The Origin of Species

[221B Baker Street]

Falk:

Quote:
You seem perfectly willing to believe in non-carbon based life just to avoid the conclusion of the argument.

I have read somewhere that silicon based life could be possible. Well, chemically there is not too much difference between carbon and silicium.

I read somewhere that it could not be possible - silicone just doesn’t have sufficient flexibility from a chemical standpoint to form RNA or DNA (life as we know it). I guess it might be possible for a lifeform as we do not know, perhaps a different coding technique than DNA/RNA.

But this is really an unimportant point - there is plenty of carbon in the universe.

[cystic crypt]

I am LOVING this Francis Collins guy. The director of the Human Genome Project is a Christian, a physician and a researcher. Long before i heard of him, i had been pounding out the same rhythm (people can see my opinions expounded on many previous evolution/creation threads where i verbally battled both young-earth creationists and atheistic evolutionists).
Anyway, here is a quote pulled from him that i like:

I wish more people would go back and read St. Augustine from 400 A.D. His view of the first book of the Bible sounds very compatible with what is currently called “theistic evolution,” where God used the process of evolution to create man. Augustine, without the need to be defensive, felt this evolutionary view of how human beings came about is entirely consistent with Genesis 1. The current battle between evolutionism and creationism makes me sad at heart, because it is so unnecessary. It’s hard enough getting through life when you have to deal with the real challenges and the real controversies and the real battles. This polarization of evolution and creation is a battle that we shouldn’t have had to fight, and yet it continues to rage. Serious Christians often think they’re being asked to reject compelling scientific data to prove their religious commitment; serious scientists often think they’re being asked to reject their own faith to prove their intellectual rigor. And none of this is at all necessary. A harmonious synthesis of science and faith is not only possible, it is deeply satisfying. We must work to spread that word.

I believe this with my heart AND my mind.

I also like the approach by biochemist Michael Behe (Darwin’s Black Box). Here he poked several holes in the evolutionary theory forcing scientists to become more scientific in explaining many questions that were heretofore unexplained.

As for teaching evolution in schools - the problem is that simply saying “the world was created this way, and people’s origens were thus” is IMO inappropriate.
It is unscientific for one. We don’t “know” that it happened this way. Furthermore, it is untestable and unfalsifiable. There are still many holes in the theory, and we rely on records generated during uncertain times with many assumptions. Now i’ll agree that it appears to be the most logical (secular) explanation for how we reached where we are. At the same time, to not continue to challenge it is unscientific. If we just say “yes! Evolution happened exactly this way and never question this wisdom!” then we are kowtowing to an agenda that i don’t quite understand. As a scientist and a physician i still need to question much of what i see, read and hear. For me to read a trial on a drug and to ignore important holes, inclusion, exclusion criteria etc. and not to be critical of it would not only be scientific, but could put my patients’ lives in danger. Why then is it appropriate to be unscientific with regards to the evolutionary theory?

With regards to ID - i believe in it, but i can see why people do not wish it to be taught alongside of evolution. At the same time, given the massive number of Christians, Jews, and Muslims who believe that God created the heavens and the earth, i really do not see it as being unreasonable for a teacher to admit this. Who knows - it might actually lead to more scientific discussion . . . .

[221B Baker Street]

I agree with what CC said regarding that faith and science can exist in harmony together.

This is slightly off-topic, but a Physicist has put together a site regarding how science actually supports Christianity:

http://www.reasons.org/

Interestingly, the site is actually somewhat critical of ID:

http://www.reasons.org/resources/fff/2002issue10/index.shtml#more_than_id

This is well worth reading IMO.

[cystic crypt]

@221B:

Interestingly, the site is actually somewhat critical of ID:

http://www.reasons.org/resources/fff/2002issue10/index.shtml#more_than_id

This is well worth reading IMO.

it’s an interesting article, however i can see a problem - an underlying bias.
My concern is not that he has a problem with evolution guided by ID - that’s fine - but rather that this is not for scientific reasons but that he is worried about effects on people’s spirituality if they buy into this (rather than an atheistic view). This also is not scientific.
He should say “i do not believe in ID because it is contradicted HERE with THIS evidence” - whether Biblical or scientific. It is (IMO) inappropriate to discount a putative mechanism for something because of future implications of this knowledge.

