Why Don't (Some) Theists Educate Themselves About Evolution?

[birdie1971]

This question has been prompted by a number of posts by theists who question evolution.

The observed evidence for evolution is staggering. The recorded evidence is monumentally voluminous. The fossil record is replete with intermediary species and linked biological ancestry and commonality in biophysiology. In fact, you'd have to be blind not to see it.

Yet there are some people who deny its existence based upon a few books written over 1800 years ago. They base their disbelief - or rather their scepticism of observable evidence - on passages written in their "holy" books. Nothing in the Bible, Torah nor the Koran repudiates the concept of evolution; they simply fail to mention it.

Further reading:
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-qa.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html#proof

[naomi24]

I don’t know why Clanad continues with the same tired and lengthy diatribe thread after thread because even if he were able to disprove evolution it doesn’t follow that the premise he insists upon promoting is justified. It simply boils down to the fact that he doesn’t know how it all happened so assumes that an invisible supernatural entity must have been responsible and argues, without any evidence whatsoever, that it was. If there is any evidence to be sought he should be looking in that direction and then offering his findings for discussion.

[jim360]

Clanad's offered up the debate over what a species is before. I don't accept his interpretation of it -- I posted my reasons before but a very simple summary would be "It's natural to expect that it will be hard to define a distinct species if species are constantly changing and adapting, such that the edges are going to be blurred".

In terms of the topic question -- some theists have not educated themselves about evolution but then not that many other people have either. Some people just can't be bothered -- or, alternatively, can be bothered but only read the material that matches and affirms their preconceptions. As far as I can see, this will apply to many on both sides of the argument.

[naomi24]

The point I was making was that even in the impossible event that the theory of evolution were disproven beyond doubt, the claim that the God of the bible is instead responsible is simply absurd.

[jim360]

Thanks for the clarification and it's a good point to make, Naomi. As it happens I was only addressing Clanad's post rather than your reply. But yes -- the invalidity of evolution doesn't say anything about the validity of creation.

[naomi24]

You're welcome.

[Old_Geezer]

I am at a loss to understand the discussion re species. So the categorisers quibble at how species are defined. Let them. However defined it is obvious different species exist, and this is vital to both creationist and evolutionary arguments. So it has no relevence. The important thing is to either witness change or strong evidence for it, or to witness sudden apperance of something new, or strong evidence for it.

[naomi24]

… and even more importantly to acknowledge that if evolution isn’t the answer we don’t know the answer.

[mikey4444]

Clanad...may I ask you one simple question.

All but a tiny few Scientists now accept that the Colorado River established its course through the Canyon at least 17 million years ago. Most "born again" Christians, and other traditional religions believe that the Grand Canyon was made about 6000 years ago !

What is your belief ? Millions of years of just a few thousand ?

By the way, I am nor sure if you have been to the GC...I have, twice, and its the most humbling sight I have ever seen !

[Clanad]

Mikey, your question includes segments of the questions usually assigned to "creationists" and you are to be commended for asking in a reasonable manner.

Of course the Grand Canyon is a humbling sight. Of course it's millions of years old. Of course the universe is between 14 and 15 billions of years old and the solar system, including Earth is around 4.8 billion years old. End of.

It's never been my attempt to, as naomi accuses "...to disprove evolution..." however, there are important aspects of the Theory that, when viewed suscpicioulsy, add new dimensions to the correlation between it and Creation as described thoroughly in Scripture.

It's speculation on Jim360's part to ascribe changes in "species" to "... "It's natural to expect that it will be hard to define a distinct species if species are constantly changing and adapting, such that the edges are going to be blurred", when, in fact species arise in the fossil record fully formed, remain that way for a greater or shorter time period and disappear. The documentation in reference to this phenomenon is not religiously based.

I attended a western U.S. university whose Department of Geology is well know and respected and was taught and studied material attesting to those facts. My Professor wrote one of the course books that's still referenced today... "Rocky Mountain Geology". I highly recommend it (among others).

Paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould admitted: "The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution." (Source: Paleobiology, 1980).

Birdie, I did not invent the source as you suggest, however, if you'd care (or anyone else) to Google the opening lines of your second paragraph, you'll find a source of exactly your entire quote... but a word of warning... the source is under a website listed as ".php" which is often an adward site and can cause some problems if not handled correctly. Why that is, I don't know.

OG... it's more than just quibbling... if you'd care to read some of the documentation you'd find just how deep and wide the rift is. Point is, if one can't define "species" how can one determine anything about descent from one to the other or establishment of a new species?

It's puzzling that when one attempts to include pertinent source material (always of non-religious sources) one is accused of not understanding the material only to have the accusers fail to include such sources for their own arguments. Birdie says of course he/she has read her own links, yet fails to understand what the links are saying.

[mikey4444]

Thank goodness for that Clanad !

The "GC" question has now become my short-hand way of sorting out the sheep from the goats....is saves so much trouble and argument if I can get a simple answer on that, when approached by religious Zealots. I don't answer the door to JW's or Mormons any longer, as they are easily identifiable from the window of my second story, thus saving a walk down two flights of stairs to the front door. But it used to work every time !

The GC question is still handy. That Creationist colleague of mine of mine that still refuses to accept that the GC isn't 6000 years old, despite visiting it, is a classic case. She believed the 6000 years nonsense before the trip anyway.

[whiskeryron]

//
Old_Geezer
The definition of a species may be subjective opinion but I don't believe the fuzziness is very relevant to the subject in hand. We can all agree a tortoise and a chimpanzee are different. The question is whether they have a common ancestor. //

The notorious extinct Chimtoise of course, I thought everyone knew that.

