1. Comment #81347 by Eamonn Shute on October 24, 2007 at 3:54 pm

This site has very good replies to creationist claims of several kinds, not just those which dispute evolution. I don't see why we should try to reinvent the wheel!
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/

Other Comments by Eamonn Shute

2. Comment #81465 by maton100 on October 24, 2007 at 7:12 pm

Just ask them to look at an old yearbook picture.

Other Comments by maton100

3. Comment #81469 by Tommykey on October 24, 2007 at 7:22 pm

If evolution is not true, then why are there some mammals that live exclusively in the water, like dolphins and whales? It is not an advantage for marine life to have to surface for air every few minutes when other marine predators like sharks never need to.

Other Comments by Tommykey

4. Comment #81480 by Pieter on October 24, 2007 at 8:08 pm

If humans are not evolved beings then why do we have tail bones, appendixes, and wisdom teeth? If we are intelligently designed beings then our designer was certainly looking out for the interests of surgeons and dentists.

Other Comments by Pieter

5. Comment #81499 by cal_mertes on October 24, 2007 at 8:55 pm

I think we should challenge believers in creation to show evidence of creation as good as the evidence for evolution, cosmology, geology, etc.

Ask them to explain some of the many design flaws in humans such as the backwards structure of the human retina, or why our sexual pleasure organs are located and mixed with out elimination organs.

And be prepared for some strange answers.

Other Comments by cal_mertes

6. Comment #81501 by Auld on October 24, 2007 at 8:58 pm

There should probably also be a thread entitled Arguments against Creationism.

For example, Creationists believe that all animals were created in 1 go, already specially designed. They also believe that once upon a time, the earth was perfect, i.e. no deserts and no uninhabitable places. These two beliefs are contradictory since it would negate the existence of polar bears and other such creatures which are well "designed" for extreme temperatures.

Other Comments by Auld

7. Comment #81503 by Auld on October 24, 2007 at 9:02 pm

"Ask them to explain some of the many design flaws in humans such as the backwards structure of the human retina"

They already have, they're saying it's actually a good way to avoid injury from intense light:

http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1683

Other Comments by Auld

8. Comment #81548 by prettygoodformonkeys on October 24, 2007 at 10:34 pm

Ask them what their theory is: what does it predict, is it falsifiable, etc?

Patching holes makes you look like you're protectionist, on the defensive, weak and afraid. If they don't have an alternate theory based on internationally accepted principles of reason and logic ("Magic" isn't a theory) then they have to move on to another topic.

This argument is usually made by ID 'theorists', who claim they are not postulating the Christian god, just a Designer. So if you get drawn in, call the Designer "Aliens", and call their involvement "Invisible Magic", or, "and at this point in history a Presto! happens", etc. etc. Because they have no theory.

Never miss an opportunity to pour ridicule onto something ridiculous, I say.

Other Comments by prettygoodformonkeys

9. Comment #81561 by Shuggy on October 24, 2007 at 10:55 pm

The Second Law of Thermondynamics:

If evolution breaks the Second Law of Thermodynamics, then so does LIFE. Both involve bringing order out of disorder. Both do so by expending energy (which ultimately comes from the Sun), so they don't break the Second Law.

Other Comments by Shuggy

10. Comment #81565 by Shuggy on October 24, 2007 at 10:59 pm

Stupid Design in the Human Body:

The backward-pointing receptors
- and hence the blind spot

The birth canal going through the pelvic girdle
- forcing human babies to dislocate their crania to get through

The downward-pointing uterus

The male urethra passing through the prostate

The vasa deferensa looping up and over the ureters

Other Comments by Shuggy

11. Comment #81569 by Shuggy on October 24, 2007 at 11:02 pm

2. Comment #81465 by maton100 on October 24, 2007

Just ask them to look at an old yearbook picture.

Can you explain this please? Yearbooks are not a universal, but so far as I know they show a picture of every kid in high school each year. What follows?

