Evolution still bugs me

by Geronimo 91 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  Geronimo

  Hey Pope! I like that. Just set it up and let it run. I email with some theistic evolutionists. Bishop John Shelby Spong, a man I admire a lot for making so many complicated Biblical questions understandable for everyday joes, is a theistic evolutionist. G
• 

  greendawn

  Evolution is too good to be true, common sense dictates that the extreme complexity of living systems (much more so than a snow flake) had to be directed by an intelligent agent that produced everything for the glory and good pleasure of man.
• 

  Satanus

  I'm not a pro at all the evolution arguements. Basically, the idea is that god reused some 'parts' from his earlier creations in his later ones. Sort of economising. It is plausible. But, the bible does say that adam was made from dirt, not spare parts from plants and animals. There a re quite a few genes that we humans have in common w lower forms. Here is a book about this: http://www.hhmi.org/genesweshare/ This was on another thread.

  Greendawn

  Common sense would also say that god assembles snowflakes up there in the clouds before he allows them to fall. Yet, their 6 sided patterns are fractally based on the internal construction of the water molecule. The macroshape is based on lower level shapes. There is much of this kind of thing on this planet.

  S
• 

  Abaddon

  Genetic similarity DOES prove heredity. The similarities extend beyond the streaches of DNA that code for things and include characteristics sequences in DNA that don't code for anything. In addition, DNA similarity has been shown to be hereditry based in breeding experiments. Thus a screwed-up Larkian idea that phenotype dictates genotype is utterly wrong.

  Essentially the problem is ID is a self-refuting theory; if something is so complex it needs intelligent design, then the intelligent designerer it requires will be so complex IT requires one as well, ad absurdio. Intelligent design is an oxymoron.

  Its lack of scientific or intellectual rigor didn't stop ID being seized on by the creationist lobby as a way of secularising their religionistic arguments; it is a Trojan Horse.

  I'm busy today but love this stuff, especially comming from someone who appears to be quite capable of thinking for themselves; we're used to the drive-bys by ID-ots and Creationists who basically say "Neyahhh, 99% percent of scientists are wrong". It'll be a pleasure to answer your questions, although do check Talk Origins first if possible.

  Of course, science has been wrong about things in the past and will again be wrong in the future, but evolution is so well supported by so many different strands of evidence we are talking about revisions not wholescale reversals such as the helio-geo centric switch. Typically ID-ots and Creationists make play of scientific error, but they ignore the fact they attack a very well supported theory, normally on trivial levels, and at the same time don't even have a provable theory themselves.

  It's like someone saying Quantum Chromo Electrodynamics is "all wrong" when they claim fairies do are the mediating forces between particles.
• 

  kid-A

  I will simply dissect greendawns post and use it as an outline demonstrating the factual proof of evolution and intrinsic absurdity in creationist arguments:

  "Evolution is too good to be true, common sense dictates that the extreme complexity of living systems (much more so than a snow flake) had to be directed by an intelligent agent that produced everything for the glory and good pleasure of man."

  1) "Evolution is too good to be true" > Nonsensical remark. Evolution is a body of factual evidence rigorously obtained in the fields of molecular biology, molecular genetics, anthropology and evolutionary anatomy. It is not intended to be "good", it is a collection of scientific facts that stand independently of emotional evaluations. Indeed, this very remark demonstrates that typical creationists try to make "emotional" arguments against cold hard objective evidence.

  2) "Common sense dictates that the extreme complexity of living systems": Again, a fallacy based on ignorance and lack of understanding of how biological systems evolve and operate. Evolution takes place by gradual selection of simple, elegant biological interactions. Life began with the simplest biochemical interactions (which can be duplicated in a petri dish by a high school student) and only then proceeds to add additional simple mechanisms and structures. Single celled organisms become multicellular, multicellular organisms develop a rudimentary nervous system and sensory organs, slowly more and more systems are added through environmental pressures interacting with random genetic selection until a new species appears.

  3) "had to be directed by an intelligent agent" : Again, yet another logical fallacy partly related to the points raised in comment 2. Moreover, the simple and obvious fact is that living organisms are extremely POORLY "designed", if one were to use that argument. Would a supremely intelligent being create a biological organism susceptible to cancer, diabetes, asthma, multiple sclerosis, Parkinsons, Huntingtons, Alzheimers, CJD, Kidney disease, Arthritis, Schizophrenia, etc etc? What is the answer to this question? Ah of course. Original sin! But here is the rub, the only way creationists can account for the GLARING "design flaws" in the natural world is to resort to Judeo-Christian myths created to explain away the "imperfections" of the physical world. Look at the world around you. Look at the overwhelming flaws in human anatomy, the weakness of the human mind, the fallibility of human memory, the horror of birth defects. If this was "created" by a "designer", such a being would have to be either 1) outrageously cruel to willingly be the Maestro to symphony of horrors, or 2) a complete moron.

