Forum Discussion: Proving Evolution is True
Wednesday June 20, 2007
A popular creationist claim is that scientists cannot "prove" the truth of evolution. In a sense, they are right — but only insofar as scientists cannot "prove" the truth of any scientific theory. Somehow, though, this doesn't stop creationists from accepting most to all of the rest of science. Particularly telling is how creationists will not apply the standards they demand of evolution to the science of criminal forensics or just to criminal justice. This is especially interesting given how common it is for creationists to be staunch "law & order" believers.
Creationist: You can't prove evolution is true, 100%.
Me: But evolution has been proved true beyond a reasonable doubt. It's like in court, to prove a defendant is guilty, the jury needs to decide that it is beyond a reasonable doubt that the claim is true.
Creationist: A ha! But innocent people are sent to jail all the time!
Me: Okay, but imagine a different court. In this one, a juror has to first pass years of tests to prove that he knows about the law and the case at hand. Then, he and a million others who also passed the test hear case after case after case. A million different defenses are launched against the truth of the claim. Every single of the million jurors after every single of the million cases concluded that there was no reasonable doubt that the claim was true. A single juror, in one case, could say "Not true" and the defendant would go free. But that never happened, and still never happens to this day. Because this defendant gets a million trials every day. And still, not one "Not true" has been found.
That's the case that evolution is true.
[Creationist: Yeah but someday we'll find a Not true, but for you it'll probably be too late. Enjoy hell loser.]
[Me: :-\ ]
If creationists were credible, serious, and reasonable, then they would apply their standards broadly and consistently. They would demand from all of science the same things they demand of evolution. They would demand the same levels of proof from criminal forensics and criminal justice (where people's liberty and lives are at stake) as they demand from evolution. The fact that they don't says a lot about their true nature and motivations. Add your thoughts to the comments here or join the ongoing discussion in the forum.
Comments
There are many interesting aspects to what happens in the dialogues between creationists and those who, until a better theory is found, accept evolution.
The basic premise of evolution is that genetic variation occurs in organisms that reproduce, and that this variation can result in observable physical changes in subsequent populations.
The further theory states that evolution accounts for all known genetic variation on the planet.
Darwin was most famously inspired by variations he saw during his travels, but he was also inspired by domestic breeding. And this is no wonder, since domestic breeding is nothing if not proof of the premise of evolution: You can physically change a population through genetically directed breeding (directing the genetic data that passes to subsequent generations). The fact that we can do it in controlled environments proves that it can be done. Populations can evolve—or at the very least can be _made_ to evolve. Our domestic breeding programs prove it. And there is no reason I’m aware of to consider that what can be accomplished by ancients in their grazing fields, can’t be accomplished in nature. In fact, it was likely their own observations regarding the effects of breeding that led them to recognize that perhaps they could create something different—more domestic—from wild stock. If we breed docile animals, the offspring are more docile. If we breed large animals, the offspring are larger. Anyone can observe this as a general rule, not just in domestic animals, but in people and their offspring as well. It’s not something Darwin just dreamed up.
The question, though, becomes: Does evolution account for all known genetic variation on the planet?
And here is where people can consider or reject the evidence as they choose and decide for themselves what they want to believe. But the reality is this:
The evolutionist has a mechanism (evolution) that is proven to cause physical change in reproducing populations. He is merely extrapolating that perhaps it might be the cause of all physical change in all reproducing populations.
The creationist has a book saying god did it; and there is no experiment or ongoing program that has ever come even remotely close to showing that (1) gods exist or (2) that gods are a catalyst for physical changes in reproducing populations.
Saying X causes Y, therefore maybe X causes all Y is INFINTELY more reasonable (although it could—admittedly—one day prove incorrect) than saying A causes Y—even though I can’t even be sure there is an A to begin with.
Here’s what the christians that I know always do when dicussing evolution. They will never say evolution is not true. They will always say, I do not “believe” it is true!
What’s funny is that when you ask them what _their_ explanation is–they’ll look at you, straight-faced, and tell you it was all a trick done with some mud and magic. THAT they can “believe,” but changes in organisms over time due to selective breeding (even though it’s an observable mechanism)–that they can’t “believe”?
It seems to me that if you’ll believe the mud and magic concept for how all the species came to exist, you shouldn’t be hard-pressed to believe _anything_ anyone presents you with.
Christian apologetics = Lyin’ for the Lord.
Evolution evolves, just like everything else. Plants evolve, animals evolve, even religions evolve.
Proof exists only in the world of mathematics. The belief in evolution comes from interpreting overwhelming evidence.
What I can not figure out is: Are Creationists truly delusional or are they faking it? In other words, just how deep is their self deception?
Evolution rules, science proves, and creationism fools!
