This is just brilliant, Dan! I've been wondering when some sharp journalist would finally bring the opposing but equally compelling theories of Evolution and Creationism into a respectable, level playing field debate. How else will we learn the truth?
Might I suggest some follow-up matches?
Those damned, arrogant astronomers have never given the flat-Earthers a fair shake. They constantly deride flat-Earth science, calling it "pseudoscience" and they refuse to publish flat-Earth research in their journals. Surely you can do something to level the playing field for the Flat-Earth Society!
And don't get me started on the physicists, worshiping as they do at the alter of Isaac Newton as if gravity were anything more than a flimsy theory. Has anyone REALLY proven that gravity "pulls" an apple down to the ground? Dan, you could be the springboard for some otherwise obscure, new-age scientist whose waiting out there, chomping at the bit for a venue in which to present his Sucking Earth theory.
Finally, we've been harboring the delusion for millennia now, that 2+2 must, for some heretofore unexplained reason, always equal 4. This alone should be ample evidence of the tyranny inherent in Mathematics, the arrogance of which is evident in the fact that they refuse to even consider competing theories! This scientific bias must come to an end. The time of the 2+2="whatever your chakra tells you it is on that day" theorists has come! Give them a voice, Dan!
Not all opinions deserve equal time, Dan. Duh!
Benof CA3:15PM October 31, 2009
Wes of Indiana:
I should have been clearer: the Bible should be on the bookshelf of anyone who functions within the western cultural tradition, because it is an essential component of literature, music, art, etc., as well as being the basis for the Christian religion. I was not making the Bible equivalent to science! Arguably, Shakespeare isn't important to someone operating from a Chinese cultural tradition, but his works certainly are necessary to western cultural literacy. The Bible is in the same position, in my opinion.
I'm glad you liked my response to Comfort.
Eugenie
Eugenie C. Scottof CA3:06PM October 31, 2009
This is an excellent overview and rebuttal of Ray Comfort's lies, Dr. Scott. But I do have one quibble with something you said near the beginning:
"I'll even go further than he might: The Origin —like Shakespeare and the Bible—should be on every educated person's bookshelf."
This is true of the Origin and Shakespeare, but not of the Bible. Are you suggesting that every educated Muslim, every educated Hindu, every educated Buddhist, every educated Jew, every educated atheist or agnostic must have a copy of the Bible? Would you say the same thing for the Koran, the Ramayana, the Guru Granth Sahib, the Book of Mormon, the Avestas, and all the other key scriptures of various religions? Does every educated person need a copy of the scriptures of the Baha'i faith on their shelves?
Of course not. Here's the thing about science as opposed to religion: Scientific facts are facts no matter what your culture or your place of birth. Religion, however, is entirely culturally determined. The Bible matters to Christians, but it's worthless to a Hindu or a Muslim, just as worthless as Hindu and Muslim scriptures are to Christians. Supernatural beings take whatever shape a local culture arbitrarily assigns to them.
Evolution, on the other hand, is true for all of them. Scientists, regardless of their religion or culture, can affirm evolution because it is a conclusion based on reason and evidence, not on blind faith and dogma.
Wesof IN2:19PM October 31, 2009
The best book about modern biology for the non-scientist is, in my opinion, "Why Evolution is True" by Jerry Coyne.
I would bet more than 99% of creationists know virtually nothing about evolution, and it's not likely they ever will learn anything about it. They are too lazy, too cowardly, and too bloody stupid to understand anything.
bobxxxxof FL12:54PM October 31, 2009
Dan,
Firstly, a blog that purports to examine faith matters honestly has absolutely no business offering a platform to creationists. Creationism is a belief system with no conceivable grounding in reality, has been debunked as many times as it has been presented publicly, and is an embarrassment to anyone with a mature faith.
Secondly - Ray Comfort? Seriously?
Unfortunately, using Ray as the voice of creationism permits organizations such as the Discovery Institute and Answers in Genesis to say, "See? They wouldn't dare put up Dr. Scott against a *real* creation scientist!"