Other Comments by Shuggy

12. Comment #81645 by dinamo02 on October 25, 2007 at 1:53 am

Whenever the proponents of ID try to point out weaknesses in the "evolution by natural selection" such as gaps in fossil record, formation of the eye, bacteria with one protein taken out doesn't work, etc... The answer should be: So what?! How does that provide any positive arguments supporting ID?! The theory of evolution is based on a multitude of evidence and observations in nature. However, it is not such a simple theory like the gravity theory for example, and it is not surprising if one could point out some points of controversy. That being said, is it not more reasonable to give credit to a theory (evolution) that is based at least on partial/many evidence rather than to a theory based on ZERO evidence (ID).

Other Comments by dinamo02

13. Comment #81708 by Pi Guy on October 25, 2007 at 4:17 am

My friends, I think that you're missing the point here:

Ask them what their theory is: what does it predict, is it falsifiable, etc?

These two beliefs are contradictory...

If humans are not evolved beings then why do we have tail bones, appendixes, and wisdom teeth?

...is it not more reasonable to give credit to a theory (evolution) that is based at least on partial/many evidence rather than to a theory based on ZERO evidence (ID).

Twisted, brainwashed religionists pose these weak, unsupported arguments precisely because they aren't reasonable. To (nearly) quote House, M.D.:

"Rational arguments don't tend to have an impact on religious people. If they did, there wouldn't be any religious people."

I fully support our cause but I fear we're fighting an upmountain battle here. Coupled with the tendency of religious people to have larger families than those who are not religious - Egads! I don't even like thinking about it!

Other Comments by Pi Guy

14. Comment #81729 by JerryD385 on October 25, 2007 at 5:27 am

To a creationist:
Hawks and eagles can see up to eight times farther away than us. So I ask you: what good it 1/8th of an eye?

Other Comments by JerryD385

15. Comment #81746 by phasmagigas on October 25, 2007 at 5:56 am

'in view of our special position in creation give me the reason why god has us share about 98% of our genome with chimpanzees but a bit less with gorillas, and a bit less still with orang utan'.

* note that each creationist you ask will give you a different answer *

Other Comments by phasmagigas

16. Comment #81803 by oeditor on October 25, 2007 at 8:00 am

>The Second Law of Thermondynamics:
>If evolution breaks the Second Law of Thermodynamics, then so does >LIFE.
Of course. But that's looking at it from a thermal point of view. The creationists have now conflated heat with information, and Andy McIntosh is going around saying that even if you can add information to a system, it can't do anything with it unless there is a (divinely implanted?) "machine" in the system (McIntosh's Demon). By this argument he declares evolution impossible.

Since thermodynamics and information theory are difficult to understand, punters are easily blinded by pseudoscience. Does anybody know where there's a robust understandable refutation of this nonsense?
Brian

Other Comments by oeditor

17. Comment #81810 by BMMcArdle on October 25, 2007 at 8:23 am

Not accepting evolution is like saying the world's foremost geologists, paleontologists, and biologists are a bunch of incompetent nincompoops. (author unknown)

Other Comments by BMMcArdle

18. Comment #81874 by sidfaiwu on October 25, 2007 at 10:31 am

"Arguments Against Evolution"

Let's compare these arguments to the available evidence, shall we?

Other Comments by sidfaiwu

19. Comment #82058 by Luther on October 25, 2007 at 3:44 pm

If God designed and created life on Earth, why do there not exist non-carbon based life forms? Why do there not exist vertebrates without bilateral symmetry? Mammals with three or more sexes? Cold-blooded mammals? Senscient plants? Why is the creativity of this omnipotent Creator so limited?

Other Comments by Luther

20. Comment #82061 by Mewtwo_X on October 25, 2007 at 3:48 pm

"Evolution is unrelated to Atheism. Non-sequitur."

Other Comments by Mewtwo_X

21. Comment #82170 by EastCoastAtheist on October 25, 2007 at 7:27 pm

Well, here's a classic False Dilemma. Make it sound like there are only two theories. Disprove theory A, and conclude that theory B must therefore be true. It's a pretty silly logical fallacy, and hopefully most people don't fall for it.