Intelligent Design isnt a strike against science itself. It is stating the inductive interpretations that are printed in “science” textbooks cannot be disproven by the scientific method. These questions which cannot be answered: If the initial chemicals which where present before the evolution of living beings (water vapor, CO2, and N2) would have produced cyanide and formaldehyde, then how did life ever even begin (PROBLEM!) If the probability that evolution could have worked is 10 to the 2 billionth, and Dr. Emile Borel, the inventor of the laws of probability, said that anything after 10 to the 50th power must be considered impossible even with infinite time, then how can evolution be theoretically possible in 6 billion years (PROBLEM!) If we have less chromosomes than apes, and the convergence of chromosomes causes mental retardation, and this convergence is theoretically supposed to have created more intelligent beings, then how did we descend from apes, according to Robertsonian translocations (PROBLEM!) come on guys- evolution is a joke only because it is unscientific, not because science is itself a problem.
Cases that are proven in court using science are those that use actual scientific laws, not theories. Since evolution is not a scientific law, and has not been proven by science, it is still a theory and still holds the possibility of being false. Given that the chances of one enzyme ending up in the right place in a cell is 1 in 10 to the 30013 power, and there are hundreds of enzymes in a cell, not to mention lipids, carbohydrates, and proteins, it is a mathematical impossibility for a cell to develop by accident, and even if it were possible, it would take more time than what scientist say the earth has existed, not to mention, the earth would have to cool down enough for life to survive, unless the first life was invulnerable, in which case it would still exist.
The concept of “scientific law” is a remnant of the 19th century and not actively used any more except due to inerita.
The same is true of atomic theory, the germ theory of disease, and plate tectonics.
Except that nature doesn’t work by “accident,” it works in regular and predictable ways.
Feel free to use probability and statistics to prove this assertion.
“chances of one enzyme ending up in the right place in a cell is 1 in 10 to the 30013 power”
Who said “by accident”? That’s not what evolution says. Enzymes go where they belong because of chemistry. Just as two oxygen atoms snap together to form O2.
If the probability that evolution could have worked is 10 to the 2 billionth, and Dr. Emile Borel, the inventor of the laws of probability, said that anything after 10 to the 50th power must be considered impossible even with infinite time
That is silly. If evolution is indeed the mechanism by which nature works, if there were 10 to the 2 billionth (any reference?) possibilities, after say an x number of years, then at least 1 of those 10 to the 2 billionth possibilities WOULD HAVE OCCURRED! That is simple common sense. If instead of humans being the top of the heap, as it is now, whales were, then the whales would have posed the same question, but it would not have invalidated evolution.
These questions which cannot be answered… — Daniela Scoggins
Have you, in fact, investigated these questions? Are you really quite sure that no answers exist for them?
Have you read any of the works of “Dr. Emile Borel, the inventor of the laws of probability”?
Are you versed in the details of “Robertsonian translocations”? Are you eager to expand on your views regarding nonhomologous acrocentric chromosomes?
it is a mathematical impossibility for a cell to develop by accident… — Sam Bailey
Know a lot about mathematical proofs, hmmm? Please share your proof for this assertion.
Also, as others here have already noted, only creationist would ever imagine that natural selection says cells arise by accident. Haven’t you ever wondered about that word “selection” in “natural selection”?
The Theory of Evolution is the only theory available that explains creation and the present state of the world as evolved from natural law.
Religionists make up fairy tales like intelligent design and would like you to ligitimize the absurd notion that Intelligent Design is a Theory rather than religious dogma.
Can science and religion ever be compatible? The answer is obviously no.
But religion wants it to be to gain even an ounce of credibility. However,
every new fact uncovered in the history of the world has ripped the mask of authority from religion.
“All religions have two basic enemies;
history and knowledge”
All science is theory and you will never get a scientist to say “this is absolute truth, or this is the final answer.
A law is a mummified theory.
This is an interesting post because it illustrates the sophistry that characterizes the teachings of the religious right. The statistics quoted are nonsense since we don’t actually know what the odds involving life beginnings. Secondly a bit of reading of some non religious tract ( especially Dawkins)would show how evolution comes about in very small inevitable steps. Intelligent design uses the argument of the complexity of the eye to discount all evolution. (see “Letting go of God” for the counterpoint). However, ID is not really an argument about a specific scientific theory. It is a way of trying to hold the religious “absolute knowledge” against what they perceive as scientific “absolute knowledge”. They miss the critical point that science continually questions itself. They miss the point that ANY theory, no matter how successful can be challenged with contrary empiric evidence (something the religionists would never allow regarding the bible). The ID concept has the logic flaw “argument from authority” and they incorrectly see science the same way.
This (IMHO) is the CRITICAL flaw of any religion, it teaches you not to think and even more frightening, to unthinkingly obey an arbitrary authority.
