Korean Job Discussion Forums

[mindmetoo]

This thread attempts to contain the evolution/creationism debate. If you find a thread gravitating towards that topic, post your response here and direct the other to respond here.

First principles from the Evolution side:

* The theory of evolution is a theory about the origin of species. How did simple life radiate out into the complex variety of life we have today. It presupposes the existence of simple life, in the same way chemistry presupposes the existence of the basic elements. Chemistry is no less valid because chemists do not offer a viable theory for the origins of carbon and lithium. (Another science, namely physics, of course explains the origin of elements. However, chemistry got along very happily for a good 100 years before physics came along and cracked that nut.)

* Evolution is a theory. Theory in science does not mean guess. A theory in science is a model that explains most of the observations, is subject to scientific experimentation, is validated by scientific experimentation, and has predictive power (given what we know and the theory, what should we expect to find). For any observation one can construct any number of "just so" stories. Where did the water on earth come from? Was it from comets or did a god named Xenu send water bombers? How does one decided which just so story is the better explanation? Science seeks to test just so stories. Science does not simply walk away from the table having come up with a tidy just so story.

* If you can't see it all happen in a lab, then it's not science. False. We can't see electrons and positrons but we can sure use them to power our computers and run our PET scanners. We never saw an ice age but we can conclude from evidence several have happened. Much of science is inferential. Our understanding of the subatomic world is all inferential but we can use that model to build things that work. We've never seen a star born but we have a very good theory on how stars are made. We've never sent a probe to the center of the sun but we have a very good idea what is taking place in the center of the sun. To wit, you don't have to witness every murder to convict for murder. Evolution and much of science today is like an episode of CSI. Lines of evidence converge and point to a probable theory.

* But Darwin said X and he was wrong! Scientific theories are always tentative. They are subject to change or even over throw as new evidence comes to light. This is not viewed as a weakness in science or a theory. The germ theory of disease was modified to include viruses and now is being modified to include prions. That the germ theory of disease has been modified does not invalidate the theory.

* Evolution is not religion. If you believe so, kindly provide a definition of religion and a definition of science and demonstrate how they're synonymous. That two things might share a lot in common does not make them equal. A dog and cat are both furry, eat meat, suckle litters, have whiskers, have paws with sharp nails, have tails. That doesn't make a dog and cat the same. It is the differences, sometimes even subtle differences, that are important. How many Koreans do you know that think Canadian and American culture are the same? How many of your friends back at home think all Asian cultures are the same?

* Evolution has gaps. All scientific theories have gaps. Scientists do not view gaps as fatal to a theory but view them as avenues of research. Theories are never whole born with all the answers. For a long time science had a gap in understanding how a bumblebee flew. That did not invalidate the science of aerodynamics or call into question whether or not bumblebees could fly. The fossil record has gaps. This is not fatal to evolution. Fossilization is rare. We have limited ability to dig up the whole planet looking for fossils. Scientists from Darwin on up recognized we'll never have a complete fossil record. It is also a mistake to think evolution rests solely on fossil evidence. Evolution would do just fine if we never found a single fossil.

* Creationists need to establish their evidence. Making the argument "since evolution is not true, then creationism must be true" is a false dichotomy. One might posit any number of new just so stories. Maybe earth was seeded by space aliens. If you have an alternative just so story, you need to show how it accounts for all the evidence currently, what it explains that evolution does not explain, the empirical evidence for it, and what predictions it makes (and eventually fulfills) that evolution does not.

Let's say, for example, you believe lightening is caused by Zeus. To you there appears to be no good explanation. I posit that there is a natural explanation. I claim lightening is caused by the hydrogen in the rain water becoming separated from the oxygen as it falls. The friction then ignites the hydrogen causing this huge chain of fire. You show quite convincingly that my natural explanation is wrong. Dead wrong. Therefore you conclude Zeus creates lightening. You'd be just as wrong, of course. "God did it" is not the fallback position.