Good luck to any theists who think they can disprove evolution. Of course even if they managed to do it, they'd still be stuck with the task of proving that creationism/ID is true. (Still, I encourage Theists to go after evolution. I hope that the more they learn about it, the more it will shake their faith)



Other Comments by EastCoastAtheist

22. Comment #82188 by ? on October 25, 2007 at 8:21 pm

When Creationists raise these points about evolution I try to get them to re-evaluate their hostility to the scientific community.

Do you really believe that there is some big conspiracy among scientists to suppress the truth? How would such a conspiracy work?

Science is a vast, competeitive enterprise involving millions of people of all different cultures, political views, etc. and virtually all working research scientists accept evolution.

If such a conspiracy or totalitarian authority structure existed in the scientific world, research and discovery would come to a halt. This is not happening.

We are living in an era of unprescedented progress in all the sciences--particularly the life sciences. This would not be the case if evolution were untrue and the Evolution Police were running around suppressing eveyone's right to find out the facts.

If you are correct then only ultra-conservative Christian univerities and a few Creationist institutes are free from this stifling conformity in which eveyone is forced to believe a lie and ignore the real data.

If that were true, then places like Liberty Univerity would be the only people getting good results in research. The mainstream institutions, mired in conformity and dogma would stagnate. We would be wondering why there was no innovations, no new drugs, no useful information on genetics.

This is the exact opposite of reality.
"Establishment biologists are wrong about their basic assumptions" would lead to "mainstream biology is useless to explain the world and get experimental results." Do you really believe this is true? I'll believe it when you stop taking your heart pills!

Its like saying "the science that went into designing this airplane is complete nonsense, the people who designed it are brainwashed idiots following discredited dogma, but it flies perfectly anyway."

Other Comments by ?

23. Comment #82371 by NewSkeptic on October 26, 2007 at 7:20 am

If we were 'intelligently designed', then why does one tube, rather than two, lead to the lungs *and* the stomach. Surely, if God had wanted us to avoid death by choking, we'd have a design similar to the dolphin? Why 'two' kidneys, when one will get us by? If the appendix isn't just a surplus of good bacteria, then why is it there? And just why don't we have eyes in the back of our head? 'Intelligent Design' contradictions, and the fact that most of our DNA appears to be 'junk', must surely, by 'proof by contradiction', add to the evolution argument?

Other Comments by NewSkeptic

24. Comment #82402 by JesperB on October 26, 2007 at 8:27 am

I would think it obvious, that we are designed. Just look at the perfect human being in all its glory. Clearly we are perfectly made.

Why do we get sick? Well, because God also designed the bacteria, meaning it is perfect as well.

It follows completely logical from this, that the designer of all this perfection decided to create a half-man/half-God (or "Mod") 2000 years ago on the outskirts of the Roman Empire and had this person tortured to death on the favorite roman torture device de jour - so that you and I can be free of the terrible guilt caused by a woman who, thousands of years before that, ate an apple after having had a conversation with a talking snake.

Seriously people - what is it you don't get?

Other Comments by JesperB

25. Comment #82407 by thirdchimpanzee on October 26, 2007 at 8:45 am

Comment #81803 by oeditor

Since thermodynamics and information theory are difficult to understand, punters are easily blinded by pseudoscience. Does anybody know where there's a robust understandable refutation of this nonsense?

I'm afraid that most of us (myself included) don't have the formal background to present detailed challenges to some of these assertion - which is the point being made by oeditor. What may be effective is to use a comparison that can be understood and accepted by most - and handily refutes the argument. In this case, the argument is essentially that the Second Law of Thermodynamics requires that an isolated system will tend to become increasingly random (increasing entropy) over time. A system that is becoming more organised over time is therefore breaking the law, and since evolution appears to be increasing order, it must be impossible without divine agency (the uber-lawbreaker I guess).