  4) "that produced everything for the glory and good pleasure of man".> Wow. Speechless. Dont even know where to begin with this one! Tell me, on what logical ground does this argument stand? First, if said deity was responsible for the universe and all that is in it, by obvious implication it is responsible for all the pain, horror and misery that exists in even greater measure. Second, comments such as this betray the fundamental ARROGANCE of the creationist position: Somehow, "human beings" represent the pinnacle of perfection, the glory of the universe, as we continue to murder each other, destroy the planet, exercise perpetual stupidity with pointless wars and religious crusades, etc etc. Newsflash: WE ARE ANIMALS. We breath the same oxygen, have sex, procreate, eat, defecate, fart, build "nests" called "houses" and live in "colonies" in pretty much the same manner as 90% of the OTHER biological organisms on this planet. We have evolved "sentience" and "awareness" of our own mortality. Yes that sets us apart within the animal kingdom. Does it make us superior? Does it suggest that in our infinite wisdom, we simply MUST have been "designed" by some sky-god sitting on a throne in the Pleiades? I think not.

  Finally, GDs comments aside. The evidence for human evolution is now OVERWHELMING. Transitional forms of early hominids ranging from Australopithecines, to H. Habilis, to H. Erectus, to Cro Magnon, to corollary species such as the Neanderthals, clearly and convincingly demonstrate the gradual ANATOMICAL evolution of the entire human form over millions of years. Is it a coincidence that we share over 95% of our genetic makeup with our closest primate relatives? Is it a coincidence that these same primate relatives demonstrate remarkalbe "proto-human" behavioural patterns and cognitive abilities? Other posters have listed other pieces of factual information demonstrating the obviousness of biological evolution. It is really the choice of the individual to carefully study this information (and any first year university level biology textbook will provide all essential background info) or to continue to wear the blinders of ancient, primordial superstition.

  It is FEAR that prevents creationists from accepting the facts of biological evolution. Fear of being alone in the universe, fear of the reality that this human life is ephemeral and dependent solely on our biology and nervous system. Fear of accepting a more humble position for humanity within the vastness of the universe.
• 

  RunningMan

  You've raised a long and complicated question, so don't be surprised if your responses are long and complicated. In the interests of not reinventing the wheel, I would like to post some excerpts from my book that might deal with your questions.

  The first, and most common argument in favour of creation is called the argument from design:

  The Argument from Design: The most common reasoning that I encounter is that the order in nature indicates that someone ordered it. Therefore, there must be a supreme being. A common illustration is of a man walking on the beach. He encounters a watch. Would he think that the watch was formed by the random forces of nature? Of course not. That would be foolish. Yet, we look at the order and complexity of the human body, the animal kingdom, the beauty of our planet, and the vastness and complexity of the universe, and think it came about by chance – absurd!

  Well, there are more than a few holes in this reasoning. For example, how does one define order? I can watch crystals forming spontaneously. They are complex and ordered, yet they are not arranged by anyone. They form because they follow simple rules (actually conveniences more than rules), and repeat them many times. On the other hand, I can look at my pen, which is simpler than a crystal, and know that it was manufactured. How do I know that? It is because I have seen pens before and I know where they come from. In other words, we recognize design, because we know which items in our society have been designed. If I see a completely alien item, I would not know if it were designed or formed naturally. So, are humans formed by the repetition of basic universal rules, or were they designed? The answer is that we can’t tell by looking at them.

  Additionally, this argument ignores the fact that humans reproduce, whereas watches do not. Reproduction introduces variations and selection into the mix. Humans can and do change spontaneously over the generations. We can see it happening. Watches do not change spontaneously over the generations. We can see it not happening.

  The biggest flaw in the argument from design is that it leads to an infinite regression. If the universe is so ordered that it could only have come from a superior creator, then how much more must that creator be ordered? If humans must have been designed, then God certainly must have been designed… and his God, and his God, and so on, with each one being more complex than the previous. You can’t just switch off the logic at an arbitrary point. If logic demands that order requires a creator, then the creator must have a creator.