* Evolution is falsifiable. All good scientific theories are. If a horse fossil was found in the Cambrian layer, that would falsify evolution. An inspection of the 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution link reveals each line of evidence comes with a statement of what it would take to falsify that line of evidence:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

What would it take to falsify your belief in your creation account?

* Evolution is not equal to atheism. To necessarily equate them is akin to thinking your car mechanic is an atheist because he first looks for a natural cause to explain why your car won't start in the morning instead of appealing to a god, a carburetor demon, or witchcraft. Many things we attributed to god have turned out to have natural causes. Disease was blamed on magic. Now we know it's caused, at times, by germs. Given so many things once attributed to gods were found to have a natural cause, it is not unreasonable to first determine if every phenomenon has a natural cause. Attempting to first find a natural cause before appealing to a super natural cause is not the same as denying the super natural.

It is true evolution makes it difficult to believe in a literal interpretation of religious creation stories. However there are many people who believe in both god and evolution and do quite fine understanding creation stories as parables meant to communicate a moral lesson and not an accurate scientific report. Ken Miller is an example of a Christian who believes in both god and evolution. Francis Collins is an evangelical Christian who also believes in evolution.

* Science is a tool that measures that which can be measured. If it can't be measured, science has no comment. Having no comment is not the same as denying something exists. Think of science as a man with a ruler. The man can measure many things with the ruler and figure out many truths. He can build some pretty cool things with that ruler and he might even be a little high on himself. But the ruler can't tell him how much his daughter loves him. Not being able to measure love with a ruler is not the same as denying love exists. Do not confuse science with scientism, the belief that what can't be studied by science simply does not exist or is not worthwhile. If you know of any scientists or major science organizations that argue scientism, kindly provide their names and supporting quotes.

* Evolution is not about things always getting better. Why haven't squirrels evolved the ability to survive being run over by cars or why haven't pigs developed wings are not disproofs of evolution. Evolution is merely about species becoming better adapted to their niche. If they're quite well adapted already and face no new survival pressures, they won't change much. A polar bear seems marvelously adapted to the arctic. But if global warming melts the ice, the polar bear won't seem so well adapted and will die off. A species near the arctic can now radiate into the niche left open by polar bears and evolve to take advantage of this new environment.

* Mutation can and does produce increases in genetic information. If you make a claim to the contrary then look up gene duplication on wiki and explain why gene duplication can't increase genetic information.

* Evolution is random and that's like saying a wind storm in a junk yard will randomly assemble a 747. False. Mutations are random but natural selection follows certain natural rules. A wind storm might randomly knock over a bucket of water but the water doesn't randomly flow in any old direction. The water follows some basic laws of nature. Evolution is stepwise. Think of it like you're playing cards. The odds of getting a royal flush are incredibly remote. But imagine you're allowed to keep whatever cards will bring you a step closer to a royal flush and those cards that don't you can throw back and replace with new cards. Eventually you will get a royal flush. Evolution is no different.

* That there are still apes is not a disproof of evolution. Assuming for a moment we are evolved from apes (it's a little more complicated than that), there is no rule in evolution that says the parent species has to die off when a daughter species evolves. If the daughter species has radiated into a new niche, the parent species won't face competitive pressure. To wit, it's theorized humans evolved from apes that lived on the grasslands. You'll notice there are no apes that inhabit that niche. That was ours. We ruled it and we evolved in it.

* Evolution doesn't make sense to you or it's counter intuitive? Well, lots of things that seem obvious to day were counter intuitive. Relativity was counter intuitive. If you're going near the speed of light and you turn on a flashlight, how come the light beam doesn't move faster than the speed of light? The Monty Hall problem (three doors, you should actually switch your door choice after Monty reveals a goat) seems counter intuitive. It seemed counter intuitive to some people that the earth was round. Our intuition works well most of the time. If it didn't, we'd not have survived as a species. However, it doesn't always work. Are you so perfect? Science has delivered the good because it is an effective way to over come natural bias and get beyond what seems obvious and intuitive.