[Jennifer]

@F_alk:

The Creation-thing is big only in the USA. It is undisputed were i am. The big press it gets and the repeated but baseless claims that it was “disputed” is a political thing. There are people who want it to be disputed, and best to make it so is to call it so repeatedly over. This seems to be a very common strategy to “prove” unproven things.

And hence it is disputed. :) Perhaps in Germany it is widely accepted as fact, after all, Germany was the first country to discover neanderthalls.

However, many scientific communities DO dispute the validity of the theory - enough so that it has not been made into a Law/Principle/Fact by the community as a whole.

…as we don’t know how many universes or creators are out there, and thus we have no idea over what our one measurement has to be sampled over.

True. So how is it that evolution is the only theory that is propagated by the public education system? Wouldn’t it be better to let scientologists, christians, jews, muslims, buddists, poly-theists, wiccans and scientists all espouse their own theories in public forum and allow the individual to determine what they take as fact - at least until you can prove one theory to be the ONLY method.

For example, it used to be common knowledge that sick people were infested by demons. Now science has proved that they are just infested with living organisms (viruses/bacteria) so all we teach is that illness is caused by viruses and bacteria and not by evil demons.

As for silicon based life, wouldnt a self aware computer be considered silicon based life? It eats electricity, provides waste in the form of heat, and - when they are self aware - would have self determination and I think that meets the criteria set forth for life.

However, who’s to say there isn’t a Neon based life form in the multi-verse? (Assuming there’s more then just our universe - for arguement’s sake.)

Also, who’s to say that the spirit cannot gain enough power to create life themselves one day? (Kinda a take on the scientology thing.)

[Mary]

There is no evidence that it can’t. It just did not happen on this one planet.
And there is as much proof(!) for silicon based life as there is for a creator. Although Si based life has the benefit that evidentally life can come from rather light elements of the chemical group.

You know Bayes Theorem, right? Every black raven we find is evidence that non-black ravens don’t exist. Every DNA-based complex life-form is evidence that non-DNA based life-forms don’t exist. If you belive in beings made of hydrogen or silicon, just to avoid some conclusion that is unpalatable, why not just believe in souls?

No, i wanted to say that they don’t mix their religious belief in the argument, not that they are free of any belief.
And do you want to say that ID is just an agenda ;) ?

Materialism is just as much a religious belief as belief in God. Most atheists I’ve met are much worse than theists when it comes to discussing their beliefs.

[221B Baker Street]

CC: After re-reading the article, I believe you are correct that there is an underlying bias in the author. I hadn’t noticed that before.

Still, I believe that nobody should be afraid of the truth regarding this topic. The facts (at least as we know them now) do not contradict in a fundamental manner Christianity and probably never will since the Bible is not meant as a science book. They do contradict what some people beleive should be Christianity (such as earth being created in exactly 6 days - which is not quite what the Bible says. I have heard the original Hebrew word for day in Genesis should be translated to “some unspecified period of time”). Nor should the facts regarding problems with evolution (or other science theories) because that is what science does - study the facts. From either position, I see no need to argue about these points. As the saying goes, the truth shall set you free.

[AgentOrange]

I think that Evolution is a very appealing idea, simply because it provides a logical way of looking at the origin of man. But aside from talking about anatomical and genetic similarities, I would also like to say that I think Creation as a theory is completely unfounded. It tries to claim that all of a sudden, everything just was. (To all you fundamentalists out there, this is simply my belief.)

Anyway, the reason I’ve decided to point these things out is because while evolution seems more logical to me by far, I also can’t grasp the notion that we evolved from simpler creatures just by random chance. There just has to be someone dictating the evolutionary processes. (God) I mean, you’ve all heard that “The Lord works in mysterious ways.” Maybe He made us evolve to instill some doubt as to his existence. Because if there is actually 0.00% doubt as to the fact that He exists, then faith has absolutely NO purpose.

So yeah; Intelligent Design all the way. :wink:

[Jennifer]

Creation is more logical to me. I can take all the components of a computer and assemble it into a creation.

Evolution does not make much logical sense to me since I cannot take that computer and have it evolve - all on its own - into a super computer.