I've seen attempts to refute this line of reasoning trying to point out that we're not an isolated system (the Sun pumps energy into the system for example). While these refutations are correct with respect to the science, I don't think these are convincing to the believer, particularly because bringing in an "outside factor", like solar radiation, simply lays the groundwork for a believer to bring in their outside factor.

I think there's another line that can be taken here, which everyone is familiar with - crystallisation. Here is a clear example of order being apparantly produced from disorder. Igneous rocks around us and under our feet are produced by crystallisation from liquid magma. The point can be made that this is a "local" reorganisation, and the surrounding solution is typically made warmer by the heat liberated when the crystal forms. Even the planet we're standing on is in a sense an enormous "crystallisation" from an amorphous solar disc. Over time, as the energy sources supporting this order diminish, our solar system will begin to distintegrate - but that's billions of years in the future.

The key point is that there's abundant evidence that a system can temporarily and locally become more organised (the surroundings becoming warmer and therefore less organized to compensate). Our Earth is geologically active, and therefore supports continued "organization" in the form of making new crust material etc. because we have a relatively rich supply of radioactive elements to keep supplying energy to the system. The excess heat from this activity keeps the core molten, and is also radiated out into space. All this would be happening even if we took the Sun out of the equation - and there are clearly lifeforms at the bottom of the ocean by vents that don't care is there's a Sun around or not.

Even a look at our own activities illustrates the same point - we take a coal mine in Kentucky, for example, and scoop the top of the mountain, extract the coal, burn it to CO2, and use the energy to increase the organisation of our lives (building a car for example). In return, we have warmed our environment, and severely disorganised a mountain in Kentucky.

The total biomass on this planet is a tiny fraction of the material present, and the fact this this biomass is running around making some things more organised, and consequently disorganising other things is perfectly fine. This is fully allowed by the Second Law of Thermodynamics, and there's no contradiction.

Now someone may try to bring "information theory" into this - and all they are doing is playing with the statistical (microstate) component of entropy. So what - appeal to common sense. A volcano is clearly more organised (and therefore contains more information) than the black sand beach it will become, but volcanoes keep getting produced and worn down to beaches. As long as the energy to drive this is there in the Earth's interior, this will continue for billions of years.

If life cannot find energy to sustain its activities, then it too will regress to a more disorganised state - but until then, there's no problem. We're free to locally organise (and increase local information) as long as we have energy to do so, and somewhere to dump energy and make more disorganised to compensate.

While these examples should help explain why life does not violate any Thermodynamic Laws, there may still be an argument where evolution specifically violates these principles. My answer would be that evolution is nothing more than one of the activities of living systems, and is no more exceptional (arguably less exceptional) than the development of a multicellular entity from a single cell. Using the non-living analogy, it like crystals forming inside crystals (think of geodes). As a geode forms from rock cavities, it creates a more locally organized (i.e. higher information) environment for other fluids seeping in to form fantastic crystals in layers. Evolution is life reforming itself within the context of living systems, sometimes becoming more "organised " (fins become legs), sometimes less "organised" (legs become flippers).

By continually referring the analogy back to non-living counterparts this approach can possibly forestall attempts to bring in "divine sparks", or to treat life a a special case. In particular, challenging the "information theory" argument is important, because that's a new meme that's been recently added to the religious armory, and its spread impressively through their networks. It seems modern, and also has echoes of "intelligence" - but as far as I am aware its nothing more than a fashionable restatement of the microstates of entropy, and carries no more meaning when applied to the molecules and cells of a lifeform than it does to the crystals of a rock.

Other Comments by thirdchimpanzee

26. Comment #82592 by DaveS on October 26, 2007 at 8:55 pm

Some in the ID community concede micro evolution (change within a species) but reject macro evolution (one species being descended from another). This is an argument of scale. By accepting micro evolution they are in effect conceding macro evolution. There is no difference in the evolutionary processes at work. To me, it is like saying that the Pythagorean Theorem only applies to small triangles. Triangles larger than can be measured with their rulers are different and require an Intelligent Designer to measure.