  Evolution and creation begin at the same point – Something came from nothing. The universe is simpler than God. So, if something had to come from nothing, it might as well have been the universe. Evolution wins this round because it has no need for an unnecessary middle step.

  Here is another common argument:
  

  The Argument from Incredulity: Another common argument is that people just can’t fathom that something came about by chance. Commonly cited somethings are the hand and the eye. If humans can’t explain something, then it must come from a higher power.

  This isn’t much of an argument, and it is appropriately labeled “the argument from ignorance”, reasoning that if you don’t know something, it must be supernatural. The insulting connotation of the label is unintentional, but appropriate.

  Interestingly, as humans increase their knowledge from the days of cave men to ever increasingly sophisticated science, we find the realm of God shrinking. The more we learn, the smaller God’s relevance becomes.

  This one's been tried on me many times:

  The Perfect Fit Argument: Many times, I have been told that it is too much to think that the universe could fit together so well, simply by chance. Why, if the earth was just a little closer to the sun, or the atmosphere had just a slightly different composition, life could not be sustained. Plants and animals are not just functional, but also beautiful, and in some cases delicious. Each piece of the ecology of the earth supports other parts, creating a delicately balanced interdependancy. The odds of all of these things coinciding are infinitesimal. How could this happen by chance?

  I would like to refute this argument by borrowing an illustration from Douglas Adams. If you freeze a puddle of water and lift it up, you will find that the contours of the puddle perfectly fit the shape of the hole it is in. Uncanny, isn’t it? What are the odds of a puddle with exactly that shape, finding a hole with precisely the same shape? The odds of the water molecules accidentally forming themselves into that exact shape boggle the mind. Therefore all puddles are designed.

  The point is that we fit our environment because we evolved to fit it. We breathe the composition of air that the earth produces, because that was the only way we could develop. We inter-depend on other species and life forms because that was the only way we could develop. And, if the earth were closer to the sun, well, there would be no life on earth, just as there is no life on Mercury and a hundred million other planets.

  Finally, the fit is not perfect. There are many flaws in our design, and in the design of our planet. Fortunately, they are not fatal flaws, but enough to nullify the argument.

  Finally, here is the one that you raised - the idea of decreasing entropy:
  

  The Second Law of Thermodynamics: I can’t count the number of times that this law has been quoted to me by fundamentalists posing as engineering experts, most of whom couldn’t define thermodynamics if their life depended on it. To put it simply, the argument asserts that the second law of thermodynamics requires systems to increase in entropy over time. In other words, if left completely on their own, things decay, disintegrate, and become more random. So, evolution violates this law by proposing that life has ordered itself, actually becoming less random, all by itself. Creation, on the other hand, supports this law, because it begins with a state of ultimate order.

  The first refutation involves the poor definition given by creationists. The second law of thermodynamics actually states: "No process is possible in which the sole result is the transfer of energy from a cooler to a hotter body."

  One of the problems with this is that the idea that order does not come from disorder is actually a spurious addition and simplistic misapplication of the law. We see seemingly spontaneous order all the time – snowflakes, crystals, sand dunes, etc. So, the second law does not say what creationists claim that it says. If order cannot come from disorder, why does it keep happening?

  The other problem is that even if we grant them their definition, it would only hold true in a closed system. The earth is not a closed system. Huge amounts of energy are added to our earth every second of the day, in multiple forms, such as heat, light, and radiation. We are also affected by the forces of external gravity and momentum.

  In our universe, we find pockets of spontaneous order, but we also find vast tracts of disorder. If you sum the total of entropy in the universe, you find that it does indeed decrease, just like the second law states.

  So, the second law of thermodynamics does not indicate a creator. This claim shows a complete lack of understanding, not only of the law that it cites, but also of the nature of evolution.

  Now, let's flip it around, and see what evidence there is in favour of evolution:

  The Evidence for evolution
  If we evolved, what would you expect to see? Well, I would expect to see the occasional spontaneous extinction as the environment changes (over 99% of all species that have ever lived are now extinct). I would expect to see mutations and adaptations (like the ever-mutating cold virus). I would expect to see survival of the fittest in action (like wolves culling a deer herd). I would expect to see the occasional evolutionary throwback (like a furry person). I would expect to see evolutionary remnants (like our plantaris muscle). I would expect to see junk DNA. I would expect to see genetic similarities within and between species. I would expect to see a fossil record showing early and intermediate stages of life and development. I would also expect the fossil record to be incomplete and confusing, because it was formed by ever-changing conditions and ravaged by time.