So yes, it is perfectly reasonable to have an omnipotent being mock up a reality for billions of spirits to live in, AO. Just as reasonable has a few amino acids in a puddle getting hit with just the right amount of electricity in the right atmosphere and becomming life which later, through trial and error, all on it’s own without any design to follow what-so-ever, evolved into mankind. And if mankind is the epitome of life, why do we have monkeys and birds and lions?

[Linkon]

Mankind has practiced ID for centuries.

We are much better at it now.

Just think of all the different breeds of dogs, cats, horses, cows, corn, salmon, trout, tilapia, grapes, etc…

[Guest]

@Mary:

You know Bayes Theorem, right?

Yes.

Every black raven we find is evidence that non-black ravens don’t exist.

No. :)

As you said you know Bayes Theorem …. have you heard of the Prosecutor’s Fallacy? That is what ID people usually use. An importantn point is:
We have no idea how often life has evolved in the universe. We can only guess and there creationists tend to use very small numbers (out of the gaps of course: I remember how it was doubted by creationists that other solar systems had planets … then -once we found planets (huge gas ones)- how they doubted that earthlike planets existed outside our solar system … and of course, they doubt that life would start there. How can you tell that having an earthlike planet does not lead to life in 85% of each cases ? Then, all life would evolve, and our sample suggests that it evolves into something intelligent.

Creationists all seem to follow a Bayesian definition of probability. Science usually takes a frequentist definition (when it comes down to experiments at least). We can use Bayes Theorem though: if we do, then suddenly -just because we exist- the probabilities for having natural constants, number of dimensions etc. the way they are is not flat over any possible value anymore (it is not evenly distributed). Indeed, just because we are here, the values that we see have higher probabilities.

About your “carbon chauvinism” and Bayes: So, you have a box with an uncertain number of balls in there (=number of planets that have life). You draw one. It is white (=carbon based life). What is the probability that there are no black balls (si-based life) in there ?

Materialism is just as much a religious belief as belief in God. Most atheists I’ve met are much worse than theists when it comes to discussing their beliefs.

Why would you try to bring your belief into theirs then? Are you christian missionary, trying to convert all those materialist scientists ;)?
Just face it: Science “won” over the church, although the church had a massive head-start. Still, it took more than 7 days for the universe to form and intelligent life to come. Rome is not center of the earth is not center of the solar system is not center of the universe.

I think this argument is by humans who just hate it to be “usual” and not “special”. Get over it ;) :).

BTW, Hawking stated that the probability for a universe like this to be created out of a Big Bang is about 98%, allowing the universe wavefunction to come into existance with nothing there before it.

@Linkon:

Mankind has practiced ID for centuries.
We are much better at it now.
Just think of all the different breeds of dogs, cats, horses, cows, corn, salmon, trout, tilapia, grapes, etc…

Tststs….
you can’t say “look, evolution doesn’t work: It can’t explain macro-evolution” and then say “look, ID works: Although i have to ignore macroevolution”.
…
Well, that is if you want to keep up the terms Macro- and micro- evolution. AFAIK only ID/creationists people use these terms. In evolution theory, there is no distinction AFAIR.

[Jennifer]

@F_alk:

@Linkon:

Mankind has practiced ID for centuries.
We are much better at it now.
Just think of all the different breeds of dogs, cats, horses, cows, corn, salmon, trout, tilapia, grapes, etc…

Tststs….
you can’t say “look, evolution doesn’t work: It can’t explain macro-evolution” and then say “look, ID works: Although i have to ignore macroevolution”.
…
Well, that is if you want to keep up the terms Macro- and micro- evolution. AFAIK only ID/creationists people use these terms. In evolution theory, there is no distinction AFAIR.

I must agree. While there’s truth in the fact that there is genetic drift and you can breed a better flower or mouse, this does not prove or disprove evolutionary theory. It only proves you can tweak those species already in existance for good or ill.

[Mary]

@F_alk:

@Mary:

You know Bayes Theorem, right?

Yes.

Every black raven we find is evidence that non-black ravens don’t exist.

No. :)

As you said you know Bayes Theorem …. have you heard of the Prosecutor’s Fallacy? That is what ID people usually use. An importantn point is:
We have no idea how often life has evolved in the universe. We can only guess and there creationists tend to use very small numbers (out of the gaps of course: I remember how it was doubted by creationists that other solar systems had planets … then -once we found planets (huge gas ones)- how they doubted that earthlike planets existed outside our solar system … and of course, they doubt that life would start there. How can you tell that having an earthlike planet does not lead to life in 85% of each cases ? Then, all life would evolve, and our sample suggests that it evolves into something intelligent.