Or - maybe division only works on small numbers. Large numbers require an Intelligent Divider.

Other Comments by DaveS

27. Comment #82785 by tmg on October 27, 2007 at 2:57 pm

If the Sun blows up this instant, I'll be soon dead.
Where will people who claim that Life contradicts the Second Law of Thermodynamics be?
Just as dead, I predict. Apparently Earth is not a closed system.

Other Comments by tmg

28. Comment #83257 by Plasticman on October 29, 2007 at 12:58 pm

The best argument against "Intelligent Design" (curiously omitted from The God Delusion):

1. At least 98% of all life on Earth is extinct. (this of course, is a much better explanation for unintelligent design- thank you Sam Harris). Once science determines the true origins of the original "building blocks" of life, I.D. will be added to the above 98%"

Other Comments by Plasticman

29. Comment #83294 by phil rimmer on October 29, 2007 at 2:30 pm

An elegant hypothesis in favour of the second law of thermodynamics actually driving the local accumulation of complexity rather than merely dissipating it is as follows-

The 2nd law seeks (sorry for the anthropomorphism) to arrive at the "heat death" of the universe, when the energy state of all things will be the same and no further action will become possible.

By the principle of least action the 2nd law achieves this through the most efficient means, e.g. heat flows most between the parts of greatest temperature difference, not via less effective routes.

Complex process (or processes with complex structures) can be more efficient in "using up" available (i.e. useful energy.) A pan of water, heated from below, for instance, will exhibit the creation of hexagonal convection cells as this is a more efficient means to transfer the heat energy.

By extension, the argument goes, life is a means by which the end of the universe can be hurried along.

Now anthropogenic global warming makes a whole lot more sense!

Other Comments by phil rimmer

30. Comment #83705 by Nikki on October 31, 2007 at 2:01 am

Excellent addition to the site in my humble opinion :p
In regards to the so called "irreducible complexity" of the eye, anti-evolutionists often use the following Darwin quote, mined from the chapter ''Difficulties of the Theory,''of Darwin's Origin of the Species:-
.

"To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree."

.
However the follow on paragraph is always ommitted from their quote.
.
He continues..

Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certainly the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case; and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, should not be considered as subversive of the theory.

.
My personal favourite rebuttal to the creationist "eye complexity argument" is a link to the following question and answer session with Walter Gehring. Last year Gehring was hot favourite with many in the "industry" to be awarded a Nobel Prize for his discovery of Hox genes.
.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/04/4/text_pop/l_044_01.html
.
Hox genes are master genes at the apex of developmental pathways in embryos. Homologous Hox genes, (very similar higly conserved DNA gene sequences) have been identified across extremely diverse kinds of species coding for comparable areas of embryonic development.
The discovery is considered very strong support for a common molecular ancestor.
.
In the past year whenever I've been involved in any discussions over the "irreducible complexity of the eye" and presented this information, I've yet to be presented with a rebuttal! In future I will also be sure to add a link for Richard's video adding a little more icing on that cake :)

.
I'm also a huge fan of the Talk Origins website. I link it regularly and think the site deserves some kind of award for it's handling of creationist anti-evolution claims.
.
A favourite question I have for the anti-evolution YECs/IDists is "why would god create/design scent glands around the human anus?".
.
Another handy link: Answers in Genesis Statement of faith. AiG is very often referenced by the YECs, (Young Earth Creationists), when they are trying to argue for the scientific basis (:p) of Genesis.
.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/about/faith

"Summary of the AiG Statement of Faith"
(D) General
#6. No apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record.

.
The whole statement is a handy ref. but that one is my favourite :)



Other Comments by Nikki

31. Comment #83934 by Nikki on October 31, 2007 at 5:21 pm

Comment #82371 by NewSkeptic

'Intelligent Design' contradictions, and the fact that most of our DNA appears to be 'junk', must surely, by 'proof by contradiction', add to the evolution argument?

