| Greene's Creationism Truth Filter |
|
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Genesis-Discussion/message/2754
From: Steve Heiden Dear Mark, I appreciate your question. There are several ways in which evolution could be shown to be an incorrect view. First, and most obvious, is if the universe and earth had turned out to be far too young for an evolutionary history. Indeed, the physicist called Lord Kelvin in the 19th century thought he had done just that. Kelvin's calculations were, in fact, relatively good calculations for showing that the earth was not as old as what was considered to be necessary for a complete evolutionary history to have taken place. The problem was that Kelvin's calculations did not take radioactive energy into account, because radioactivity had not yet been discovered. Again along this same line, when astronomers examined the universe they could have found a universe with a history far shorter than what they actually did find. We don't think about these simple tests as being tests anymore because they are in our past and are settled issues, so we just take them for granted now. But both of these are tests that evolution, which implied (though very imprecisely) a relatively long period of time, passed with flying colors. Indeed, what we could say is that Darwin was ahead of both the geologists and the astronomers, in that his understanding of certain processes implied something about the real world (a very great antiquity) that geologists and astronomers had not quite got around to realizing yet. Then when the relevant geological and astronomical information was acquired, geologists, physicists, and astronomers all found out that Darwin's concept implied the better estimate all along, it's just that Darwin was approaching the issue from a completely different angle. And so it ended up that evolution, geology, and astronomy all converged to the same realization about the real world being quite ancient, on the order of billions of years. And this is just to begin with. There are other tests that evolution could have failed, but that it did not. Look at the fossil record. Do we see very simple to more complex, or the other way around? Did opossums come first, or simple single-celled creatures? The development history that is seen in the fossil record matches what you would expect as implied by an evolutionary history. But be careful about what is implied. This is not to say that evolution necessarily implies any particular kind of organism as something that should or must develop. This is simply saying that you should not get the first appearance of something like whales before the first appearance of something like algae in the fossil record. This is not to say that something like whales should and must have developed. With the further idea that living things have a common evolutionary history, this implies that you should find the "marks" of this history in the genetic material, and, indeed, this is what is found. For example, if humans and chimpanzees have a recent common ancestor, then you would expect them to have very similar genetic material, more similar to each other than with humans and any other organism. This is what is found, and is thus another test that evolution could have failed but passed. This is called the concept of a "nested hiearchy," which also holds true in terms of morphology when looking at the fossil record. There are other examples, but I'm no biologist, and these are just some off the top of my head. All of these are tests whose results could have given evidence against the idea of evolution, but which instead produced results that fit evolutionary implications. In order to keep our hearts and minds focused, I close here by pointing out that discussions of creationism and evolution are not "matters on which our salvation depends." It is Jesus who saves us from our sins, not whether or not we believe that the earth is only 6,000 years old.
Sincerely, ----- Original Message ----- From: Mark Sent: 4/6/01 Subject: Re: Confused ... you must be! > Dear Mark, > > You state that "What's bad is when an idea which should easily be seen > to be false has pernicious consequences." > > I suspect everyone here agrees completely with this statement. The > disagreement is that some of us, including myself, do not agree that > this is applicable to the scientific concept of biological evolution > (or to astronomy, or to geology, and so on). > > Sincerely, > Steve Heiden What test could disprove Evolution?
|
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Genesis-Discussion/message/2762
From: Steve Heiden Dear Mark, When you state that evolution has "failed due to absence of transitional form," I would like to understand specifically what you are referring to. I understand that there is a common creationist claim that "there are no transitional fossils." But this claim is entirely wrong. There are many very good examples of transitional fossils, including for our own human ancestry. Here I will mention just one example on this topic: the Acanthostega gunnari. See acanthostega/acanthostega.html You state that the chimpanzee-human DNA issue is perfectly compatible with creationism. In a sense, you are correct. But in another sense, this claim is incorrect. I will explain what I mean in a moment, but I first want to reiterate the fact that this is a test that evolution could have failed but that it instead passed. It is evolution that predicts that organisms with the closest common ancestry will have the closest commonalities with respect to their genetic material. Creationism does not make any such prediction. On this particular aspect, creationism is indeed completely unfalsifiable, because anything and everything that could have been discovered about the genetic material can be construed to be compatible with creationism. With creationism, there is no reason to expect that humans and chimpanzees should have the closest similarities in genetic material. It could have been humans and orchids, or humans and horseshoe crabs. This, too, would be perfectly compatible with creationism. You asked me, "What test could disprove Evolution?" I have answered your question. I cannot change the nature of evolution in being a conceptual duality (as both a historical record and a physical process). Gravity, for example, has a dual nature. There are the effects of gravity that we observe, and there is the actual physical process of the gravitational force. We know that there is this thing we call gravity. We clearly observe its effects. However, theoretically, gravity is still rather not known very well at all. The fact remains that these tests I mentioned in my previous post are tests that evolution could have failed but that it passed. All of these test could have disproved belief in evolution today, but all of them instead confirm evolution, because they show just what is expected by evolution. I wish to mention that I myself was particularly impressed (years ago when I first learned about it) by the fact that the evolutionary biologists had predicted (though very imprecisely) an earth substantially older than geologists, physicists, or astronomers themselves understood at the time, and that it was actually the concept of biological evolution that first pointed to the correct answer. (Please understand that I was a young earth creationist, and then an old earth creationist, before I was a theistic evolutionist.) If you wish to delve into details regarding specific biological processes related to evolution, I suggest that you take a look at Finding Darwin's God by Kenneth R. Miller, who teaches biology at Brown University. (In regard to philosophical issues relevant to this topic, I also highly recommend anything written by Howard J. Van Till.) Again, thank you for your discussion.