Why on earth would you offer editorial space on a respectable news site to this babbling lackwit?
Jeffrey Eygesof MA8:05AM October 31, 2009
Rob from PA:
"So using that new definition of science (that any prediction made by a belief automatically qualifies said belief as science)"
There's just one teeensy little problem with that - I defy you to find *any scientist in the world* who would use that definition of science. Sure, if you just make up new definitions out of whole cloth, you can fit any claim in wherever you like, but that's not honest, and it's not science. That it can be used to make testable predictions is *one part* of what makes the ToE science, but it also has to be both falsifiable and *not falsified*, as well as taking into account all the data and studies available to date.
By the way, I dispute that the 'theory' of God's Creation makes testable predictions regarding any of the things you mentioned. The ToE makes predictions that allow you to differentiate between Creation and Evolution, what predictions does your claim make that would differentiate the two in regards to "homology, DNA similarity, the Cambrian Explosion, DNA being meaningfully encoded information and the ability for it to be meaningfully decoded and acted upon"? The Theory of Evolution meets all of those criteria and more, while creationism flat-out doesn't.
"Much like hippos, giraffes, eagles and human beings are clearly no longer fish at all,"
See, here again you show your staggering ignorance on the actual science of cladistics and evolutionary science. All of those ARE still fish. Your average Joe doesn't lump them all together, but cladistically, all of those descendants of fish are still part of the same clade, and therefore still fish. Just because YOU don't understand the science and cannot understand how such very-different-looking things can still be part of the same group even after some descendants have changed markedly, it doesn't stop all the people who actually understand it from continuing to do science, and continuing to state without reservation that the Theory of Evolution is still the best, the ONLY scientific theory that explains life on earth as we see it now and as we see it in the forensic evidence that genetics, biogeography, geology, and the fossil record have provided us. (Notice that we're relying on a lot more than just the fossil record these days, and every new study just makes the relationships clearer)
On the plus side, ignorance can be cured. Have a look at a tree of life, for example this one at http://tellapallet.com/tree_of_life.htm . We are still everything that we once were, the process of Evolution has just continued to build on the base that it started with. Yes, we are human beings, but we are also still apes, we are still primates, still eutherians (placental mammals), still mammals, synapsids, amniotes, tetrapods, sarcopterygians, gnathostomes, vertebrates, chordates, deuterostomes, bilaterians, animals (Kingdom Animalia), metazoans, eukaryotes, etc. We haven't left a single one of the groups that we started out in, we've just branched again and again as slightly-different descendants of our original common ancestors.
Your triumphant trumpeting that 'Flies may give birth to -different- flies, but they're still flies!' is wrong in two major aspects. First, in the aspect that I just described in the previous paragraph. We wouldn't expect flies to give birth to anything BUT flies. In fact, a fly giving birth to something that wasn't a fly would throw serious doubt on the Theory of Evolution as it stands - but as I said to Brent earlier, your ignorance of the actual Theory of Evolution and how it works doesn't make it a problem for me. I'm no scientist, but I can see exactly where your claims are wrong, and any competent biologist will see the same errors.
The second way that your claim that is wrong is in your thinking that those 'different flies' that we can see after just a generation or two will still be recognizably 'flies' after 10,000 or a million or even a *billion* generations. The tiny differences that we see in a generation or two -accumulate-, Rob. There is absolutely nothing preventing those tiny changes from piling up until they're enormous changes. - Of course, if you can present some mechanism that prevents the buildup of those changes, you could net yourself a guaranteed Nobel Prize! I have a sneaky suspicion that you don't have any evidence for any such thing, however.
Among other things, I suggest you look up 'Ring Species'. Ring Species are a wonderful example of evolution in action, where populations of animals are in the process of speciating, and individuals at one end of their range can breed with individuals from adjacent ranges, but individuals from the endpoints are unable to breed with each other, due to the accumulated differences that have built up in the populations. Remember, evolution happens to *populations*, NOT to individuals!
