84 Responses to “Creationists & Evolutionists Should Declare Peace”

1. graybear responds: February 10th, 2009 at 10:48 am

   I believe that evolution exists and is the explanation for the huge diversity of life on earth. I have no firm belief as to how, when, and why it occurs; it may be random, it may be directed, it may simply be survival of the fittest. It may be all of the above in whatever unique condition might occur to bring it about. I have no quarrel with people who believe differently than I do, so long as they allow me the freedom to have my own beliefs.
   The world, however it got here, is a wonderful place. Let’s just see what’s out there!

2. HulkSmashNow responds: February 10th, 2009 at 11:05 am

   I’m a devout Christian, but I’ll be the first person to tell you that creationism isn’t science and shouldn’t be taught or explained as such. Evolution appears to be the best explanation how and why things occurred, but it still has its own flaws and inaccuracies, and that’s why it’s still considered a theory. So, they should make peace, but then again, these are humans we’re talking about!

3. MattSouth responds: February 10th, 2009 at 12:52 pm

   If by calling on us to declare peace Loren means we should all be cordial and civil in spite of our differing worldviews, I agree wholeheartedly. But if declaring peace means we stop discussing and debating very serious scientific and metaphysical matters, I disagree. The Daily Telegraph article cited hardly called for a truce. It called for militant atheistic Darwinists to be a little less rude, and for creationists to give in and accept that Darwinism is true…basically, “Let’s all stop arguing and agree that I’m right.” This is asking for surrender, not a truce.

   I’ve seriously considered evolution before, and ended up rejecting it. I remain firmly in the intelligent design / creationism camp because of the overwhelming scientific evidence against Darwinism, not primarily because of religious reasons. Still, I encourage and enjoy civil dialogue between the two sides. As we remember Charles Darwin’s legacy on his birthday, we should encourage debate and discussion between those who accept and reject his theory. The last thing we should do is call for silence and submission from one side.

4. Xeno responds: February 10th, 2009 at 1:37 pm

   @MattSouth

   I remain firmly in the intelligent design / creationism camp because of the overwhelming scientific evidence against Darwinism, not primarily because of religious reasons.

   This is perhaps the most infuriating thing about creationists. The dualistic world view that supposes evidence against one view is evidence for another. Cue the “learn how science works” speech.

   Also, given the openly verified nature of “Intelligent Design” (look up the Wedge document) as being a complete sham created to get a foothold in schools, I am amazed how anyone - especially a person who actually does think God directed the creation of the world - could support the movement.

   As for discussing evolution, there is plenty of room for criticism in science. Criticism is a fundamental part of science. You don’t, however, need to be anti-science, or religious, in order to criticise it.

5. cryptidsrus responds: February 10th, 2009 at 2:28 pm

   I consider myself an Intelligent Designer. Not a creationist. IE, to my mind, is more acceptable to my sensibilities. It leaves spirituality in but takes the “religious” tidbits out.

   The problem, as I see it, is that science has become so anti-religion that it sees any attempt to even discuss the possibility of a “creator” being party in whatever way to the creation of the universe and humanity as an attempt to impose religious dogma in schools. In return, religion (particularly the fundamentalist kind) has attempted to impose itself so much into the public and moral sphere of our country that the “bridge has been burnt,” so to speak, between secular and non-secular. That is truly sad. There is compelling evidence for both sides that needs to be discussed and addressed in a fair and open manner—not with name-calling and restriction of ideas.

   So yes, I’ll go for a truce. And I still wish Darwin a happy birthday. And Alfred Russel Wallace, while we are at it—the co-discoverer of evolution who also believed in the spirit world. Ultimately, let’s look at all the evidence and go from there, Ok, folks???

6. planettom responds: February 10th, 2009 at 3:12 pm

   MattSouth, I could not have said it better myself. I agree with your comments and sentiments. Very well said.

7. sausage1 responds: February 10th, 2009 at 4:29 pm

   In our Autistic Provsion I teach both Creationism and Evolution. The kids call them ‘Religious Studies’ and ‘Science.’ They can tell the difference and appreciate the value of both.