Sincerely, ----- Original Message ----- From: Mark Sent: Saturday, April 07, 2001 12:40 PM > --- Steve Heiden wrote: >> Dear Mark, >> >> I appreciate your question. There are several ways in which >> evolution could be shown to be an incorrect view. > > Hi Steve, > > Putting aside for the moment your assertions regarding the fossil > record layout (which ET failed in due to absence of transitional > forms) and the chimpanzee-human DNA issue (which is perfectly > compatible with Creatism), you have — in so many words — stated > precisely one of my biggest hang-ups with Evolutionists: > "Evolution is a fact; how it occurred is what is theoretical." > > What test could disprove belief in Evolution today? > > Mark
|
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Genesis-Discussion/message/2786
From: Steve Heiden Dear Mark, I wrote:
>> There are...tests that evolution could have failed, but that >> it did not. Look at the fossil record. Do we see very simple >> to more complex, or the other way around? Did opossums come >> first, or simple single-celled creatures? The development >> history that is seen in the fossil record matches what you >> would expect as implied by an evolutionary history." You replied: > Here is just a quick layout of what I would expect to see. > The only place where the Evolutionary model might do better > as far as I can tell is with the birds. However, the > Creationist prediction that they would be poorly fossilized > is borne out. > > Evolutionary predictions based on complexity — > > Man > Mammals-Birds > Reptiles > Amphibians > Fish > > Creationist predictions based on average sea level of > habitat, and mobility. In other words, where would I expect a > flood to catch each representative? > > Birds > Man > Mammals (ex. Dolphins, Whales) > Reptiles > Amphibians-Plants > Dolphins-Whales > Fish > > Else looks pretty much the same to me. I don't know where you are getting this idea regarding evolutionary predictions about the fossil record. This is not at all what evolution predicts, and this is not at all what is observed in the fossil record.
Sincerely, |
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Genesis-Discussion/message/2787
From: Steve Heiden Dear Naomi, You wrote: > --- Steve Heiden wrote: >> Look at the fossil record. Do >> we see very simple to more complex, or the other way >> around? > > Could you explain to me what is simple about a cell as > opposed to something "more complex". What exactly is > complexity? Please consider my comments immediately following what you quoted. I wrote: > Look at the fossil record. Do we see very simple to more > complex, or the other way around? Did opossums come first, or > simple single-celled creatures? The development history that > is seen in the fossil record matches what you would expect as > implied by an evolutionary history. But be careful about what > is implied. This is not to say that evolution necessarily > implies any particular kind of organism as something that > should or must develop. This is simply saying that you should > not get the first appearance of something like whales before > the first appearance of something like algae in the fossil > record. This is not to say that something like whales > should and must have developed. If the very first organisms encountered with the oldest fossils (from billions of years ago) were organisms like whales and camels, and all we observed of the oldest fossils in the range of the first billion years were organisms like whales, camels, and the like, but nothing like single-celled creatures or sponges or jellyfish or coral, then this would indeed be extremely peculiar. So peculiar, in fact, that such a fossil record would disprove evolution. Instead, what is observed is a fossil record that corresponds to the general kind of development history that evolution implies. You wrote: > Steve, I appreciate your insights into tests that evolution > has passed, but that doesn't really speak to the original > question — how could evolution be disproven? Thank you. However, I disagree. It certainly does speak to the original question. What it demonstrates is that there are many tests which could disprove evolution, but that don't — and, thus, these test end up providing evidence that confirms evolution. Just because a test ends up confirming a particular idea, this does not mean that the test is not (or was not) a test. It merely means that it ended up being a confirming test instead of a test that disproved the idea. Evolution could be disproved by the few tests I mentioned as well as many others. The fact that these tests actually confirm evolution doesn't change the fact that evolution could have failed every one of these tests, in terms of what we knew about the real world before understanding the result of these kinds of tests.
