Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post - This was the old evolution thread, go to the new thread to post

happyraul · 09-24-2003, 06:06 AM

Everyone hates the middle man because he's not very interesting. It tends to be the easy way out.

This is a bit more complicated than it's usually made out to be.

I'll start with the scientific side....

This is mainstream biology:

Evolution, or decent with modification is fact. This is no longer debated, it is the mechanisms by which this happens that are debated.

Darwinian mechanism - This is pretty solidly accepted. This is that variation and selection business, its responsible for novelty and adaptation. And something that is extremely important in all of this, but often not understood: it is not intrinsically progressive. In other words all that stuff about an evolutionary ladder is just popular fiction, a human is as 'evolved' as a cockroach.

Those two concepts are not what biologists are debating, its other mechanisms that are currently being talked about: genetic drift, mass extinctions, etc...

There are also lots of open questions:

Is change concentrated in speciation? In other words, do organisms undergo drastic change when there is a split or is it gradual?

How does sybiosis play a role? For example, it is believed that modern eukaryotic cells arose from sybiotic relationships between primitive cells. Mitochondria have their own DNA and are thought to have been independent cells are some point.

Basically, mainstream biology thinks evolution is Darwinian, but not always gene-centered, gradualist, etc.. Impo

Now, other disciplines factor into evolution as well. Physics for example, has non-equilibrium thermodynamics. What this is is not important, just realize that if mainstream biology's evolution is thrown out the window, so must a lot of physics, notably modern physics. (Creationists often have a problem with modern physics but they love Newtonian physics, and this ties into purpose.)

Now to the creationist side...

There are people who are anti-science creationists, in other words the only infallible truth is the Bible, and so much the worse for anything that contradicts it. They pretty much think science is bunk.

Then there are young-earth creationists, who are what most people think of when we say creationists. They do not dislike science, in fact they respect it greatly, which is why they try to give their arguments scientific credibility. Young-earth creationists interepret the Bible literally, that is they believe that there was a worldwide flood, that the earth was created in literally six days some 6000 years ago, that our ancestors are Adam and Eve, etc....

Next there are old-earth creationists. They think science is good, they are ok with the scientific age of the earth, but they still do not believe in a common ancestor.

There are also progressive creationists, and their beliefs are most easily described with a diagram. Visualize a tree of the species evolving from a common ancestor as mainstream biologists suggest. Now, progressive creationists see it like this, whereever there is a branching off, each one of those events is a creation itself. So their tree is not connected.

There are also guided creationists, who believe that life does have a common ancestor, but they do not buy the Darwinian mechanism, they don't believe species arise from selection, but rather that evolution is 'guided' somehow.

There is also the intelligent design camp, who insist on explicit design, leave age issue open. There is also New Age Evolutionary Creation (descent OK, mechanism not; immanent spiritual unfolding), and Non-religious anti-Darwinism (left-wing: oppose competitive elements)

So as you can see, people can be all over the map when it comes to this stuff. If you analyze the different positions, you will see that a fundamental difference between what is scientifically accepted as evolution and what is creation is purpose. Creationists say that there must be a driving force for everything at some level, a reason. The secientific community, on the other hand acknowledges that there is no purpose, or even progress that it is all just random.

Here is where the rejection of modern physics by creationists comes into play. If you only know of Newtonian physics, then nothing is random. Everything that exists has a cause. So if you are given every possible variable in a situation, if you could take everything into account, you would be able to predict the outcome of a seemingly random event, such as the roll of a die. By the same logic you could predict all of the evolutionary changes by knowing all of the variables. Basically everything happens for a reason, at some level.

Modern physics throws all of that upside down with the notion that quantum events are truly random. Given all of the facts (which itself is not possible, since there is no way to observe some things), there is no way to predict the outcome of an event. Everything exists without reason, it just is. This is very counterintuitive, but that is how modern physics is often described. So, since the big bang was a quantum event, random and not progressive, so must everything that follows be, without purpose.