Helpful resource for those about to put forward a Young Earth argument:

Kent Hovind is the most notable proponent of "evidence" for a young earth, things like dust on the moon, salt in the ocean, etc. Before you put forward evidence for a young earth, review this site:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood.html

Such evidences have been thoroughly debunked and repeating any of the above will simply have one of the evolution supporters referreing you back to that URL. You can save time by inspecting the above link.

Tangential to the debate, which may or may not be up for discussion depending on the mood of the evolutionists:

* Origin of life, origin of the universe
* Whether or not god or gods exist
* Whether or not Jesus was real or a myth

If you call evolution poppycock you need to address the genetic evidence

There's a very technical overview of the genetic evidence here:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section4.html

There's a much better layman's explanation here:

http://evolution-101.blogspot.com/2006/03/molecular-evidence-1-protein.html
http://evolution-101.blogspot.com/2006/04/molecular-evidence-2-dna-functional.html
http://evolution-101.blogspot.com/2006/04/molecular-evidence-3-transposons.html
http://evolution-101.blogspot.com/2006/04/molecular-evidence-4-redundant.html
http://evolution-101.blogspot.com/2006/04/molecular-evidence-5-endogenous.html
http://evolution-101.blogspot.com/2006/05/molecular-evidence-6-objections-to.html

A brief summary:

Evolution posits we share common ancestors. Humans and apes shared a common ancestor. Humans and mice share a more distant common ancestor. When living things replicate, DNA replication sometimes produces errors. Things called retroviruses also get into our genome and write themselves into it. These errors and bits of virus code get passed onto our children and down the line. You and your father share more errors than you and your cousin. But you and your cousin share more errors than you and an unrelated coworker. More distant the relation less errors you have in common. Evolution posits if evolution is true, we should see more shared errors between species that diverged more recently and fewer shared errors between species that diverged longer ago. The only natural explanation for these shared errors is common descent.

Consider this analogy. You are an editor. You've contracted two people to write a textbook about World War II. Both deliver you the manuscript. You notice something a bit funny. The books are 90% similar. Did one person copy off the other one? You know that's not true as neither has met. You then think maybe they both copied from the same source. But before you fire their asses, you first want to be reasonable. They're both about the same subject. You would expect a lot of similarity between the books. But then you also notice something funny. Not only are the correct bits similar but each manuscript has many shared errors. And they also have many unshared errors. Surely someone writing a book will make his own typos, get the research wrong, etc. But what are the odds both authors make so many of the exact same shared errors, like random typos. You hand the manuscripts off to the math department and they come back and tell you the odds both authors made so many similar random errors is about 1 in a trillion.

How could that be possible? The only rational explanation possible is both copied from the same, older source. Naturally, as they transcribed they'd make their own errors but they would also faithfully copy the older source's errors.

And that's exactly why the errors found in genomes are explained, and only explained, by evolution, by a common ancestor.

Now. If you want to argue against evolution, you need to address the above point. Have at it.

Why are you guys wasting your time trying to convince each other?

This comes up a lot. Recently:

[Arthur Dent]

Wow, lots of work there Mindmetoo. I haven't yet followed the links, but will try to later.

The only point I might have a problem with (and I am not a dissenter when it comes to evolution) is the fossil record. As incomplete as it is, it does provides some fairly solid "physical" evidence for evolution. And after all, it was quite important in Darwin's developing of his theory, in addition to his discoveries during his travels on the Beagle, and his many experiments with the survival of plants and seeds "adrift" on the ocean in order to explain their diffusion.

In addition to what many contributors around the world sent him in the way of samples of animals and plants, fossils were also included in these packages. Although techniques for accurately placing these "samples" in the proper "strata" and documenting them weren't developed until much later, they provided the fodder for continuing debate and research.

The carbon dating technique provided a relatively accurate picture of the age of these fossils - although I understand more accurate methods have been discovered and used in the last half-century or so.

Interestingly, geology and mapping played a role in understanding the fossil record (The Map that Changed the World - by Simon Winchester http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Map_that_Changed_the_World).

I have read that many of the more important hominid finds in the recent past have come from South Africa, but rivalries and intransigence within the world of paleontology have made it difficult for each find to be accurately placed. It seems that some are not happy that Cousin John is related to Aunt Sally on your mothers side.