Sincerely, |
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Genesis-Discussion/message/2789
From: Steve Heiden Dear Mark, I wrote: >> There are many very good examples of transitional fossils.... >> Here I will mention just one example on this topic: the >> Acanthostega gunnari. See >> >> http://phylogeny.arizona.edu/tree/eukaryotes/animals/chordata/ >> acanthostega/acanthostega.html >> >> (Note that the link is split by line length.) You responded: > I'm not sure I see why you consider this to be transitional. > Perhaps you could point it out. I have a couple of > suspicions, but I want to be sure. If fish evolved into amphibians, as implied by evolution, then an animal much like the Acanthostega is what must have lived at one time. Sure enough, though this particular kind of fossil of such a good state of preservation wasn't discovered until several years ago, now we possess a fossil of a creature, from the appropriate period of geological time, which represents a transitional state between fish and amphibian. Please note that there are other fossils like Acanthostega that are of similar relevance, such as those of Ichthyostega. Acanthostega had both gills and lungs (lungs had developed earlier in some fish, from the organ used to maintain neutral buoyancy in the water), and it had primitive legs with feet transitional between fins and land feet, which were good for moving around underwater but no good for walking on land. Its tail also characterizes the nature of this animal. All of these things are discussed in some detail at the web page indicated above. Here are some other online references for your consideration along these lines:
Sincerely, |
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Genesis-Discussion/message/2794
From: Steve Heiden Dear Naomi, I appreciate your comments. Thank you for the discussion.
Naomi: >>> Could you explain to me what is simple about a cell as opposed >>> to something "more complex". What exactly is complexity? Steve (me): >> If the very first organisms encountered with the oldest fossils >> (from billions of years ago) were organisms like whales and >> camels, and all we observed of the oldest fossils in the range >> of the first billion years were organisms like whales, camels, >> and the like, but nothing like single-celled creatures or >> sponges or jellyfish or coral, then this would indeed be >> extremely peculiar. So peculiar, in fact, that such a fossil >> record would disprove evolution. Instead, what is observed is a >> fossil record that corresponds to the general kind of >> development history that evolution implies. Naomi: > This is a very general answer that conveniently avoids getting > down to specifics. :) I'm very interested in your explanation > of a cell an how it is simple. A definition of complexity would > also be interesting. This is an excellent issue. My immediate response is that it's a different question. Cells in and of themselves are highly complex entities. I don't at all intend to discount this aspect of the situation. The point that I was making was in a different context, and it's in that context that I was using the word complexity. If you wish to discuss, say, the topic of the origin of life, we can certainly do that if you wish. But in regard to the original context of my comments, I would simply reiterate that the general development history that's observed with the fossil record is the kind of record expected by evolution, and thus it constitutes a test that evolution passed. I freely acknowledge that the answer is a general one. However, I would also point out that I've mentioned such specific examples as the transitional fish/amphibian ("tetrapod") Acanthostega. As dictated by the discussion, we can certainly get into other specifics. >> Thank you. However, I disagree. It certainly does speak to >> the original question. What it demonstrates is that there are >> many tests which could disprove evolution, but that don't — >> and, thus, these tests end up providing evidence that confirms >> evolution. > I can agree with that. >> Just because >> a test ends up confirming a particular idea, this does not mean >> that the test is not (or was not) a test. > That's not what I meant. Thank you for stating this clarification. >> Evolution could be disproved by the few tests I mentioned as >> well as many others. The fact that these tests actually confirm >> evolution doesn't change the fact that evolution could have >> failed every one of these tests, in terms of what we knew about >> the real world world before understanding the result of these >> kinds of tests. > Yes, I agree. What I'd like to know is, what are some tests > that haven't already been passed, perhaps some things that are > under debate right now, that could disprove evolution? Not the > past, the present. Surely there are some debated issues right > now that, were it to "go the right way", could disprove > evolution or require serious reworking of the theory. Of course, > evolution may pass these tests as well. I think the original > intent was to talk about some of these current issues, not past > ones. > > Creation, as you know, is accused of being non-falsifiable, and > although some creationists would disagree, I'm afraid that it > is. The supernatural cannot be disproven. Based on evolution's > track record, some people have claimed that evolution is also > non-falsifiable — that whatever happens, the theory will be > reworked or the evidence tweaked to fit. What do you think about > this? > > Naomi <>< To be quite frankly honest with you, I find it very difficult to think in those terms regarding evolution. Let me explain by analogy what I mean when I say that, by restating the same question in a different context: What are some tests that haven't already been passed, perhaps some things that are under debate right now, that could disprove the germ theory of disease? What are some tests that could disprove the idea that the sun revolves about the earth? I honestly don't know. While there are certainly specific, detailed aspects of the general picture that are not understood, or that are not understood well, or even that are thought to be understood but are incorrect, the extensiveness and the consistency