09-24-2003, 06:06 AM	#199 (permalink)
happyraul Crazy Location: St. Louis, MO	Everyone hates the middle man because he's not very interesting. It tends to be the easy way out. This is a bit more complicated than it's usually made out to be. I'll start with the scientific side.... This is mainstream biology: Evolution, or decent with modification is fact. This is no longer debated, it is the mechanisms by which this happens that are debated. Darwinian mechanism - This is pretty solidly accepted. This is that variation and selection business, its responsible for novelty and adaptation. And something that is extremely important in all of this, but often not understood: it is not intrinsically progressive. In other words all that stuff about an evolutionary ladder is just popular fiction, a human is as 'evolved' as a cockroach. Those two concepts are not what biologists are debating, its other mechanisms that are currently being talked about: genetic drift, mass extinctions, etc... There are also lots of open questions: Is change concentrated in speciation? In other words, do organisms undergo drastic change when there is a split or is it gradual? How does sybiosis play a role? For example, it is believed that modern eukaryotic cells arose from sybiotic relationships between primitive cells. Mitochondria have their own DNA and are thought to have been independent cells are some point. Basically, mainstream biology thinks evolution is Darwinian, but not always gene-centered, gradualist, etc.. Impo Now, other disciplines factor into evolution as well. Physics for example, has non-equilibrium thermodynamics. What this is is not important, just realize that if mainstream biology's evolution is thrown out the window, so must a lot of physics, notably modern physics. (Creationists often have a problem with modern physics but they love Newtonian physics, and this ties into purpose.) Now to the creationist side... There are people who are anti-science creationists, in other words the only infallible truth is the Bible, and so much the worse for anything that contradicts it. They pretty much think science is bunk. Then there are young-earth creationists, who are what most people think of when we say creationists. They do not dislike science, in fact they respect it greatly, which is why they try to give their arguments scientific credibility. Young-earth creationists interepret the Bible literally, that is they believe that there was a worldwide flood, that the earth was created in literally six days some 6000 years ago, that our ancestors are Adam and Eve, etc.... Next there are old-earth creationists. They think science is good, they are ok with the scientific age of the earth, but they still do not believe in a common ancestor. There are also progressive creationists, and their beliefs are most easily described with a diagram. Visualize a tree of the species evolving from a common ancestor as mainstream biologists suggest. Now, progressive creationists see it like this, whereever there is a branching off, each one of those events is a creation itself. So their tree is not connected. There are also guided creationists, who believe that life does have a common ancestor, but they do not buy the Darwinian mechanism, they don't believe species arise from selection, but rather that evolution is 'guided' somehow. There is also the intelligent design camp, who insist on explicit design, leave age issue open. There is also New Age Evolutionary Creation (descent OK, mechanism not; immanent spiritual unfolding), and Non-religious anti-Darwinism (left-wing: oppose competitive elements) So as you can see, people can be all over the map when it comes to this stuff. If you analyze the different positions, you will see that a fundamental difference between what is scientifically accepted as evolution and what is creation is purpose. Creationists say that there must be a driving force for everything at some level, a reason. The secientific community, on the other hand acknowledges that there is no purpose, or even progress that it is all just random. Here is where the rejection of modern physics by creationists comes into play. If you only know of Newtonian physics, then nothing is random. Everything that exists has a cause. So if you are given every possible variable in a situation, if you could take everything into account, you would be able to predict the outcome of a seemingly random event, such as the roll of a die. By the same logic you could predict all of the evolutionary changes by knowing all of the variables. Basically everything happens for a reason, at some level. Modern physics throws all of that upside down with the notion that quantum events are truly random. Given all of the facts (which itself is not possible, since there is no way to observe some things), there is no way to predict the outcome of an event. Everything exists without reason, it just is. This is very counterintuitive, but that is how modern physics is often described. So, since the big bang was a quantum event, random and not progressive, so must everything that follows be, without purpose.