[mikey4444]

Ron .....I saw a Jackalope in Arizona once !

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Jackalope&es_sm=122&biw=1093&bih=514&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0CCwQsARqFQoTCPKkwe77wccCFYjNFAodYCsD9w

Well, it was a stuffed one anyway !

[naomi24]

Clanad, //, It's never been my attempt to, as naomi accuses "...to disprove evolution..."//

Well…. I haven't actually accused you of attempting to disprove evolution, but if you’re not attempting to disprove it what exactly is the point of all your lengthy posts disputing it?

Mikey, I don’t find the Grand Canyon humbling. Magnificent, but not humbling. I don’t understand that.

[mikey4444]

Naomi....I used the term humbling as the thing is so ruddy vast ! For my money, there are more accessible sights in the general area of the GC. Bryce Canyon, for one.

The difficulty with the GC is that is so terribly huge, and unless you are reasonably fit, its not easy to explore. But with Bryce Canyon, anybody can walk down amongst the Hoodoos and "touch it" so to speak. Its a more intimate experience I suppose. I saw the sunset there, sitting on a small bench on the canyon rim, and its was unforgettable. We were staying in the Lodge, and had a perfect 4 night stay. I wish I had the funds to return !

I used to be an keen amateur Geologist and fossil hunter and the whole area of the Far West is wonderful.

[Peter Pedant]

Clanad

various points arise from your comments

There maI am a y be disagreement on what is a species but there are is no disagreement on the fact that there are species - I am not the same species as a hippopotamus.

second - speciation has not been observed. I am not the same species as a hippopotamus. Is that not observation enough ? How do I differ from a hippopotamus ? I look different to one for a start. (observation again )

Do I have a need to observe a hippopotamus changing from itself to me ?
No I dont as I dont think that is how speciation works
I think it works as Darwin observed it in finches in the galapagos in the 1830s - he thought they werent all finches whch shows an admirable willingness to alter theories according to later observations

You can see evolution under a microscope - bacteria are good because there generation times are so low - in penicillin for example.


and yes I think some of the comments in what you quote are valid and to the point:

the fact that there is no discussion amongst biologists on this means that it is in their opinion all done and dusted....

[Peter Pedant]

// I haven't actually accused you of attempting to disprove evolution, but if you’re not attempting to disprove it ...... etc //

absolutely nothing wrong in trying to disprove evolution...
Kuhn and Popper would approve - a scientific theory should be falsifiable if it is to be a theory at all....

it is just asking people do define a species does not seem to me to be a good way of disproving evolution - ( altho I would defend to the death your right to believe in inerrancy of the Bible, creation in seven days, and the nearness of the end of the world )

well OK in order to falsify evolution .... you could show that bacteria do grow as well in a penicillin medium than in one without ? - they dont by the way: but that would do it wouldnt it ?

That people who shoot themselves in the head have fewer children than those that dont. This is something to do with the Darwin awards - but that would be OK wouldnt it ?

what about intermediate forms - horses hoof and all that jazz
or the different forms of the forefoot ?

homologies ? batswing and hand ( again )

IN terms of books - I recommend Structure of evolutionary theory Steven J gould - I mean it is a thousand pages of porridge but my god you come out the other side knowing alot about evolution .....

[Old_Geezer]

I don't see a hurdle. One can recognise a path through the fossils without needing to agree at which point a species changes to another, which is likely to always be opinion. Through the DNA too these days.

[mikey4444]

Science has proved that most of the religious stuff is pure tosh.....this proof didn't happen yesterday and the evidence is now overwhelming.

We have seen brave attempts by theists to bat the opposition away, by the invention of risible theories like "Young Earth Creationism" But is all over now...these people only have their faith in Sky Gods left. That is all it is...faith, not proof.

if it keeps them happy and warm at nights, so be it. Its when they take up arms to make their points that bothers me.

[jim360]

// It's speculation on Jim360's part to ascribe changes in "species" to "... "It's natural to expect that it will be hard to define a distinct species if species are constantly changing and adapting, such that the edges are going to be blurred", when, in fact species arise in the fossil record fully formed, remain that way for a greater or shorter time period and disappear. The documentation in reference to this phenomenon is not religiously based. //

I'm not convinced that this is really something that can be said with any certainty. If we take as an example the lion and the tiger, they would presumably appear in the fossil record as separate species, both fully-formed. But when alive the lines are not so clear-cut, as the two animals can breed (albeit producing offspring that are infertile). So it seems to me that the apparent clear lines in species in the fossil record are based on a) the fact that they are long-dead, so that a key test (for me) of what makes a species is not possible to carry out, and b) since the fossil record is forever incomplete it is a mistake to draw too many conclusions from apparently discrete species. There tends also to be a bit of a cheat here in critics of evolution, as whenever a new creature arrives that could be seen as the sort of intermediate form I'm envisaging, instead of filling a gap it creates an extra one.

So far as I can see your arguments fall into this line of reasoning, and it is a very dodgy one indeed. I don't agree that you are correctly interpreting the problem over defining species either; while it can be difficult to tell two broadly similar animals apart (or, rather, it can be difficult to get two biologists to agree on the matter), I see this as a matter of deciding where exactly to draw a line that everyone can accept does exist somewhere -- and hence, the concept of speciation is not invalidated.

Whether or not an expert biologist would agree with me I don't know, but so far as I can see you are making a mountain out of a molehill.

[wildwood]

^^^ Amen to that, Mikey.