   Where’s the problem?

8. crypto42 responds: February 10th, 2009 at 5:13 pm

   I also agree with MattSouth. Your comments are emphatically concrete to my point of view.

9. Dragonheart responds: February 10th, 2009 at 5:33 pm

   I have to agree with MattSouth, even if I disagree on the alleged overwhelming evidence against Darwinism. It’s important to continue the discussion. Stopping it would lead to an elusive “peace” (I don’t like the word that much. We are not at war), in order to pretend that we agree on the whole evolution topic. We don’t, there is no point in stopping discussions.

   There is no need to declare peace because we were never at war in the first place. Actually, we might agree on a lot of things, except for this one. I’m fine with that, as long as everybody is allowed to write down his or her opinion.

   regards

10. kittenz responds: February 10th, 2009 at 6:18 pm

    EVOLUTION OCCURS. There should be a bumper sticker.

    The evidence overwhelmingly supports it. Common sense supports it. It happens. The world will be a better place when the people who so rabidly oppose the idea just deal with it so that we can move on to more important issues, such as how to prevent evolution in many species coming to a dead end because we humans broke their world and made them go extinct.

    Whether a God or gods had anything to do with Creation, creation, or anything else, cannot be proven nor disproven with the information that we have. It’s a matter of opinion and everyone’s opinions are shaped by culture. Gods by definition, if they exist, are above the realm of human understanding.

    It’s like the six blind men with the elephant: everyone sees their beliefs from an individual viewpoint, and who knows, EVERYONE may be partly right but still come to the wrong conclusion. There may BE no wrong conclusion.

    We need to go with the evidence, accept that evolution occurs as a natural process, and teach SCIENCE in science classes.

    I do find it intriguing that every culture I can think of offhand has some sort of Creation myth. Religious beliefs such as creation should be kept where they belong, in public school education that is, as part of social studies to foster understanding of different cultures.

    And people who do NOT believe in a Creator or creators really should not ridicule people who do; that just makes people defensive. Apparently people NEED to believe, on some level, in a higher power of some sort. The interesting question for me is, WHY? Is it because there IS a higher power, or some other reason? Does any other species have feelings that resemble humans’ religious yearnings? (Dogs come to mind here )

    There are many unanswered questions, but whether evolution has shaped natural history is not one of them.

11. ukulelemike responds: February 10th, 2009 at 6:38 pm

    Creationism and evolution are diametrically opposed. those who try to bring them together end up with monsters like the gap theory, theistic evolution and EI. But the main problem is the great amount of vitriol often directed at creationists by evolutionists, a being gullible fools and unscientific.
    The bottom line is, there is plenty of evidence for creation, as well as against evolution, and even some science for creation, but neither one can be proven scientifically, for to be so, it must be reliably reproducible in the laboratory, neither of which can be.
    Stellar evolution has absolutely nothing but theory behind it, not one shred of evidience to prove a big bang, or any kind of bang, and even science can show that one kind of animal cannot produce another kind of animal-two dogs can never produce a non-dog, no matter how much time you give them. Species can have chages within their kind, but they can’t reproduce something that is not them-dogs make dogs, goats make goats, sheep make sheep, snakes make snakes. And even Darwin said that if his theory was correct, there would be thousands of intermediary species discovers, but there has not been one found, save for those which were hoaxes, (Nebraska man, I’m looking at you!). The link is still missing.

12. kittenz responds: February 10th, 2009 at 7:53 pm

    Wolves make wolves, and dogs make dogs, and two wolves can’t breed together to produce a dog, nor can two dogs breed together to make a wolf. That would not be evolution; that would be MAGIC.

    That’s not how evolution works, and it’s an argument that does not work. Because even though wolves make wolves, and dogs make dogs, dogs descend from wolves. It’s a GRADUAL process, not a product of a single generation but of many changes building through many generations.