Creationists all seem to follow a Bayesian definition of probability. Science usually takes a frequentist definition (when it comes down to experiments at least). We can use Bayes Theorem though: if we do, then suddenly -just because we exist- the probabilities for having natural constants, number of dimensions etc. the way they are is not flat over any possible value anymore (it is not evenly distributed). Indeed, just because we are here, the values that we see have higher probabilities.

About your “carbon chauvinism” and Bayes: So, you have a box with an uncertain number of balls in there (=number of planets that have life). You draw one. It is white (=carbon based life). What is the probability that there are no black balls (si-based life) in there ?

Materialism is just as much a religious belief as belief in God. Most atheists I’ve met are much worse than theists when it comes to discussing their beliefs.

Why would you try to bring your belief into theirs then? Are you christian missionary, trying to convert all those materialist scientists ;)?
Just face it: Science “won” over the church, although the church had a massive head-start. Still, it took more than 7 days for the universe to form and intelligent life to come. Rome is not center of the earth is not center of the solar system is not center of the universe.

I think this argument is by humans who just hate it to be “usual” and not “special”. Get over it ;) :).

BTW, Hawking stated that the probability for a universe like this to be created out of a Big Bang is about 98%, allowing the universe wavefunction to come into existance with nothing there before it.

@Linkon:

Mankind has practiced ID for centuries.
We are much better at it now.
Just think of all the different breeds of dogs, cats, horses, cows, corn, salmon, trout, tilapia, grapes, etc…

Tststs….
you can’t say “look, evolution doesn’t work: It can’t explain macro-evolution” and then say “look, ID works: Although i have to ignore macroevolution”.
…
Well, that is if you want to keep up the terms Macro- and micro- evolution. AFAIK only ID/creationists people use these terms. In evolution theory, there is no distinction AFAIR.

I have a copy of CHoice and Chance in my bookshelf. Just plug in the numbers. I guarantee you that finding a black raven reduces the probablity of the hypothesis “there are some non-black ravens”. I think the crucial point that you’re missing is that you have zero evidence for believing in anything other than carbon-based life, yet you believe so to avoid an argument. Your faith in the existence of strange life-forms is no different than that of a theist’s faith in the existence of God.

You argue about silicon-based life, and even if I grant that it’s likely, the likelihood is taking into account conditions in THIS universe, which are very hospitable for life. Are you really claiming that life can exist in a universe where atoms can’t form, where stars can’t form, where planets can’t form? Those are the kinds of universes which arise when tweaking the constants even a little bit. To believe in complex life arising without atoms or stars is ridiculous. If that’s the best you can do, the argument is in good shape.

As far as Hawking goes, it doesn’t hurt the argument at all if 98% of possible universes would have had the same constant values. Even if the constants are “fixed” at the moment of the Big bang, the question would simply become: why are the constants fixed in such a way that the universe supports life? You seem to forget that even if the constants are fixed or highly probable, we can still generate models of universes where the constants are different (and the fact that drives the argument would still remain: change the constants just a little bit, and the universe would not support life). In fact, it would support the argument if we found out that the universe HAS to be a life-supporting one, that all possible big bangs produce life supporting universes. How strange would THAT be?

[Desertfox]

I suppose it is mostly agreed here that evolution is seems the most plausible/correct, but whether or not God was involved is the argument. Am I right?

[Jennifer]

@Desertfox:

I suppose it is mostly agreed here that evolution is seems the most plausible/correct, but whether or not God was involved is the argument. Am I right?

Actually, the evidence to support evolution is pretty faulty as well. However, I’ll buy it has the same amount of factual evidence that you can see, feel, touch, hear, taste, etc as any religion’s version.

[Guest]

@Mary:

(SNIP)I think the crucial point that you’re missing is that you have zero evidence for believing in anything other than carbon-based life, yet you believe so to avoid an argument.

That’s BS. I have the same evidence for Si based life and for the existance of a creator.

Your faith in the existence of strange life-forms is no different than that of a theist’s faith in the existence of God.

And i have as much proof.

You argue about silicon-based life, and even if I grant that it’s likely, the likelihood is taking into account conditions in THIS universe, which are very hospitable for life.