of the information that corroborates the general picture is so overwhelming that it is impossible for the general picture to be wrong. We say that disease is caused by germs, not evil spirits, and we call this a fact about the real world. There are many details that are not understood about the exact biochemical processes involved, but this does not at all change the general picture. We say that the earth revolves about the sun, and that stars are like our own sun only greatly farther away, rather than that the earth is the center of the universe and the stars are tiny points of divine light affixed to the celestial sphere, and we call this a fact about the real world. There are many details about the exact nature of the force involved (gravity) that not only are not well understood but that are completely unknown, but this does not at all change the general factual picture that the earth revolves about the sun instead of the other way around. Precisely the same is true of both the fact that the universe and the earth are very ancient, on the order of billions of years old, and the fact that the history of life on earth shows a record of biological evolution, including the ancestry of humankind itself. The corroborating evidence for these two general pictures has become so extensive and is so consistent (and, of course, as I've previously mentioned, the great age of the earth corroborates what evolution had already implied before geology and physics) that we call them facts about the real world. There are many details of many areas that can be further explored ad infinitum, but this is not going to change the general picture, only the details of the general picture. Indeed, the example of Acanthostega that I've already pointed out is one such piece of information that altered one particular detail about the general picture while at the same time further corroborating the general picture. It was previously thought that the fish-to-amphibian evolution involved the development of legs on animals that had already more-or-less taken to living more on land than in water. Fossil discoveries like those of Acanthostega and Icthyostega altered this view, because they showed that animals that lived predominately, and perhaps even almost exclusively, in the water had already developed primitive legs and were using them underwater. This change in views is discussed at this online reference I've mentioned previously: After knowing that the general picture of evolution has passed all of the major tests, I really don't know what kind of clear, uncontrovertible information could be discovered by objective examination of the real world that would indicate that the general picture was somehow seriously flawed, other than to simply reiterate the same kinds of tests I've already mentioned, which evolution has already passed. I'm certainly no great genius, of course, and I may not even be particularly imaginative. Do you yourself perhaps have something in mind?
Sincerely, |
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Genesis-Discussion/message/2799
From: Steve Heiden Dear Mark, Thank you for your response. You wrote: > Well, I'm not convinced, but I can see why you would be. The > feet still strike me as too feet-like, the lungs are apparently > fully functioning (characteristics of 2 different groups does > not mean transition between the groups). Closer to what I would > be looking for is the statement regarding whence the lung > supposedly came, and "The stapes, the bone which eventually > became part of the hearing apparatus in tetrapods was still used > for ventilation of the gills." However, I would still want to > know, for example, what _Acanthostega_ was doing for hearing > during this time, and how did the stapes know it was supposed to > let go of the ventilating and start helping with the hearing? Except that the feet are transitional between fins and feet that are used by amphibians to get around on land. Lungs, as I believe I already mentioned, had already developed in some fish (the lobe-finned fish) as a further development of the organ fish have for buoyancy neutralization. Regarding the stapes and hearing in fish before the stapes was used in this way, that's a really good question. Why don't you dig into the relevant details for all of us (including me; I would like to be aware of the answer), and report back with what you find out? I will expect to hear about good information from paleontologists and/or biologists who have seriously studied the matter. I will not accept distorted information from misrepresentative young earth creationist literature. > As I said, though, to a believer I am sure that this is more > than sufficient, but I have such a strong theoretical objection > to the whole thing and an attitude that such changes are not to > be considered as easy to accomplish that it would have to be > more explicit (one stage after another and another, etc.). Mark, the fact remains that Acanthostega is a good example of a transitional fossil. As a creationist you have every prerogative to refuse to accept it, but that does not change what it is. Its "stages" are quite explicit. What in the world are you expecting? They can't get any more transitional than this one. What you have to understand (and what I'm fairly sure most creationists don't) is that each organism at every step of the way must be a fully functional organism whose survival capabilities in its environment allow it to live long enough to perpetuate its species. If you have studied evolution to any decent level, then you should certainly be familiar with the concept of "pre-adaptation." There are many, many good examples of transitional fossils, Acanthostega is one them, and thus the creationist claim that "there are no transitional fossils" is a false claim. > That's why I > have been saying for so long that if there were convincing > evidence for evolution, I would have heard of it by now. And yet you did not already know the rather elementary fact that lungs had already developed in fish (as seen by the fossils) prior to the fish-to-amphibian transition. Are there a substantial number of other highly relevant facts about evolution, such as this one, that you are not aware