    There is not a single point at which a line can be drawn to say “this animal is definitely a wolf, and its puppy is a dog”. There is intergrading that occurs when a species is separating its parent species. Compare it to a rainbow. There are colors in the rainbow that we see as separate color, but look more closely and you see that one color shades into the next, with no sharp dividing line.

    Dogs and wolves are two species, and the one is descended from the other. And every species alive today evolved from similar processes, in response to environmental changes that made some mutations more viable than others.

13. cryptidsrus responds: February 10th, 2009 at 8:51 pm

    MattSouth:
    I basically agree with you. Let’s keep the discussion going.

    Kittenz:
    I love you. You know I do. And I do appreciate what you said about atheists who ridicule believers. And likewise with believers with atheists. But I do wonder if you’ve ever taken the time to look at the work of people like Michael Cremo, whose Forbidden Archaeology has produced evidence that has never been accurately dealt with by the MSC (Mainstream Scientific Community)? If all of the answers have been answered and the concensus is in, how do you answer the conclusions reached in works like those and some of the research of people like Louis Leakey, (THE Louis Leakey), who found evidence that contradicted the standard explanation of evolution but was “pressured” to back down and “reacess” that evidence by the mainstream scientific establishment?

    One important point to be made here: most of the ID people who I have read and know of believe in evolution. They simply question the “Darwinian” view of evolution. That is the difference. And some in the community don’t even believe necessarily that were created by “God.” Some of the ID people believe in interventionism, whereas humanity may have been created by extraterrestrials. The theory of Panspermia, which sort of references the extraterrestrial hypothesis, advocates we were created by “seeding,” was advanced by such “fringe” scientists as Francis Crick and Fred Hoyle.

    You could actually say Richard Dawkins is an ID’er. On the otherwise unremarkable movie “Expelled,” Ben Stein got Dawkins to admit that he thought there may have been a possibility that humanity may been created by “seeding,” thereby allying himself with the ID camp. His words, not mine. Watch the miovie for confirmation. Again, ID does not say there is no evolution—what it says is that there is evidence which suggests that that “evolution” may not have occurred the way Darwin posited—i.e., by blind, random chance.

    I suggest you take a look at some of Cremo’s work. And Doug Berlinski. Maybe Doug Axe. I agree with MattSouth in this respect. This is about what gets to be labeled “Science” and “Proof.” And whether one has the opportunity to know about that evidence. And also whehter the questions raised by that evidence have been satisfactorily answered. And whether science has the right to silence alternate opinions that contradict the “party line.”

14. Alton Higgins responds: February 10th, 2009 at 9:44 pm

    Just a minor point on the dog thing: many taxonomists consider dogs and wolves to be the same species, not two.

15. HOOSIERHUNTER responds: February 10th, 2009 at 9:52 pm

    As a Christian and a creationist I certainly agree the debate does not advance the cause of cryptozoology. I have always maintained that,first, we need to find the creature whatever it may be and then there will plenty of time to discuss its origins!
    However, I do not believe there is a an “overwhelming” amount of evidence that supports evolution and, in fact, find that the theory is supported by quite a bit of supposition and leaps of wishful thinking. I have studied the theory in a great amount of detail and find that even its most devout supporters (many of whom are renowned scientists) cannot explain, nor find direct unambiguous evidence, for the main tenants of the theory. I have read many of their papers and they are full of phrases such as “we can’t explain this…” and “although there are no transitional forms…” etc. Hardly reassuring for a theory that is taught, for all intents and purposes, as fact.
    So I will respectively decline the invitation to accept the theory as anything more than just that–a theory. I will, however, encourage the cooperation and involvement of all people in the search for cryptids regardless of their personal views of the creature’s origins.

