Darwin Debate

Post Reply New Topic

There is a Darwin vs. Genesis debate going on at Gazette in response the following letter that appeared in my local paper.

DARWIN VS. GENESIS
It’s a near certainty present life forms evolved

I’m writing in response to Steve Stuart’s letter, “Believing in evolution takes faith, also,” in the Sept. 9 Gazette. He claimed evolution “cannot be observed or tested scientifically.” Any of our observations could be questioned. We can’t prove that the physical world exists, but it very likely does, given the reasons for it not existing.

Likewise, it is extremely unlikely that present-day organisms did not evolve from earlier life forms, considering the fossil record as well as genetic and physiological similarities between species, not to mention more than two centuries of scientific findings.

Also, there are three problems with theistic explanations. First, they claim that a deity caused the phenomenon but fail to explain how. After all, if you fail to explain how God created life, then I could just as easily say that leprechauns created it. Evolution, in contrast, explains how genetic variation and natural selection result in speciation. Second, history shows supernatural explanations are often disproved once tested (we know that lightning isn’t Thor’s hammer). Third, even if a cause was supernatural, it could have been a force or law just as easily as it could have been a deity.

He also conflates abiogenesis, the formation of life from non-living matter, with evolution. Even if God created the first cell out of nothing, it would still evolve into other organisms once it got here.

Andrew Luke
Colorado Springs

Evolution can be observed and studied both in fossil records and in the adapations of exiting species and can also be backed up by the genetic study of those species.

God / religion / creation myths (and there are many) can only be observed and studied as a cultural and sociological phenominon.

They exist only in the imagination of man.

There is no external evidence.

I am Lutheran, and I acknowledge both viewpoints.

Tim

I think these arguments are flawed because it puts the evolutionist firmly in the Darwin camp, which is not accurate. Most scientists site something a great deal more complex than traditional Darwinism. Just because one side may be based on absolutism doesn’t mean we should make a religion out of Darwinism to suit them.

I think the intention of attacking theistic explanations is to weaken the objections to evolution. Plus, it's not so much about Darwinian evolution as it is evolution in general.

Also, the last paragraph distinguishes between the evolution of life and the origin of life.

Yeh but it does the opposite because it not explicit enough. It uses the word Darwin. We are talking about some people who like to generalise.

i tend to give god more credit.... i have no problem with evolution, because i know what i am now. Science does not necessarily fly in the face of Theism. Even in the Bible, man is made from dust, one of the big bang theories is that we are a collection of dust that has evolved into what life is today. (or broadly paraphrasing). I guess i dont see the problem with it.

I refuse to buy either, and choose my own. Most life on Earth evolved from the space dustball (however it works, don't care) and the rest, including humans, came over from Mars at the death of that world. Yep, we're Martians, invaders. This explains why humans have taken over the planet and slowly but surely doing it in.

No, I have no proof at all, but like my theory. If they ever go to Mars and find the underground ruined cities, I will be right.

Do I believe this? Depends on my mood at the moment.
But I find it preferable to the standard debate. Great fun to bring this one up. If anyone wants the full details of my theory (which I came up with when I was about 14), just message me.

Actually, evolution applies to abiogenesis as it applies to RNA/DNA evolution. You can't really distinguish it.

That's actually a relatively common belief, though in the scientific context, if there is no proof, it is not a theory. It is a hypothesis. You're proposing an idea, but not backing it up.

But you're still believing in Evolution, but the origin is different. Why accept part of an evidence-backed theory, cut the beginning of it out, and replace it with an unbacked hypothesis? Plus you need to find an exclamation of how life began on Mars in the first place. You have the same basic debate, but with an interplanetary transition (note: I do not mean to sound confrontational, I'm just trying to understand your reason for believing what you do).

I can't see how this debate still continues. There is zero evidence that a god played a part in Humanity's creation/development, and plentiful evidence supporting biological evolution.

Yep, basically. But I do make it stranger: We're not origionally from Mars either, we came from Jubiter as the sun cooled. "The records were destroyed" (sounds good), so I don't know if we were native to there or not. And Venus, as the sun cools further, will be our next jump.
But yes, it's evolution with a twist.

I'm not saying I'm right or that anyone at all should pay attention to this. Remember, I said I thought this stuff up when I was like 14. And yes, no proof at all, and no urge to fabricate some.

To quote Adam Savage (as somebody else here does, sorry forgot who), "I reject your reality and substitute my own."

I think for most people, religion just depends on their culture and environment they were raised in. Kids are vulnerable to believing anything and by the time they get older, they are set in their ways to believe what they always have. I am one of the exceptions though. I am one of the few exceptions though. I am Atheist, and have been in an enviornment with heavily religious people, so religious, they won't watch movies or anything on tv other than fox news and shows from the 1950s. They also think that my games are evil, music, etc. and have took them from me when I was younger.

Cool. How did life on Mars begin?

What other theories have you come up with?

The origin of species through evolution by natural selection did not happen, for the very simple fact that "evolution" as an explanation of events is a theory whose sole merit and truth consists in the truth of the predictions it makes. Theories don't happen; theories make predictions, and last I checked you can't go back in time to see if evolution actually occurred or not. Heck, I don't believe the statement "X happened" is a meaningful proposition anyways. The past is a construct.

Likewise, furthermore, &c., you can't say that it is likely that a set of past events occurred given the evidence at hand without knowing the probability of the evidence given the counterhypothesis, which you don't know.

'Sides, "God created life", "Leprechauns created life", and "life evolved" may very well be isomorphic; that's why science needs to be dissociated from ontology.