of? > Perhaps > if this had been presented to me when I was changing my belief > system it would have had more resonance. Parenthetically, I tend > to distrust any "new" discoveries. They have had a tendency to > not hold up over time. I must report to you that the fossils of Acanthostega (not to mention the fossils of other creatures, such as Icthyostega) have been around for quite a while. These fossils are not going to vanish in a puff of smoke any time soon. The thing with Acanthostega was that some new specimens of the creature were found which were substantially more complete and detailed than previous specimens. Incidentally, Pluto's moon, Charon, wasn't discovered until the late 1970s. And it hasn't vanished in a puff of smoke yet, either. What we learn about the real world may not please our personal sensibilities, but the truth is the truth, and our personal feelings about it are irrelevant. > In your other post you hit the nail on the head: you view > evolution in the same vein as the Earth going around the sun (a > claim I would never, ever make for Creation no matter how much I > believed it due to the qualitative difference between a > historical question and one which can be tested right now). This > is why the two sides will never agree and for all of eternity > there will always be a significant percentage of people in both > camps. You take my statement out of its specific context. I specifically stated that I view it this way because of the major tests that it has passed, because of the extensive and consistent information that corroborates it. I used to be a creationist, and a young earth creationist at that. I educated myself about these issues, and I found that the creationist position, both in terms of corroborating empirical information and in terms of its misrepresentative portrayal of science, was seriously and critically deficient. Is there still a significant percentage of people in the geocentrist camp? No. Nor should there be. The real world is what it is, and as Christians it is our responsibility to accept the truth about the nature of the real world (even if we think some people may use particular aspects about the real world to "provide cover"). A few hundred years ago "we" abandoned the geocentrism doctrine because "we" discovered, based on objective examination of the world, that the nature of the real world was different that what "we" had thought based on "our" previous biblical interpretations. Indeed, most Christians around the world have for many decades now accepted the fact that the universe and the earth are very old, and that biological evolution in one form or another is also a historical fact. This is called "theistic evolution" (or "fully gifted creation," as Howard J. Van Till likes to call it), and this is what we have been discussing.
Sincerely, |
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Genesis-Discussion/message/2806
From: Steve Heiden Dear Mark, I appreciate your comments, especially as thought catalysts. You wrote, "1979 — I lose my faith in Evolution after agonizing over the thought that now I will have to believe in God." I would suggest that this is one of the biggest problems with creationism, if not the biggest problem. I fully understand that many, many Christians preach this idea, having been taught the concept myself from when I was a kid, but why do you think there is supposed to be some kind of disjunction between evolution and God? Does "believing" in meteorology mean you have to reject God? Does believing in God mean you have to reject meteorology? Does "believing" in geology mean you have to reject God? Does believing in God mean you have to reject geology? Of course not! Yet when it comes to this one single specific field of science, all of a sudden science is supposed to somehow become automatically "atheistic." Again, I refer you to the latter half of Kenneth R. Miller's Finding Darwin's God where he specifically discusses this fallacy. I would claim that those many years ago you were as misled on that issue as I was (same time frame, too). There are creationists who make that claim and there are atheists who make that claim, but they are both wrong about it. If the general concept that "natural processes are part of the real world, and can be objectively examined and figured out" implies that there is no God, then we might as well dismantle our churches right now and tell everyone to go home, because then meteorology alone makes the case. Again, I highly recommend Kenneth Miller's discussion in the latter half of that book. Previously, I wrote: >> Regarding the stapes and hearing in fish before the stapes was >> used in this way, that's a really good question. Why don't you >> dig into the relevant details for all of us (including me; I >> would like to be aware of the answer), and report back with >> what you find out? You responded: > Well, I'd rather not since I don't expect to find anything > except speculation. I guess, then, that I won't spend any time digging into the details of that, since you aren't interested enough in the answer to dig into it for yourself. Just be aware that in light of this — you not being aware of the genuinely relevant information — you have no right to attempt to use this as a criticism ("I don't expect to find anything except speculation") since in fact your statement itself is nothing more than your purely personal speculation. Believe me, Mark, I'm not trying to be snide or mean, but I do intend to be forthrightly honest in pointing out the nature of such things as this. You wrote: > More stages from the proto-lung to the lung itself along with > explanations regarding how the muscles and brain portion used to > coordinate lungs, and the arteries and veins which tie them to > the heart in a very specific way all continued to be dragged > along and developed prior to being useful for their intended > [sic] purpose (see next paragraph). Little things like that. > Note that buoyancy and respiration are unrelated. That's the > sort of gloss which peeves me. Except, guess what, this is not a "gloss," as you have characterized it. You neglect the fact that when there exists fossil evidence of what is in question, what is found is that evolution