16. red_pill_junkie responds: February 10th, 2009 at 10:06 pm

    Hmm…

    Seems that before we get this matter settled once and for all, we might need to evolve a bit more

17. Ferret responds: February 10th, 2009 at 10:24 pm

    As a Christian I believe the origins of the Universe, Earth, and all of Earth’s biodiversity can be found in the Book of Genesis of the Holy Bible. As an aspiring evolutionary/wildlife biologist and cryptozoology enthusiast I believe that through the processes of adaptation and natural selection (as described by Charles Darwin) speciation and eventually full fledged evolution has occurred throughout the natural history of Earth (and all other life bearing planets if others should exist for that matter) resulting the rich biodiversity of today. I’m not sure I’m totally buying into all life originating from a single cell because there is no evidence to support that this occurred other than the educated theories of biologists from Darwin to scientists of the present. I find virtually no conflict between both components of my belief as that I believe the Bible to be the word of God, written in the tongue of man thousands of years before mankind could possibly understand what evidence suggests today. I’m not saying I think the Bible is wrong, only that it isn’t detailed on the exact process and methods the Lord used to create the universe. This is what I believe, not what other Christians, creationists, or scientists believe, just my personal thinking.

18. sschaper responds: February 10th, 2009 at 11:40 pm

    We could have peace if the Darwinists would agree to let science simply be done and taught, without attempting to control the debate through ruining careers (see Guillermo Gonzales) and propaganda (see Eugenie Scott).

    Science is fun and fascinating. How about we be allowed to explore along our chosen paradigms and see where that takes us? What’s to fear in that?

19. PhotoExpert responds: February 11th, 2009 at 12:12 am

    Hmmm, the two theories don’t necessarily have to be mutually exclusive, although they are in direct opposition of one another. Both could hold merit and complement one another. Perhaps an intelligent designer, a supreme being, God created life and evolution took place. That is a distinct possibility if you reside in either camp.

    Well, at least it is a theory that we can live in peace with this week, as we contemplate all possibilities.

    Only an extremist in either of the two camps would have a problem with that and argue for the sake of argument’s sake.

    Peace to all!

20. MattSouth responds: February 11th, 2009 at 12:41 am

    Xeno,

    I welcome criticism if I say something that’s unscientific, but for now I stand by my statement. I’m afraid that it tends to be an either/or dichotomy when it comes to origins–I don’t know of any other remotely tenable or even discussed theory other than Darwinian evolution in its various forms and intelligent design (which creationism would be a subset of). The evidence that indicates that Darwinian mechanisms CANNOT produce complex biological machines makes me turn to the only other widely posited alternative–intelligent design. But please, give me the ” ‘learn how science works’ speech,” as you put it. I don’t mind learning if I am wrong in some area.

    I’m not sure what you object to about the Intelligent Design movement. I don’t see what is deceptive about wanting to get into schools and teach the scientific evidence for intelligent design or creationism, as long as Darwinism is not suppressed and gets fair treatment as well.

    There is some freedom in some areas of science for criticism (although less than might be imagined…read “Amazon Expeditions” by Paul Colinvaux). The problem with the current scientific establishment is that scientists are only permitted to question certain aspects of evolutionary processes, but never allowed to question the overall theory. In many settings, to even suggest that Darwinian evolution may not have occurred guarantees an academic lynching and results in even a non-religious person being branded as anti-science and religious, just as you hint at. Your response makes me only more confident of the need for discussion and debate instead of shutting down the conversation, as some on one side seem to desire.

21. Scott C. responds: February 11th, 2009 at 1:39 am

    I too call for peace:

    Evolutionist friends, Yahweh has spoken and is worthy of your belief. I look forward to this truce, but it can happen only when you bow before the wisdom of your Maker.

    Creationist friends, speak the truth in love, not in superiority or unkindness.

    Does anybody object to my terms? If so, you should object no less to the terms suggested in this post. Mine parallel those exactly.

    Science is by definition inductive. If it is inductive, then by definition it cannot prove anything, since “proof,” properly speaking, is syllogisticly deduced.

    Science is valuable, but is insufficient as a final epistemology. Can it justify itself? Which is to say, can the scientific method be established by the scientific method?

    Some would object that I progress beyond the realm of science, into the realm of philosophy.