Of course, modern science, or more properly, current technology and available knowledge and data, have made some of this nearly obsolete in explaining evolution, especially in the area of genetics, but the fossil record may yet prove useful in determining our proper ancestry, and that of others, as technologies advance.

By way of general comment, I have found that the study of the history of evolution (the evolution of the theory of evolution if you like) and its adjuncts - geology, natural history, chemistry, anthropology, etc. - can be an excellent way of discovering and navigating the various debates involved in this "theory."

It certainly makes it all more approachable and relevant - involving the various historical personages and historical periods as it does - all the while making one appreciate just what is really involved in scientific discovery; happenstance, personality, political and personal intrigue, moments of inspiration, as well as a great deal of hard work and thought, sometimes by people working together, and sometimes by individuals working alone and relatively isolated (think of Gregor Mendel, and his pea plants in a monastery in the former Austrian empire, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregor_Mendel).

As soon as I have time, I intend to do more reading in this area, in order to acquaint myself with the most cutting edge approaches to this debate, and to research in this area as a whole.

[mindmetoo]

Speaking of fossils:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/07/080709144213.htm

Another gap filled. Another creationist canard sunk.

[TexasPete]

All one has to do is look at antibiotic resistant bacteria to see evidence of evolution right before our very eyes. Or the moth which changed colors via natural selection during Industrial Age Britain.

...And given the last thread reached 487 soul-crushing pages, i'll bid you adieu.

[IncognitoHFX]

Great summation of points, Mindmetoo! It'll make a great springboard for us to refer back to when someone refutes a point about evolution.

Now, we need to get the people on the other side of the fence to do a similar thing.

[Underwaterbob]

[IncognitoHFX]

I got into an interesting argument with a creationist the other week (in person). I remember him being very critical of me sourcing myself (sourcing articles, sourcing speakers, the origins of quotes and ideas, et cetera) while I was speaking, yet when he was speaking he didn't follow the same criteria. He believed everything he said was proven in the act of speaking because it was from the Bible or from a Biblical scholar, therefore it was true.

It's quite possibly the hardest thing to argue against because it's pitting logic directly with faith. That was the problem with the last debate. This time we can't let creationists get away at all with any faith-based claims.

[itaewonguy]

mind me too! you have made up your mind! why are you still going on about it! WE ALL KNOW you are an athiest! and we all know you have an answer for every single question in the world regarding how life generated! their is no question unanswered in your eyes! science has answered every question regarding how life came about!
so basically why do you care if people believe in father christmas!!
you know its not true so move on!!
or are you having conversations with your own mind.?

LET IT GO!

[xingyiman]

[mindmetoo]

[itaewonguy]

[Rteacher]

It's a fact that scientific knowledge based on empirical data has grown exponentially in the past 300 years or so.

It has resulted in great technological achievements, but it's also made the world a more dangerous place, raising the spector of (almost inevitable?) nuclear war, germ warfare, and biotech disasters.

Science and spirituality are naturally complementary, and intelligent people should try to understand both material and spiritual knowledge on a scientific basis.

Usually, in these debates, the Judeo-Christian tradition is put forward as the religious standard-bearer, but the Genesis story obviously is a simple presentation that is not geared to satisfy modern scientific-minded thinkers.

The ancient Vedic tradition does provide a broad scientific presentation, using logic and reason to explain both material and spiritual nature.

Vedanta is a compound word - veda means knowledge and anta means end, so Vedanta refers to the "end of knowledge" or "ultimate knowledge of truth".

Along with the Bhagavad-gita and the Srimad Bhagavatam, the Vedanta-sutra describes the conclusions of Vedas.

The Vedanta-sutra was written in the form of very short codes or aphorisms which express the essence of knowledge in a minimum number of words.

The Vedanta-sutra speaks of fivefold tattvas, truths or realities:

( 1) Ishvara or God; (2) Jiva or Soul; (3) Kala or Time; (4) Prakrti or Matter; and (5) Karma or Action.