Evolution is the scariest theory for any christian…
… they fear they could not justify their faith in the god of the bible if they accepted the theory of evolution…
… they also believe that questioning and pointing out perceived flaws in the theory undermines atheism…
… never quite got that leap…
… they forget that the questioning and testing of beliefs is what often leads to atheism…
… for me, the questioning of my faith was a result of these many silly christian arguments…
… and now, the more I am faced with these arguments, the more convinced I am that their faith is a bunch of hooey, supported by nothing…
Daniela Scoggins and Sam Bailey appear to have exhausted their fund of knowledge on the topic of evolution.
The complexity of life forms tends to make us believe that it could not have come about by itself and must have been crafted by someone with a plan in mind. A snowflake has a very symmetrical design and pattern. If you showed the drawing of a snowflake to someone who did not know what it was, that person probably would not believe that it was not drawn intentionally but was just a random creation. A few years ago I saw a complex photo while reading an article in a magazine. Again, it was a complicated but symmetrical design. Upon reading the text, it transpired that it was only a photo of a milk drop falling on a flat surface, magnified a hundred times!
There are many forces of nature, which have not been fully understood by us. Whenever we have not understood any natural process, we have been quick to assign its origin to a supernatural power. Fire, thunder, lightning, etc were given the status of gods in most ancient cultures. These are facile explanations that require no deep research. It would be more prudent to admit that we don’t understand a phenomenon and leave it that, rather than attribute it to a superpower of one’s imagination. The latter option only spreads and encourages false knowledge and belief.
Som Sharma – Agreed, throughout history humans have been quick to state that something that they cannot understand must have been created by some higher being.
holy crap evolutionists.. this is the gayest made up arguement i have ever seen. there are many videos of arguements of the creationist kicking ***. so suck it.
OMG LOL d00d U R S0 the ghey!
*groan*
How can someone so stupid enough to formulate that sentence smart enough to navigate the internet?
Bryce @ #24:
You mean videos like these?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i1fGkFuHIu0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ty1Bo6GmPqM
http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=3E165308E7342A8E
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fCGz9dMd1Y8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zi8FfMBYCkk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=85diEXbJBIk
Evolution: learn it, live it, love it.
holy crap evolutionists.. this is the gayest made up arguement i have ever seen. there are many videos of arguements of the creationist kicking ***. so suck it. — bryce on September 11, 2008 at 9:04 am
Posted exactly seven years and one minute after the south tower of the World Trade Center was struck by the second highjacked airliner.
Coincidence? Maybe — or maybe not!
Zack when you actually learn how to spell, cease using aggressive profanities, address the debate, and what is more understand the subject. Fee free to return.
Zack when you actually learn how to spell, cease using aggressive profanities, address the debate, and what is more, understand the subject. Feel free to return.
Hey Tom, Leave Zack Alone! Leave him alone! I’m serious! He’s a human!
I think you meant to have a go at Bryce, Zack was just quoting him.
Regarding evolution; I have a very good friend who is a right-wing born-again fundamentalist evangelical Christian. He firmly believes that
THERE ARE TWO WAYS TO LIVE, Conservative Evangelical Protestant Christianity OR BURNING IN HELL WITH EVERYONE ELSE WHO IS OBVIOUSLY WRONG!!!!!
However, he does accept evolution and appears to think that acceptance of evolution does not threaten Christianity.
Fair enough, I asked him how he reconciles the idea of a loving omnipotent and omniscient god with the following facts:
1. The fact that life as we know it developed over millions of years of bloodsport helped along by mass extinctions.
2. The fact that the vast majority of species that have existed are now extinct.
3. The fact that the majority of lives including those of most humans have been nasty, brutish and short, and that this is actually required for evolution to occur.
4. The facts that there appears to have been no guarantee that anything like humanity would ever have emerged and that there is no guarantee that we won’t become extinct.
Unbelievably, he actually made the Bette Midler gambit: God is watching us from a distance! “You see, what’s important to God is that life exists at all!”
This COMPLETELY contradicts the basic idea of Christianity; That there is a God who cares about the intimate details of the lives of every individual human who he monitors and assesses. This is where theistic evolution leads you: In order to accept evolution you must deny the very foundation of Christianity and yet somehow force yourself to remain a Christian anyway. It can’t be fun.
Give me atheism any day.
My apologies Mark/Zack. Not something I have ever done before on this site.
Just read the bold type and jumped in feet first
I would add Bryce. Yes there are many such idiotic items. All made by those who can’t see further than the porch light when there are Millions of Millions of Galaxies for your omnipotent manufacturer to make its presence felt on the millions of planets contained in each Galaxy. Try looking up and ask just How? Just How did it make all this and then couldn’t make a pencil and paper for poor old Abraham to record the Commandments.???
tomedgar@halenet.com.au
ummm…Moses wrote the 10 Commandments not Abraham…
people who complain that the theory of evolution can’t be proven and that the evidence used is invalid fail to mention that their theory can’t be proven either or that the evidence they use to prove the theory wrong is often invalid