.
Hehehehe...and much of it is identical 'junk DNA' to that which has been identified in other primates.
.
"Plagiarized Errors and Molecular Genetics: Another argument in the evolution-creation controversy"

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/molgen/
.
I have exams looming at the moment. Will try to a write a few simplified, straight forward pieces afterwards.
.
One more...another straight from the creationist "horses mouth"...AiG!

"Arguments we think creationists should NOT use"

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dont_use.asp

Other Comments by Nikki

32. Comment #84153 by farmerbob on November 1, 2007 at 9:59 am

Evolution is not true - therefore eggs are square!

Other Comments by farmerbob

33. Comment #84512 by poggle on November 2, 2007 at 8:12 am

Even reputable Christians will often claim that nature is "red in tooth and claw" *because* of the fall of man. What makes this claim bizzare is when the same Christian claims to believe in evolution. Because if they believe in 3.5 billion years of evolution they have to concede that nature has been developing it's "red in tooth and claw" barbarity for billions of years before there was any man around to "fall". May seem obvious but I've heard it time and again from Christians and nobody points this out to them.

[Sorry if this is in the wrong section, it didn't really fit anywhere.]

Other Comments by poggle

34. Comment #85221 by Fathom on November 5, 2007 at 10:10 am

Something I heard on the Oprah Winfrey show (!) is an example of human evolution in relatively recent times. African Americans have a high incidence of high blood pressure, about 40% of the population, and it tends to occur in much lower age groups than in caucasians. This is explained as a genetic fallout from the survivors of the 'middle passage' who needed to be able to retain salt in their bodies during the journey across the Atlantic in the slave ships. The genes which conveyed this survival are now common in the population of their descendents.

F

Other Comments by Fathom

35. Comment #86288 by Shuggy on November 8, 2007 at 11:52 pm

oeditor:

The creationists have now conflated heat with information, and Andy McIntosh is going around saying that even if you can add information to a system, it can't do anything with it unless there is a (divinely implanted?) "machine" in the system (McIntosh's Demon). By this argument he declares evolution impossible.

Can someone tell me clearly, is information conserved? There's some discussion about information escaping from black holes that implies that it is, but I see no reason why it should be, why people (especially) aren't creating new information all the time. Such as this.

Other Comments by Shuggy

36. Comment #86299 by Quine on November 9, 2007 at 12:30 am

Shuggy,

Relax, information is not conserved. It takes energy to make information, and in some cases you can get part of the energy back before you destroy the information. The creatioists are mixing up the units of measure (information bits) with what is being measured (entropy).

Other Comments by Quine

37. Comment #87805 by robotaholic on November 13, 2007 at 7:43 am

this thread need not exist - there are no serious reasonable arguments against evolution - the evidence is absolutely incontravertible - and there are literally millions and millions and millions of pieces of evidence around the world - not to mention the microbiological evidence- in fact its hard to take seriously anyone who says they don't believe in evolution - usually they either don't understand it or deliberately try not to-

when a religious person claims evolution is bs, you should find out if they mean first cause or natural selection because they are two very different things-

I just love the video at the top though - Richard Dawkins is just a master at explaining things- he's a wonderful teacher- He had the influence to reach me in Oklahoma, and the teaching skills to help me look at evolution seriously- I appreciate that!

Other Comments by robotaholic

38. Comment #90395 by speciman1729 on November 25, 2007 at 2:07 am

I'm not sure whether this is the proper place to put this as opposed to the "argument from design" page -- but the following is, I believe, a more compelling response to the classical anti-evolutionary argument from design than any I've seen:

The basic argument:
1)A watch is very complex -- this implies some complex entity that goes around making watches.
-- so far so good (Switzerland is full of them)

2)A duck (for example)is very complex -- this implies a complex agent that goes around making ducks.

-- the creationist will assert that this is God.

I agree with the reasoning, up to that last assertion. However, I have an alternative theory about the identity of this complex agent that goes around making ducks -- a duck.

Anyway, stated like this, the fallacy is pretty clear. You can follow up by pointing out that every instance of apparent design (at least as far as refuting evolution is concerned) contains reproductive equipment or demonstrably was made by something that did in the very recent past. I see no way in which creationism comes close to explaining this coincidence.