One aphorism states that the Supreme Lord is the Absolute Truth and the primeval cause of all causes of the creation, sustenance and destruction of the manifested universes. He is directly and indirectly conscious of all manifestations, and He is independent because there is no other cause beyond Him. He first imparted Vedic knowledge unto the heart of Brahma, the original cosmic living being.

Brahma, from whom a disciplic line of spiritual masters still exists (which includes A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami) defines Ishvara or God as the Supreme original Personality (Adipurusha). His transcendental body is made up of three spiritual elements, sat (eternity), cit - pronounced "chid" (knowledge) and ananda (bliss). He is the origin of everything, animate and inanimate, and is the cause of all causes. He is the Supreme Controller and prime mover of all cosmic manifestation. He has Universal Consciousness, and He is the well-wisher of every living being.

He is beyond the perception of the material senses. However His symptoms are visible in the effects (products) of His creation.

Well-known physicist Max Born stated, "I saw in it [the atom] the key to the deepest secrets of nature, and it revealed to me the greatness of creation and the Creator"

He is the Supreme Eternal among all eternals and Supreme Consciousness among all consciousness (nityo nityanam cetanas cetananam - Katha Upanishad))

He can only be understood by the science of bhakti yoga - devotional path (bhaktya mamabhijanati - Bhagavad-gita)

The goal of Vedanta terminates in the devotional service of the Supreme Lord.

The individual living being or soul is called jiva (or atma) in Sanskrit, and the Vedanta reveals that every living being has a jiva or soul in it - even microorganisms, insects, fish, plants, reptiles, birds, and so on.

The Bhagavad-gita states that all living beings are eternal and conscious particles of the Supreme Lord.

In pure spiritual form, the living entities are also transcendental - and their bodies are made up of the three spiritual elements that make up the transcendental body of God. The big difference is that the conciousness of the Supreme Being is universal (all-pervasive) whereas the consciousness of the living being is localized.

The spiritual master of Bhaktivedanta Swami, Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakur worded it like this : Ishvara, God is Absolute Infinity and jiva, the living entity absolute infinitesimal.

The first aphorism of the Vedanta-sutra states that "Now, therefore, one should inquire into the nature of the Brahman, the Absolute Truth, or God."

Bhaktisvarupa Damodara Swami (T.D. Singh, Ph. D.) was a disciple of Bhaktivedanta Swami and specifically instructed by him to give scientific commentary on all the aphorisms of the Vedanta-sutra (which is basically what I'm relating in this post.)

Dr. Singh noted that "according to Vedic scientific views, there are 8.4 x 10to the 6th varieties of life (microorganisms, plants, aquatics, birds, reptiles, animals, humanoids and human beings) counted on the basis of different species having similar states or degrees of consciousness. According to the conscious evolutionary cosmic time scale, one gets the human form of life after passing through millions of varieties of life.

Dr. Singh further noted that according to Vedanta, biodiversity is a process to accommodate the conscious level of each individual , and there is a gradual evolution of conscousness passing from a form of less conscious state to a form of a higher conscious state according to the subtle laws of karma (cause and effect).

Vedanta further explains that many life forms manifest simultaneously - indicating that genetic variation is is already within a cosmic plan.

In the Vedantic conception, genetic mutation is not due to error or mistake (as also observed by modern scientist Arber)

So, in the Vedic view, contrary to Darwin, it is not that natural selection and random mutation will be the cause of biodiversity - the conscious self (or soul) will continue to transmigrate from one form to the next until the conscious self/spiritual particle reaches the human form.

Since science in the highest sense means the search for ultimate knowledge, the materialistic paradigm - which fails to explain conscioiusness or appreciate the spiritual dimension of life - should be abandoned as an explanation of origins.

Purposeless "Big Bang" should also give way to "Big Vision" on the part of the greatest scientist and philosopher - God.
http://krishnascience.com/

[the_beaver]

[mindmetoo]

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/02/the_haeckelwells_chronicles.php

A good review of the creationist canard about Haeckel's embryos.

[mindmetoo]