  In other words, I would expect to see exactly what I do see.

  
  

  Where the Hell is He?What I don’t see is God.

  I can prove that I exist. You can physically test my body. You can communicate with me. I can make things happen. I’m just an ordinary guy, yet no one doubts my existence. But, God is almighty, all-knowing, and ever- present. With conspicuous attributes like that, how can his presence be in doubt?

  Where the hell is he? If he just showed up, we could end this debate.

  
  

  Documentation
  The God concept with which I was raised came complete with a set of documentation. As I have shown in this book, the documentation is pretty damning. It is filled with errors, contradictions, and moral and logical flaws. It makes specific claims about history that can be categorically disproved, such as the creation account, the flood myth, and the origin of languages. It demonstrates a scientific knowledge equivalent to a bronze age sheepherder, which is pretty surprising for someone who knows everything, and pretty suspicious, considering how the book was transmitted to us.

  I realize that this only deals with my own childhood God, and everyone’s may be different, but for me, it was God’s own word that killed God.

  
  

  The Evolution of God
  If we look back over the history of civilization, we find plenty of evidence for evolution. Even God seems to have evolved. We can study his progression from simple tribal God, to a pantheon of nature Gods, to an all powerful single God. We can observe him splitting his evil side off into a separate being. We can watch him convert from a God of wrath and war to a God of love.

  In other words, people have made God in their image.

  
  

  The Existence of Evil
  One of the oldest arguments against God is the existence of evil. I will not pretend to give this one a thorough debate, since it has already filled countless volumes, and I only have a few paragraphs for it.

  Basically, if God is perfect, and everything he does is perfect, and he made everything, then why do bad things happen? And, when they do happen, if God is loving, all-powerful, and all-knowing, why doesn’t he help?

  These are strong arguments that require considerable rationalization to explain. Personally, I have never been satisfied with the answers. If you were God, and you witnessed children going to the ovens in Auschwitz, could you do nothing?

  
  

  Can I Prove That God Does Not Exist?No. Next question.

  Actually, I will spend a little more time on this one. How can I prove the existence of an incorporeal being? Everything I test comes up blank. He has no physical characteristics to measure. He does not respond to communication. He has had no impact on any part of the universe.

  Is it reasonable to believe in something simply because it cannot be disproved? If I claim that there is a chocolate cake orbiting the sun somewhere in the asteroid belt, would you believe me? You can’t prove there isn’t one. And, even if you did, I would simply clarify that my claim was for a spiritual chocolate cake.

  Whether we realize it or not, we all require evidence for our beliefs. And, the more outrageous the idea, the more evidence we require. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Yet, the extraordinary claims regarding God come with no evidence at all.

  The world is filled with an infinite number of ideas. I don’t believe every one that cannot be disproved. I need some sort of indication – anything – that something is a fact before I can consider it.

  Hope this helps.
• 

  acadian

  Creation or evolution don't know, wasn't there. And don't care. So, what came out first of that primordial ooze anyway? Man or Woman? Did they crawl out of the primordial ooze at the same time? If not, wouldn't there be problems? And where did the first peice of matter come from to build the first protein? Questions, questions, questions...Hmmm... Peace
  Acadian
• 

  M.J.

  Thanks for that link for that evolution program.

  But the thing that bothers me about it is that it requires input from a "designer".

  I wonder if someone has come up with a self-contained computer simulation that demonstrates the principle that increasingly complex models can self-generate...to the point that they even gain intelligence.

  now THAT would be something.
• 

  M.J.

  Conversely, if no one has been able to generate something like that, then why not?
• 

  Geronimo

  Hey Running Man! Now THIS is ther kind of response I was hoping for! Bigtime content in a form that I can understand easy. Thanks! I found this funny essay which is a good rebuke of the "watchmaker" argument you mentioned. http://www.jhuger.com/watchmaker I think all of your reasonings are very pointed and difficult to find fault with or refute.I'm starting to get a better birds eye view of evolution and the problems with ID. My noodle neeedle is definitely over in the evolution end of the guage. But some of the ideas of God you mentioned are definitely the traditional Judeo Christian variety. There are others that don't have all the probs and contradictions and silliness. You mentioned you wrote a book. Is it the evolution equivalent of a pop-level book on ID? You have a gift of making these things really obvious and understandable. I'd like to buy your book so PM me with the details. Thanks Running Man! G