Yes, of course it is. It must. This is the only universe i know of. This is the universe i live in.
So, you are arguning for me, using Bayes Theorem:
We life in this universe.
Thus the probability for the universe to have conditions “hospitable for life” is …… 1.
I have to take that into account for everything i calculate.

Are you really claiming that life can exist in a universe where atoms can’t form, where stars can’t form, where planets can’t form?

That is utter BS.
Quote me.

If that’s the best you can do, the argument is in good shape.

That and your comment on your book on your bookshelf reminds me that i have Joyce’s “Ulysses” still unread on my shelf.

As far as Hawking goes, it doesn’t hurt the argument at all if 98% of possible universes would have had the same constant values.

If the universe had a 98% chance to come out like that, why is it fine tuned then? It is NOT unlikely then. THat is the core of teh fine-tuning argument: our universe is unlikely, someone must have rigged it.But, it is not unlikely.

Even if the constants are “fixed” at the moment of the Big bang, the question would simply become: why are the constants fixed in such a way that the universe supports life?

That is not the question. I look at the humans and Bayes Theorem and know the constants just are.
See, i can ask you the same: Why is god? Why is a creator?
You’d probably say: the uncaused cause.
Hwaking has shown that the universe itself can be uncaused. We don’t need a creator.
So, the answer to your question (which is what i meant that creationists “need to feel special”.):
there is no reason.

You seem to forget that even if the constants are fixed or highly probable, we can still generate models of universes where the constants are different (and the fact that drives the argument would still remain: change the constants just a little bit, and the universe would not support life).

No, i don’t forget that. But with the 98% and the fact that we are here … just tells us that we live in a highly likely universe. Sure we can do the models, but we don’t need them anymore.

WE are highly probable.

In fact, it would support the argument if we found out that the universe HAS to be a life-supporting one, that all possible big bangs produce life supporting universes. How strange would THAT be?

98% would. I don’t see the strangeness at all.

[Mary]

Yes, of course it is. It must. This is the only universe i know of. This is the universe i live in.
So, you are arguning for me, using Bayes Theorem:
We life in this universe.
Thus the probability for the universe to have conditions “hospitable for life” is …… 1.
I have to take that into account for everything i calculate.

I don’t think you understand conditional probablity. What is at stake is NOT “Is the universe life supporting” (we know it is), but “IS the universe designed to support life”. Those are two VERY different questions which you seem to be conflating.

Flip a coin a hundred times. Get heads every time. You don’t think that supports the hypothesis “the coin is loaded for heads”? Wait, but the hundred flips already happened, right? Just like we find ourselves in a universe that supports life. I still don’t think you’re going to get it. You remind me of why casinos put signs by the roulette tables: if black has come up five times in a row, red is due, right? LOL. Dust off your copy of C&C and read up on conditional probablity, esp. since you’re confused about something as simple as a black raven providing confirmation for a hypothesis.

Lastly, you fail to recognize the significance of fixed constants that always generate a life-supporting universe. Something like this: Well, if those constants had ANY other values, the universe would be inhospitable for life. For some bizzare reason, the constants just happen to be fixed in such a way that a universe with stars, planets, heavy elements, atoms, molecules, etc. always comes about. Gee, that wouldn’t cry out for explantion :roll:

But I’m repeating myself now. You either get it or you don’t. This is why materialists are the worst critical thinkers. Once the blinders go up, it must be hard to see past the tunnel vision.

[Guest]

@Mary:

I don’t think you understand conditional probablity. What is at stake is NOT “Is the universe life supporting” (we know it is), but “IS the universe designed to support life”. Those are two VERY different questions which you seem to be conflating.

I do understand conditional porbability. I do think that the question you want to raise can’t be answered even by that.

Flip a coin a hundred times. Get heads every time. You don’t think that supports the hypothesis “the coin is loaded for heads”? Wait, but the hundred flips already happened, right? Just like we find ourselves in a universe that supports life.

There is ONE coin flip. Not a hundred.

You remind me of why casinos put signs by the roulette tables: if black has come up five times in a row, red is due, right? LOL. Dust off your copy of C&C and read up on conditional probablity, esp. since you’re confused about something as simple as a black raven providing confirmation for a hypothesis.