is "opportunistic," in the sense that organs begin simply as modifications of already existing organs. It's only after tens of millions of years of development, after the "new organ" has become highly differentiated from its origin, that it's origin can become obscure. The earliest lungs, as seen in the fossil record, appeared as a modification of the final set of gills. Additionally, there are even fish today that absorb oxygen into their blood from their stomach. That biological function is completely discrete is not necessarily so, as you seem to imply. Chordate Respiratory Systems http://gwis2.circ.gwu.edu/~atkins/newwebpages/respiratory/resp2.html >> They can't get any more transitional than this one. What you >> have to understand (and what I'm fairly sure most creationists >> don't) is that each organism at every step of the way must be a >> fully functional organism whose survival capabilities in its >> environment allow it to live long enough to perpetuate its >> species. > What?!! It's the evolutionists who don't understand this! It's > precisely for this reason that we don't accept many alleged > developments (lungs, eyes, wings, for example). This characterization of evolutionary theory and evolutionists is completely incorrect. Evolutionists certainly do understand this. Darwin himself recognized this general concept and wrote about it in 1859. When we're talking about evolution, we're talking about the modification of structures that already exist. I have already, for example, mentioned the concept of "pre-adaptation," which is not a new concept by any means. >>> That's why I >>> have been saying for so long that if there were convincing >>> evidence for evolution, I would have heard of it by now. >> And yet you did not already know the rather elementary fact >> that lungs had already developed in fish (as seen by the >> fossils) prior to the fish-to-amphibian transition. > Who says I was not aware of this belief? In the specific context of my talking about Acanthostega, you specifically implied that you wanted to see the development of lungs with Acanthostega, and that's the context of my comment. If you are aware that lungs have already developed in fish prior to Acanthostega, then why ask about it specifically in reference to trying to say that you won't accept Acanthostega as a transitional fossil? >> Are there a substantial number of other highly relevant facts >> about evolution, such as this one, that you are not aware of? > That could be asked about everyone on this list. It certainly could, and especially about myself. But the point that must be recognized, and that I happen to believe you do recognize, is that a person's personal unawareness of a topic does not in any way represents a valid criticism of any kind. It seems apparent to me that this is the kind of "criticism" you are attempting to use in the case of Acanthostega. >>> Perhaps >>> if this had been presented to me when I was changing my belief >>> system it would have had more resonance. Parenthetically, I tend >>> to distrust any "new" discoveries. They have had a tendency to >>> not hold up over time. >> I must report to you that the fossils of Acanthostega (not to >> mention the fossils of other creatures, such as Icthyostega) >> have been around for quite a while. These fossils are not going >> to vanish in a puff of smoke any time soon. The thing with >> Acanthostega was that some new specimens of the creature were >> found which were substantially more complete and detailed than >> previous specimens. > You've never heard of Piltdown Man, the alleged uselessness of > the appendix, the faked drawings still being used to imply that > we look like other creatures early in our development, the > constant re-working of the artists' conceptions of different > hominids or whatever based not on new, direct evidence of the > organism in question but rather on the need to allow for some > new organism? >> Incidentally, Pluto's moon, Charon, wasn't discovered until the >> late 1970s. And it hasn't vanished in a puff of smoke yet, >> either. > The appendix didn't vanish either, but our understanding of it > has changed. First of all, Piltdown Man was a hoax. We are talking about legitimate fossils, not hoaxes. The proposition that "there are no transitional fossils" because all of the transitional fossils, such as Acanthostega, are hoaxes is clearly an absurd proposition. I don't believe that you want to make this kind of argument. I'm not arguing that paleontologists and anatomists studying fossils have never made mistakes (or never committed fraud, either). I'm arguing that contrary to what many creationists claim there do exist many good transitional fossils, that Acanthostega represents one example, and that the idea that "all transitional fossils are simply mistaken interpretations by paleontologists" is another false proposition. There are such fossils as Caudipteryx (dinosaur with primitive feathers), the reptile-to-mammal transitional fossils (showing jaw bones becoming ear bones, as a matter of fact), the triceratopsians, and so on. (Of course, it is only Christians who are motivated by a particular interpretation of Genesis, so I let's honestly and fairly keep in mind where the biased judgment here lies.) Before you can argue that any particular understanding is wrong, you actually have to dig into the details of each particular case. Merely pointing out that some things are sometimes tentative, or mistaken, or fraudulent does not somehow discredit all of science. This is a typical creationist argument, but I'm not going to accept it because I know that it's false. >>> In your other post you hit the nail on the head: you view >>> evolution in the same vein as the Earth going around the sun >>> (a claim I would never, ever make for Creation no matter how >>> much I believed it due to the qualitative difference between a >>> historical question and one which can be tested right now). >>> This is why the two sides will never agree and for all of >>> eternity there will always be a significant percentage of >>> people in both camps. >> >> You take my statement out of its specific context. I specifically >> stated that I view it this way because of the major tests that