Personally, I strongly suggest that you study the Theory of Evolution and learn something before you embarass yourself like this again, - the REAL ToE and not whatever silly anti-evolution sites that you've been getting your information from. There are some wonderful books that have been published in just the last few years on the subject. I heartily recommend 'Your Inner Fish' by Neil Shubin and 'At the Water's Edge: Fish with Fingers, Whales with Legs, (and how Life Came Ashore but Then Went Back to Sea)' by Carl Zimmer. ('At The Water's Edge' will do nicely as the title to track it down, don't worry.) ;) Richard Dawkins' 'The Greatest Show On Earth' isn't bad either as an overall primer, but I especially liked the first two for their coverage of specific periods of evolution.
The observable, testable, verifiable 'truth' is that Evolution *happens*. It -has- happened and it -continues- to happen. Evolution has been observed in the laboratory and in the wild. Speciation itself has been observed in the laboratory and in the wild. The development of new biological processes and abilities have been observed in the lab and in the wild. (Richard Lenski's 20-year-plus study of e coli has had absolutely -fascinating- results already, for example.) *All of the steps that make up the process of evolution* have been observed in the lab and in the wild. Hundreds of thousands of peer-reviewed studies have and continue to pile on more and more evidence to that effect, and only the uninformed and the wilfully ignorant still deny it. It is as well if not better proven than the Theory of Gravity, Plate Tectonics, Atomic Theory, or the Germ Theory of disease. Really.
Deny it all you like, but both Science and the scientists are the ones with the meticulous facts and figures. They can show you exactly where you're wrong, if only you're willing to listen and learn something.
Ermineof CA3:28AM October 31, 2009
I say to the benighted creationist: once the "God Notion" has been purged from your brain you will find yourself in a universe far, far stranger than the one you just left. With God out of the picture, you must focus your attention on the matter underfoot and ponder its secrets.Just how did all of creation come to be? From whence comes inanimate and animate nature?
BOB KECKof AZ1:57AM October 31, 2009
Evolution predicts common descent. Similarities in the fossil record should show evolutionary progression. Lobe-finned fish fossils found in geological strata approximately 385 million years ago. Early tetrapods found in strata dated around 365 million years ago. Evolution predicts fossil should be found in strata between those layers sharing traits of both lobe-finned fish and early tetrapods. Prediction tested, fossil found (Tiktaalik) prediction upheld. Successful testable prediction made by evolution.
Evolution predicts common descent. DNA discovered. Evolution predicts similarities of DNA between organisms. Examples: Human DNA should be similar to other hominids, chimpanzees, gorillas, orangutans etc. Cat DNA should be similar to lions, tigers, leopards etc. Dog DNA should be similar to wolves, jackals. Fish DNA should be similar to sharks, however cetaceans like porpoise dolphins and whales (air breathers) should have DNA similar to other mammals. Prediction tested, prediction upheld, successful testable prediction made by evolution.
Evolution predicts common descent. Nested hierarchies observed in the phylogenetic tree, examples:
Homo Sapiens/Homo/Primates/Mammalia/Animalia - Human
Pan troglodyte/Pan/Primates/Mammalia/Animalia - Chimp
Canis Familiaris/Canis/Carnivora/Mammalia/Animalia - Dog
DNA falls into same nested hierarchies as observed in the phylogenetic tree, more evidence for common descent. Prediction tested, prediction upheld, successful testable prediction made by evolution.
Evolution predicts common descent. Retroviruses insert themselves into random points across approximately 1.5 billion bases in the 3 billion base genome. Humans are found to share hundreds of thousands of these retroviral markers, ERV's, with other apes including chimps, gorillas and orangutans. Predictions of the differences of shared ERV's fall in line with evolution. ERV's fall into the exact same previously observed nested hierarchies. Prediction tested, prediction upheld, successful testable prediction made by evolution.
Evolution predicts common descent via natural selection and random mutation resulting in speciation. Humans are born with anywhere from 125 to 175 mutations which their parents do not have. Speciation observed in the wild. Mutation in organisms observed in the lab. New morphological features observed in nature (like cecal valves in Podarcis sicula). Prediction tested, prediction upheld, successful testable prediction made by evolution.
