evolution, then the children can judge for themselves and see, just like I was allowed. The parents can then let them know what they believe and present it however htey want ('Darling, the truth is....") See what i mean? I know I have adopted an unprovable hypothesis that is seen as ridiculous by many. Evolution is also seen that way by the other side. I cannot prove it, i do not accept or pretend to understand everything about it. But to me, it makes th emost sense, lines up with the evidence I have seen, and makes sense to my beliefs. I only wish everyone the freedom to decide as much for themselves. If I am proven wrong in the future (as I felt when learning about evolution the first, second, and third time around) then I have no problem changing my beliefs. I want the truth, that is all.

Wow, did I just write a book? I hope i addressed everything you guys said, otherwise please respond again :)

I am long winded! cheers!

Original Post by gettinghealthy123:

of course, a "theory" as used in science, actually means that the hypothesis (idea) was not proven false but cannot be proven true. It has evidence supporting it, and scientists interpreting that evidence, but there is no solid, reproducible experimentation available to "prove" it.

On the contrary, evolutionary theory does have reproducible experimentation that produces evidence in support of the theory.  Again, if you would like a reference, several are available.

Besides that, and this hasn't been answered yet, creation and evolution are addressing two completely different subjects.  One is a belief about how life originated, and the other is a scientifically supported theory about what occurred after life was already present.

Yes, please post a reference.

And, I think peeps know that evolution is what happens after the initial, lowest organism was created to result in the various species, whereas creationism is the origin of all species at once.

To me, though, they both aim to get at the same ends through different ways: how the various forms of life came to be, no?

Thank you for the reference! Would love to learn more about this.

Honestly, Im not up to reading 12 paragraph replies but I did read some of it.

You have an unbelievably unscientific attitude when approaching data.

Referencing scientists you personally know as representative of when hundreds of thousands of scientists exist - I can even begin to argue that since you think that is valid of anything. 

You state youve never been able to change one species of bacteria to another!? Your timeline expectation of evolution sounds like you were expecting magic, not evolution. 

Please post any link you have (which isnt faith based), I'd prefer scientific or journalistic but would settle for any, that indicates Newsweek summation to be misleading:
       700 scientists supporting creationism 
400,000 scientists supporting evolution

Original Post by gettinghealthy123:

To me, though, they both aim to get at the same ends through different ways: how the various forms of life came to be, no?

 Well, you're welcome to your opinion, of course, but it would be scientifically inaccurate to state that evolution, as a process, has any "ends" at all. 

And I do believe that there are quite a few Christians, that have no problem in accepting both creation and evolution as simultaneously viable explanations.

Here is a good starting reference, if you choose to accept it.  (I've encountered a lot of people who don't accept this particular website as a source, when in fact it's backed up by many external sources).  There's a lot of information on it about evolutionary theory and most of the arguments used against it.  It's quite fascinating.  Enjoy!

Original Post by andie-joe:

I don't think that not teaching people who are just going to dismiss what they were taught when they leave the class renders them unintelligent nor do I think learning about it makes you intelligent. You can be aware of things without having been taught them in a class.

Teaching something to someone is only worth while if the person being taught is actually going take something away from the teachings. If they are going to  say "I don't believe all that" seems to me to have been a waste of resources.

 edit to add: I am not saying that those who are religious should not be taught evolution I am saying it should be choice whether to be taught it or not.

 ...but is it fair to people who aren't religious to not be taught it?

If someone doesn't want to learn about the theory of evolution, then they can excuse themselves or go to a school that caters to their beliefs. Everyone should at least have the chance to learn it.

AND yes, the definition of a scientific theory is different than the typical layman's definition.

A scientific theory-"A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena."

I mean, think about Einstein's theory of relativity...

They teach that in schools.

I guess we are just not all interested in what has already been proven or how they went about proving it. We just aren't all into science.

I wasn't clear with my choice thing, it should be choice for everyone regardless for the above reason.

I am more interested in all the things we are discovering now and still to discover in the future. Like for instance the new species they find in the Amazon and all the ones yet to be found.

If discovering truth through rational inquiry and the scientific method matters to you, then yes this is important.  Do I wish to live in a world that has gone through the anti-enlightenment?  Do I wish this for my children?  No.

The popularity of "creationism" or "intelligent design" and its masquerade as "science" should be of concern to everyone who needs to make decisions based on data.  The scientific method, including hypothesis testing, experimental design and full disclosure, seem to be poorly understood by the general population.  Perhaps this resurgence in "creationism" is merely a symptom of a broader rejection of reason. 

It impacts all of us when people who accept things on "faith" (both on the left and right) begin making or influencing policy.  Government meddles in everything these days.  Environmental regulations, the drug approval process, economic policy, abortion laws - all this and more is impacted by people who make decisions on "faith" rather than reason.  What about at work?  Should managers promote people on "faith" that they'll do a good job or based on a demonstration of the skills required for the job?

Modern evolutionary theory is a testable, verifiable model of how species change and arise.  Believe in creationism if you like, but please don't place it in the realm of science.  It is not a testable theory or even a valid hypothesis.   Creationism is a leap of faith.  Faith, by definition, is the acceptance of something that cannot be proven by logical means. 

Original Post by juliemae2:

Original Post by m0m6:

 It hurts my brain that parents would intentionally cause their children to be ignorant.

I'm militantly agnostic, but my daughter knows about religion, even though I don't believe in any or practice any.

I don't see it as causing your child to be ignorant, but having the choice and a say in what your child is learning. I personally don't see the problem in mentioning that there are other theories and ideas out there. Omitting that there is more information out there could cause ignorance as well.

 

I find it amusing that, despite several explanations of the word "theory" as applied to science, it's still being bandied about as though it means "guess".

Original Post by m0m6:

I personally don't see the problem in mentioning that there are other theories and ideas out there. Omitting that there is more information out there could cause ignorance as well. 

Here's the thing, per the scientific meaning of the word, creationism or whatever term you use for it ("intelligent design"), isn't a "theory." 

Discussion of religious based ideas is fine with me (if there's a way to treat various ideas equally), but I don't want schools presenting them as science, because they're not.

This is along the lines of what my 7th grade G.A.T.E science teacher told us.

"The main theory of how we were created is Evolution. A vast majority of scientists support this theory, but there are other theories out there, like Creation."

I can't remember everything she said, but this is a rough memory of what the lesson started out as. She just mentioned the name of the theory. If a student has a question about it, then the teacher can tell them where to find more information. Like a citation page or someting. Information in of it-self isn't "religious." It's how it is interpreted. That's my take on it. I just want to have the power to choose!