it >> has passed, because of the extensive and consistent information >> that corroborates it... > > No, I didn't. I did not render a judgment regarding the validity of > your attitude nor how you came to it; I simply noted the difficulty > it causes when compared to mine. > >> Is there still a significant percentage of people in the >> geocentrist camp? > > And why not? Because the evidence is uncontestable... Precisely. Which is why Christians all over the world (Christians who were scientists, first, of course, being more familiar with the relevant information) accepted the ancient age of the earth over a hundred years ago. Indeed, historically Christian geologists were actively involved in geology, in learning that the earth was ancient, and in developing the geologic column and many other aspects of geology. Several years ago, the Pope issued an official document regarding the science of biological evolution being 'okay' from a Christian perspective. Several major Protestant denominations have made similar official statements like this over the last several decades. It's a directly observed fact that the universe is ancient. The evidence is uncontestable, and young earth creationists have never succeeded in contesting it. There is not a professional astronomer or professional astrophysicist anywhere in the world who is a young earth creationist. Yet there still remains a substantial number of Christians (numbering in the millions), motivated purely by a particular interpretation of Genesis (i.e., strictly a personal religious bias; not motivated by information acquired by objective examination of the world itself), who believe that that the universe did not exist more than about 6,000 years ago. Again, I tell you that I was a young earth creationist myself; but when I studied the relevant information, I discovered that the "scientific" creationists were wrong both with respect to their claims about the age of the earth and about biological evolution, I discovered that "conventional" scientists were correct after all, and so I rejected my incorrect belief. I close here by reiterating that I'm discussing this topic on its own basis. I don't consider our criticisms and agreements and disagreements on this issue to matter one iota to our salvation in Jesus Christ. Sometimes this goes without saying, but sometimes it doesn't, which is why I state it explicitly.
Sincerely, |
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Genesis-Discussion/message/2808
From: Steve Heiden Dear Naomi, Thank you for your comments. Steve (me): >> ...in regard to the original context of my comments, >> I would simply reiterate that the general development history >> that's observed with the fossil record is the kind of record >> expected by evolution, and thus it constitutes a test that >> evolution passed. I freely acknowledge that the answer is a >> general one. Naomi: > And that is where I believe the flaw lies. Yes, evolution > predicts a pattern of simple to complex, and this is what we > seem to see. But is that in fact what we see? Is one cell in > fact any less complex than a giraffe? That is the question. > > I'm not saying that evolution oversimplifies things or that > evolutionists aren't interested in the details — nothing could > be farther from the truth! But a lot of times explanations > involving evolution are stated in general ways that I think tend > to be misleading. You might be able to talk about the > progression from simple to complex with another scientist or > highly educated person, and they would have one mental image, > but say the same thing to a lay person and they get a completely > different image (of simplicity and complexity). Often the image > that is portrayed is false. IMHO :) Again, I must plead that my general answer was in response to a general question, and I believe my answer is correct in the context of what I was discussing. So let me now address your different point, for the purpose of clarification. I must answer your question, that, yes, this really is what we see. A giraffe certainly does represent a whole new level of complexity over a single-celled organism. In biological terms, once you consider all of the various aspects of the cell of a single-celled organism, then with the unicellular organism you have finished with considering it. However, with the giraffe, you have just begun! With the additional level of complexity, you have (as Mark mentioned, too) vascular systems, respiratory systems, sensory systems, and so on. It is also true that among unicellular organisms there is a distinct range of complexity, with some relatively less complex than others (for example, between prokaryotes and eukaryotes, or, more specifically, between, say, cyanobacteria and amoebae). As I've mentioned before, I'm no biologist, but this is information I've picked up in my reading about science. If you believe these to be issues of contention, then let's dig into further details and discuss this. Again, I do not mean to imply in any way that unicellular organisms do not themselves represent a high degree of complexity. They do. But giraffes, trees, whales, camels, and even sponges and jellyfish represent a new order of complexity that in terms of evolution had to have developed after unicellular organisms. This is just what we observe in the fossil record. (Incidentally, creationists who advocate that the ordering observed in the fossil record was produced by a global flood need to explain how it is that grass and trees can escape from the advancing water faster than pterodactyls. This is only one of the reasons why I disagreed with Mark's earlier comments regarding the ordering of the fossil record.) >> What are some tests that haven't already been passed, perhaps >> some things that are under debate right now, that could >> disprove the germ theory of disease? What are some tests that >> could disprove the idea that the earth revolves about the sun? > Are you saying that these ideas are not disprovable? Wouldn't > that make them non-scientific? (I can't think of anything off > the top of my head that would disprove these "facts" either, but > I do believe they are scientific proposals, and therefore it is > possible that they could be