Evolution. Testable, observable, verifiable and capable of making successful predictions.
Nick1:29AM October 31, 2009
"And just a reminder: Neither God & Country nor U.S. News necessarily endorses their views". -Dan Gilgoff
There's the crux of the matter. What Ray Comfort argues for is a fundamentalist Christian viewpoint and nothing more. There are thousands of other creation stories from cultures and religions throughout human history. These wildly different stories, whether from Hindu, Zulu, Aztec or Christian cultures are not based on evidence... they are "constructed mythologies" sincerely embraced by men through an act of pure faith.
What Dr. Scott accepts and supports is not her "view". It is the result of 150 years of scientific research- tested and reconfirmed on a daily basis by millions of scientists, worldwide. It transcends culture and religious differences. The Theory of Evolution has been supported by all the factual evidence from multiple disciplines and it is not a simply a "view". Sadly, Gilgoff and the editors at U.S. News seem oblivious of that critical difference. As Patrick Moynahan once said " everyone is entitled to his own opinion... just not his own facts."
Steve M.of CA1:07AM October 31, 2009
The fish to man version of evolution (evolutionism for short - the belief that populations of fish produced, over generations, hippos, giraffes, eagles and human beings) is not science. Intelligent design is also not science. Neither is any other origins theory. Why? Because none of them are observable or testable/verifiable.
Evolutionists will make claims about the fossil record supporting evolution. No, it's only their BELIEFS of what those fossils and dead bones means to them (and what they want it to mean to everyone else) that "supports" evolution. The beliefs themselves remain unobservable and un-testable/un-verifiable!
Evolutionists will claim that their beliefs lead to predictions as proof it's science. So using that new definition of science (that any prediction made by a belief automatically qualifies said belief as science), creation by God qualifies as science as it leads to more accurate predictions as seen in homology, DNA similarity, the Cambrian Explosion, DNA being meaningfully encoded information and the ability for it to be meaningfully decoded and acted upon, and more. But of course evolutionists will then return to the actual truth of what science really is and refute that notion with "Show a single observation or test/verification of God creating anything." Bingo.
The observable, testable and verifiable truth that populations of [flies] only ever produce, over generations, more [flies] even if they are in rare cases a slightly different species of [flies] (but still [flies]!), which we call Speciation, remains intact and is a far cry from what evolutionists believe: that populations of [flies] will produce, over generations, animals that are clearly no longer [flies] at all! (Same holds true no matter what animal you replace with [flies] in the previous sentence). Much like hippos, giraffes, eagles and human beings are clearly no longer fish at all, even though they believe all of those things and most everything else evolved from populations of fish and worse over generations once upon a time.
But in the end, although no origin scientific claim really can qualify as science (and it's either ignorance or outright dishonesty to claim it is), it's logically undeniable we were created. Just like a building is proof of a builder, more so if it's a building that's so advanced in its design it can adapt to its environment, remove dirt particles on a continuous basis, and even produce more buildings just like itself over time. Not to mention computer and computer programs are proof of a designer - just like DNA, which is encoded instructions and the ability for those instructions to be meaningfully decoded and acted upon in near miraculous ways. The only faith part: was it the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the heavenly Father of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ? Or was it aliens? From a faith standpoint on either choice, the choice is obvious.
Reader Comments
Back to blog
Ben of CA 3:15PM October 31, 2009
Eugenie C. Scott of CA 3:06PM October 31, 2009
Wes of IN 2:19PM October 31, 2009
bobxxxx of FL 12:54PM October 31, 2009
Jeffrey Eyges of MA 8:05AM October 31, 2009
Ermine of CA 3:28AM October 31, 2009
BOB KECK of AZ 1:57AM October 31, 2009
Nick 1:29AM October 31, 2009
Steve M. of CA 1:07AM October 31, 2009
Rob of PA 12:03AM October 31, 2009