The Evolution Debate

[MrSpooky]

IDers often bring up questions that are very difficult to answer. The questions ARE answerable, but VERY difficult for the layman to understand. There's a certain underlying fallacy that people tend to commit in thinking that "if it's that difficult to understand, it can't be true!" Sadly, the universe doesn't conform to common sense.

 

For example, the blood-clotting biochemical cascade is a common argument that is supposed to be an example of an "irreducibly complex" system, but actual biochemists have been able to break down the issue into discrete and logical components perfectly in line with natural selection. The problem is that you need a LOT of background in biochemistry before you can understand it, something not available to the general public that mills into a debate arena between an IDer and a biologist!

 

This is another point where I find that public debate on evolutionary biology is pretty much a mockery of intelligible discourse. You can't reduce Fermat's Last Theorem to a 10-minute sound bite... how can you reasonably accept the contrary to be true for higher-level details of evolutionary biology?

 

I think that the use of public debate to convey evolution is a disingenuous excercise. Going into the broad outlines of the theory does a disservice to the science in totality by ignoring its complexity and utility, while going into the nitty gritty details is going to do nothing but confuse the public. Anything in between is going to have to compromise intelligibility for detail and vice versa. Those who say "IDers have won evolution debates before" really are making a VERY EMPTY STATEMENT, because winning these debates is a contest of rhetoric, not the act of determining and conveying fact.

 

But the problem arises: if the science of evolutionary biology is so abstract in certain parts, there the appears to be a wide chasm between the general public and the scientific community when the two by necessity need to work in harmony. A democratic society deplores an oligarchy, and if the scientific community is percieved to be an isolated arbiter of truth, we will ALWAYS remain at the impasse we have now in which confusion, distrust, and ignorance runs rampant in public opinion concerning vital functions of objectivity.

 

The only possible solution then isn't to try to dumb down evolution any more to our community. Nor can explain solutions in detail to every "problem" that the IDers and Creationists put forward (while scientists have the capacity to do so, many of these explanations will be long indeed unless the public has a great degree of knowledge in somewhat esoteric fields!).

 

Instead, we must teach the public to get into the habit of RATIONAL THINKING. The public must be better informed in logic, reasoning, philosophy, and other epistemic means so that they themselves can sift truth from falsehood, science from pseudoscience. They can recognize the genuine researchers from the quacks. An epistemically self-sufficient population will be able to ignore the most fallacious areas of dispute and focus on more genuine problems at hand.

 

While they still won't be able to understand things like the blood-clotting chemical cascade in biochemical detail, they WILL know how to get on the right track in their inquiries.

[Samurai Tailor]

I enjoy teaching biology, but I told my administration that if ever they considered adding logic and/or critical thinking courses, please think of me first.

[MrSpooky]

Elaborate?

[Samurai Tailor]

Just that I would teach logic/critical thinking for free if my administration ever thought it valuable enough.

[Vigile]

I would love to see the two Mr's on this board collaborate on a book explaining these issues to the layman. The two of you have a truly profound big picture view and the ability to relay that view to the rest of us in such a way that we are almost guaranteed an "ah ha!" moment with each of your posts. Such a project if approached right could be invaluable towards educating a society much in need of a correct understanding of science. Honestly, I've learned and can say I understand on a meaningful level much more from you two than I ever have reading Hawking. The timing may not be right at the moment, but I hope that you Mr. Spooky, and you Mr. Neil will give this some serious thought.

[MrSpooky]

That's quite the compliment. I'd love to write a book with Neil someday on these issues. Heck, he could include some awesome comic illustrations.

 

Either that or I could impregnate him and our man-baby shall be the Kwisatz Haderach.

[trashy]

I think that the use of public debate to convey evolution is a disingenuous excercise.

<snip>

Instead, we must teach the public to get into the habit of RATIONAL THINKING.

I think that this is a keen insight, and I also believe that it applies to the realms of politics and religion as well. They are both complex systems with vast amounts of literature and strong emotional attachments. Rational approaches are tantamount.

[bluewizard]

I had a science teacher, he was cool, taught me Biology, Chemistry, and Physics, but he was a big believer in Jesus and the Bible, we dnever learned about evolution either. I made high grades in his class, A's.

[invictus1967]

The problem with evolution is that it doesn’t add up.

 

There are no examples of how life began so that it could evolve. Therefore, evolutionists insist that is a different “area” of science. They can’t account for the beginning of life so they ignore the necessity for a beginning.

 

But assume that life did spring from dead inanimate objects without any outside help; there are no examples of bacteria evolving into plants. There are no examples of plants evolving into fish. No examples of fish evolving into mammals. There are no examples of one type of mammal evolving into a completely different type (snake into mouse or chimp into man).