disproven.) >> the extensiveness and the consistency of the information that >> corroborates the general picture is so overwhelming that it is >> impossible for the general picture to be wrong. > Here again we have a dangerous assumption. Does this statement > bother any of the scientists here? I should think it would! If > it is assumed that it is impossible for a general picture (of > gravity, evolution, or whatever) to be wrong, then we have > crossed the line from science to dogmatic faith! When evidence > is viewed from this basis, I think there is more chance for > misinterpretation. (Yes, thank you for pointing out the inevitable ludicrous typo.) No. I'm saying that these ideas (evolution, age of the universe, age of the earth, heliocentrism, disease-caused-by-germs) have been so well verified, by extensive and consistent information gathered for more than a hundred years, that they have become "facts" about the real world. The stars are suns like our own, only far more distant from the earth. These are facts. They have reached such an exceedly high level of corroborating information that we can't conceive any longer how these ideas could be wrong and yet the relevant information that we possess still make any sense. This does not change the fact that all of these ideas could at one time have been falsified based on what was still to be learned about the world. At the same time, for many "macro-level" kinds of ideas like these, there does come a point (though this point may be a "fuzzy" one in terms of differing levels of understanding of the already acquired information by various individuals) when an idea becomes considered a "factual aspect of the real world." I have mentioned the examples I have, because everyone recognizes the truth of this general principle. We do genuinely learn things about the real world. No one can legitimately dispute this general principle. At one time, a ninth planet was an astronomical hypothesis. Now, Pluto is a fact which all contending new ideas must treat as part of what they must be consistent with. We should keep in mind what I shall call the "historical contingency of our acquisition of information." While something is "philosophically falsifiable" in terms of, and because of, being an objectively examinable claim about the real world, this does not change the fact that many of these "philosophicaly falsifiable" ideas about the real world become factual pieces of knowledge about the real world. Philosophically we say that a scientific concept must be "testable" in the sense that we can conceive of a way in which the idea can be shown to be wrong. So it must be "philosophically disprovable" or it isn't considered scientific. (Now, in reality, there are actually some additional considerations to this that I won't get into here.) Now, speaking in the context of a historical process, there are many ideas that have become "facts about the real world." This does not change the fundamental aspect of being something that is "objectively examinable," which is essentially what being "testable" means. You and I and anyone else can still go out and carry out all of the objective examinations (test) by which the relevant information is acquired. That's science. It is also a fact that based on the extensiveness and consistency of the objectively-based information that has already been acquired, you and I will not be able to find additional information that will contradict the fact that the earth revolves around the sun, that there are additional planets beyond Saturn, and that disease is caused by microorganisms rather than evil spirits (though the effectiveness of our immune systems can clearly be affected by our own "spirits," and thus by the "spirits" of others). >> I'm certainly no great genius, of course, and I may not even be >> particularly imaginative. Do you yourself perhaps have >> something in mind? > Off the top of my head, no. But it is my understanding that > naturalistic macro evolution is not considered a proven theory. > > The age of the earth and the appearance of evolutionary > progression do not answer the more philosophical questions of > supernatural intervention. The "fact" of evolution is promoted > very subtly. Again, we have a case of most educated people > understanding this in one way, and the lay person or student > understanding it differently. Evolution meaning "things change > over time" is observable and easily verifiable. But this does > NOT mean that the whole picture can be nailed down. There are > still many unkowns, including the philosophical areas. > > Nothing personal, but the proclamation that evolution is a > proven fact strikes me as very arrogant. That statement can be > interpreted so many ways, and carries so many underlying > assumptions.. it's really dangerous to base scientific inquiry > on such a general foundation. > > Naomi <>< "Naturalistic macro evolution is not considered a proven theory" by whom, I might ask? ;-) By professional biologists working in relevant fields of scientific inquiry, or by anti-evolution creationist Christians who are motivated by religious prejudice? I will state again here what I already wrote to Mark: If the general concept that "natural processes are part of the real world, and can be objectively examined and figured out" implies that there is no God, then we might as well dismantle our churches right now and tell everyone to go home, because then meteorology alone makes the case. What is the nature of this religious prejudice against biological evolution that some have? We already know that the argument against evolution that was based on using a particular interpretation of the biblical text (for example, that there was no death before Adam and Eve) is a false argument, because it is the age of the earth (including the fossil record which is part of the earth's history) which shows that this interpretation is wrong. We don't have to discuss evolution at all, since we already know by geology (and the corroborating information from astronomy about the age of the universe) that this young earth creationist interpretation of the doctrine of no death before Adam and Eve is an incorrect interpretation, since truth cannot contradict truth.
Regards, |