No, i am more of the kind of the second in this little joke:
Three people travel by train through a strange land. They see a herd of sheep. They are black. Says the first: “In this country, all sheep are black”. Says the second: “No, in this country at least one herd of sheep are black”. Says the third: “No, in this country at least one herd of sheep is black at one side.”

You seem to be of the first kind. We have ONE sample. ONE !
You want to do statistics over ONE sample. Even MDs don’t do so in their thesis works, and they are not famous for statistics.

Lastly, you fail to recognize the significance of fixed constants that always generate a life-supporting universe. Something like this: Well, if those constants had ANY other values, the universe would be inhospitable for life. For some bizzare reason, the constants just happen to be fixed in such a way that a universe with stars, planets, heavy elements, atoms, molecules, etc. always comes about. Gee, that wouldn’t cry out for explantion :roll:

See, you fail to understand Bayes theorem. The universe is not inhospitable. The bizarre “reason” that you need is called maths and quantum mechanics i would think. I trust Hawking in his calculations there (although they are not yet past peer review). If a universe is likely to be like ours, then it is so because of a few logic principles.
That is the explanation.

If you need a creator, you still need to answer who created the creator. You need to know why the creator would have an interested in creating such a universe where so limited creatures like us humans?

But I’m repeating myself now. You either get it or you don’t. This is why materialists are the worst critical thinkers. Once the blinders go up, it must be hard to see past the tunnel vision.

and vice versa.

[Avin]

Interesting, it seems like this thread was began to ask about what origins theory people here believe in and why, but it has turned into predominately discussing what should be taught in public schools.

These are not at all the same issue!

In my first post on this thread I outlined how and why I stopped believing in evolution and became a creationist. Did anyone actually read it by the way? I’ve been reading through this thread on a daily basis and I get the feeling I was pretty much ignored. Anyway, I only touched on the issue of teaching briefly to say that I did not support the teaching of creationism in public schools. Yet I still firmly believe that creationism is true.

When you come to the question of what is taught in schools, the issue is not a question of science or religion at all, which is where I think many people get sidetracked in. Both of these, science and religion, are modern categories of ideas. They are not the only categories: history, sociopolitical theory, philosophy, and formal constructs (such as rules of systems like grammar, writing, etc) are others. There are two purposes for the things that are taught in school: to teach students how to think, and to teach students certain facts. In general, a parent should teach their child what they believe to be true, regardless of what category of knowledge any purpoted fact falls into, be it any of the above. A public school is a service provided by the government that is supposed to aid parents in this endeavor. As such, it should at minimum teach children what is universally agreed on to be true. When America was founded, Christianity was considered universally agreed on even though denominations were not, so it was not uncommon to educate students in ideas that were common to all Christian denominations. However this is no longer the case, so we do not do so any longer. When you have a difference of opinion regarding whether an idea is true or not, it matters little what the source of the idea is; the issue of whether it is taught or not becomes a concern for POLITICS not science or religion. You can use science or use religion to lend support for your view all you like, but that does not change the fundamental fact that X people think one thing is true and Y people think another, and the politics between them decides what gets taught and what does not. So for instance, statistics say that a large number of Americans believe in some form of creation, yet this is not taught in schools because politically creationism is not viable.

I do not advocate teaching creationism in public schools because I recognize that there are a large number of people who do not desire for it to be taught, and I do not seek to change their opinion by force. I would like to change their opinion by convincing them of it if possible, but not by making a law about it. I hope that proponents of opposing theories would be equally open minded that people like me exist that do not think that evolution explains the origins of living things (although I have no problem with the scientific concept of evolution happening today, and indeed I intend on teaching my own kids this) and that I desire for it not to be taught as such, but if they don’t, I’ll deal with it with my own kids and leave it at that.

[221B Baker Street]

Avin,

Yes, I read your entire post - I thought it was excellent. I just didn’t respond because I really didn’t have anything to add. Also, as you say, the thread seemed to morph into a debate about teaching this in school which is something I don’t have a strong opinion about either way. Whether or not ID is taught in the public schools is less important to me than whether or not the teacher is willing to be objective and respectful regarding the opinions of the students (i.e. allow for disagreement and perhaps even have a useful debate on this subject). I would rather our students learn to think for themselves than simply regurgitate their lessons. This is something that no law can really address, nor should our politicians try to do so IMO.