 

There is no explanation for how natural selection reducing the available genetic material yet to become more complex you need an increase.

 

The universe and the life forms within are classic examples of the total being more than the sum of the parts.

[Dio]

There are no examples of plants evolving into fish. No examples of fish evolving into mammals. There are no examples of one type of mammal evolving into a completely different type (snake into mouse or chimp into man).

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Oh really? When I was little, I put a worm on a hook at the end of a string on a pole, dropped it in the water, pulled it back out and that worm had evolved into a fish!

[invictus1967]

If that is the best you can do Dio, run with it.

[crazy-tiger]

And he's back... I just knew that you'd be unable to resist throwing your strawmen about in this thread.

The problem with evolution is that it doesn’t add up.

 

There are no examples of how life began so that it could evolve. Therefore, evolutionists insist that is a different “area” of science. They can’t account for the beginning of life so they ignore the necessity for a beginning.

Hmm...

 

Evolution: What happens to life.

Abiogenesis: A possible way that life began.

Creation: A possible way that life began.

How many more times do we have to point out that evolution involves life while any theory on how life began deals entirely with what was BEFORE LIFE?

 

Now, onto the Creationist strawman that you insist evolution is...

But assume that life did spring from dead inanimate objects without any outside help; there are no examples of bacteria evolving into plants. There are no examples of plants evolving into fish. No examples of fish evolving into mammals. There are no examples of one type of mammal evolving into a completely different type (snake into mouse or chimp into man).

Thank you for showing, once more, that you fail to understand anything about evolution as it is in real life.

 

Now, try reading stuff that isn't twisted to make evolution into a caracature if itself and chacking all the evidence that's out there. (hint: reading Chick tracts is not a good idea... they are proven to be full of lies.)

There is no explanation for how natural selection reducing the available genetic material yet to become more complex you need an increase.

We've been over this before, and it was proven that NATURAL SELECTION DOES NOT REDUCE GENETIC COMPLEXITY.

 

Your repeating of this FALSE claim shows that your are LYING.

Any position in an debate that relies on LIES to make it's argument is, by definition, a lost cause.

The universe and the life forms within are classic examples of the total being more than the sum of the parts.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You've no fucking idea what you're talking about, you great big fucking LIAR!

[Dio]

If that is the best you can do Dio, run with it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Oh I'm sorry. It didn't occur to me that you were actually trying to be serious.

[trashy]

The problem with evolution is that it doesn’t add up.

 

There are no examples of how life began so that it could evolve. Therefore, evolutionists insist that is a different “area” of science. They can’t account for the beginning of life so they ignore the necessity for a beginning.

 

But assume that life did spring from dead inanimate objects without any outside help; there are no examples of bacteria evolving into plants. There are no examples of plants evolving into fish. No examples of fish evolving into mammals. There are no examples of one type of mammal evolving into a completely different type (snake into mouse or chimp into man).

 

There is no explanation for how natural selection reducing the available genetic material yet to become more complex you need an increase.

 

The universe and the life forms within are classic examples of the total being more than the sum of the parts.

You seem to have a misconception of the basics of evolution and common descent. I found this web site to be VERY helpful. There you will see that bacteria and all other phylogenetic trees have a common ancestor, but bacteria have not evolved into anything else. Fish did not evolve into anything else but share a common ancestor with reptiles and mammals. These are not claims that evolution theory makes. Your example of one type of mammal evolving into another type isn't proposed by anyone either.

 

Again, check out that link.

 

I also don't know of any one who ignores the necessity for a beginning. But scientists understand that theorizing about the origins of the universe is much different than determining that birds and reptiles had a common ancestry. There are many scientists who theorize about origins but that's a different field from evolution altogether.

[MrSpooky]

The problem with evolution is that it doesn’t add up.

 

There are no examples of how life began so that it could evolve. Therefore, evolutionists insist that is a different “area” of science. They can’t account for the beginning of life so they ignore the necessity for a beginning.

 

I offer you a reductio ad absurdum...

 

 

 

Forensic Pathologist: "We were able to determine that the victim was dragged along the carpet to the garage (*pictures of bloodstained carpet*), where his body was placed into a drum which was then filled with acid (evidence of bone and enamel fragments). We were able to identify the victim through the remains of his teeth and comparing them to dental records."

 

Investigator using Invictus-Logic: "Do you have a suspect?"

 

Forensic Pathologist: "Not yet, but we're checking some records to see who had bought a large amount of acid rec..."

 

Investigator: "Then your forensic analysis is wrong! You have no idea what happened to the victim's body!"

 

Forensic Pathologist: "Whaa...?"

 

Investigator: "Don't try to weasel out of it by distinguishing between the 'murder' and 'what happened to the body after the murder.' It's the SAME THING!"