Other Comments by speciman1729

39. Comment #90781 by BorisCvek on November 26, 2007 at 10:25 am

I think the Evolution is the best what is available through the whole history of science. But the theory is rather a heuristic vision than the strong scientific theory. Despite this fact, I am an evolutionist.

Other Comments by BorisCvek

40. Comment #109153 by Deepthought on January 8, 2008 at 12:58 pm

Today a Young Earth Creationist told me that some of the dating methods used to judge the age of the Earth were invalidated because they depend on the speed of light as a constant and the speed of light has been slowing down "exponentially". I spent ten minutes trying to work out what they meant and I'm fairly certain it wasn't speed of light in a vacuum but the speed at which light reaches the Earth. Is there any real basis for this argument?

Other Comments by Deepthought

41. Comment #120039 by abattoirflux on February 1, 2008 at 7:46 am

Though I'm in the minority if one is to judge the general system of belief of those comprising this board's members by this thread, I'd like to offer a few comments and pose some questions to those here.

1. A large number of the arguments posed here seem to be marked with a method of attack in the form of the question "Why would God..." Coming from a relatively orthodox family, I believe that asking a Christian (or a member of most religious sects) what the motive of a supreme deity in performing a particular action is, potentially, the strangest thing I've ever thought of. From the viewpoint of a believer, how is one to guess at the drives of an entity that exists outside of everything you've ever known? It would be utterly alien in nature.

I assume that most of the replies to this would be criticism for a 'plea of ignorance.' Admittedly I have no idea what a God would think, I'm not egotistical enough to assume I do.

2. In response to a theme of argument summed up well by Cal Mertes "I think we should challenge believers in creation to show evidence of creation as good as the evidence for evolution, cosmology, geology, etc." Why bring up branches of science that are irrelevant and uncontested? You act as though the church and religion in general persecutes all science, which is simply untrue. I think this is a prime example of what happens when you surround yourself with people who think exactly like you do... No insult intended, though I am intent on opening up civil discourse.

3. Another common argument is the acceptance of micro evolution is thereby an acceptance of macro evolution, but while my knowledge of molecular biology is limited, I would like to pose that the differences imposed by subtle changes would hint at the complexity and improbability of large-scale change happening from chance deviations in a creature's DNA. While time is the largest factor in the potential for evolution, I think that this argument is making a rather large leap, as a belief in micro evolution could be used to point to the necessity for a creator, couldn't it? I ask that arguments against this idea include sources (I like to read and respond intelligently).


My final question is aimed at the people who seem to have a great deal of knowledge in the field of physics (I see a lot of thermodynamics and information theory being thrown around). First off is one question that I have not seen sufficiently answered, and that is- how did it all get here? Where did the matter and the basic laws that science set out to understand come from? Secondly, recently I've become aware of something called the observation factor and an idea dealing with the collapse of the wave function. How does the pro-evolution community deal with subject matter beyond the biological points that 'disprove' a creator?

Other Comments by abattoirflux

42. Comment #158157 by Rodewaryer on April 10, 2008 at 6:45 am

It's understandable why those with less fortitude or ability to reason fall back on a supernatural answer for something that takes at a minimum, the order of geologic time to occur. For the human mind to comprehend something that borders on the infinite (millions/billions of years are not easy periods of time for many to conceptualize) is difficult at best and requires work to even begin to understand. Religions failing to have supporting evidence much beyond a book written millennia ago and droves of people with faith is a weak case at best in challenging Evolution. Dr. Darwin's logical prediction of the existence of the yet to be discovered (Hawk) moth with a precisely predicted proboscis length, on an island he never visited based of the existence of a plant with it's nectar that very same distance from the flowers outer opening is pretty substantial evidence of the workings of natural selection and parallel evolution. This is but one very small sample of the overwhelming evidence that Evolution is indeed a fact.

Other Comments by Rodewaryer