    I would reply that I do not progress beyond science, by regress behind it. In other words, I’m calling us to consider our foundational presuppositions.

    We all have them. No interpretation is objective. Really, there are two kinds of people: biased people who know it and biased people who don’t.

    You look at sedimentary layers and see vast epochs; I look at sedimentary layers and see a vast flood.
    Our presupposed stories shape our interpretations. Creationists are no more blind to the evidence than evolutionists, they simply admit that their presuppositions shape their interpretations, and evolutionists do not.

    Anyways, I have no intention of pursuing a debate. I am simply pointing out that this plea is not for truce, but for surrender.

22. kittenz responds: February 11th, 2009 at 2:21 am

    cryptidsrus,

    I’m not an atheist . My main point is that evolution occurs, it is an ongoing process by which living organisms are subtly changing over the course of time to adapt to environmental pressures, and in many (but not all) cases, that process eventually leads to speciation, where one species becomes several subspecies which in turn evolve to a different set of pressures and eventually become species distinct from the original parent species. DARWINISM does not exist! It is a word made up by people who don’t understand evolution and want to try to paint it aas something that is in question or something that is a cult following of one man (Darwin), rather than the (almost) universally accepted understanding of the natural process that evolution is.

    Teaching ID in schools as scientific fact is wrong and it’s just one of the reasons our students are so far behind the rest of the world in science education. I have no problem with mentioning, in class, that some people believe that evolution is driven by an intelligent designer or designers, so long as that’s just tossed in to let kids know that some people look at the world in other than scientific ways. But until we actually have hard evidence of ID in the fossil record (or anywhere, for that matter) that can be subjected to testing and proof, it’s just not good science. You can say, and for all I know it might be true, that advanced extraterrestrial aliens, or God, or some transcendental beings, put evolution in motion by intelligent direection, and that’s how evolution got started. There’s no evidence of that that can be tested, but you can say it and you may be right. But could just as easily be wrong, whereas we know beyond a reasonable doubt that evolution is the response to the driving force of environmental change, which shapes and changes species.

    ID may be true, but until it can be tested and critiqued by peer review, it ain’t science and should not be taught as such. That doesn’t mean that evolutionary scientists cannot believe in some sort of ID. Many of them probably do, or at least they believe in a higher power of some sort, in a way that doees not conflict with their knowledge of the way the natural world works. I don’t doubt that a higher power may give a nuhdge here and there every now and then.

    And another thing. I get so tired of people saying that all life came from one cell. That indicates a complete misunderstanding of how evolution shaped the natural world. Life began most likely with simple one-celled creatures, but it began over and over again, in many places, from many different one-celled creatures, some of which left descendants and some of which just died out.

    Life is has a rich, complex history, and evolution is much more elegant and downright COOL than religious fundamentalists and creationists know. If you want to believe in the nuhdge, that’s fine; I sometimes do myself. But don’t let that blind you to the simple elegance, beauty and truth that evolution is. I’d much rather know the true relationships and the twists and turns in the evolutionary history of my beloved cats, than to think that God sat there with a box of play-doh and a paintbox and sculpted each one individually. If a God or gods set the whole thing into motion, and just sort of keep an eye on it, hey, I can live with that. But the problem would be proving it. You’d have to rely on faith, and faith is belief without substantiation or proof. So there again, it’s not science.

23. flame821 responds: February 11th, 2009 at 9:36 am

    Thank you Kittenz.

    Like you pointed out, Evolution is not in question in the scientific community. In fact it is the basis for many of our current medical advances. (antibiotics, anyone) And more and more transitional fossils are being found every year, filling in many gaps in the evolutionary history of the planet. After all, science is always a work in progress and as new evidence becomes available laws and theories* are revised.

    Many cryptozoologists use evolution as a basis for trying to find or argue for many unrecognized homonids. Cryptozoology is fighting for a seat at the table of ‘real’ science, fighting to be taken seriously; to get much needed funding and researchers to carry on into future generations. It is going to be very difficult to do that when one of the best things going for Cryptozoology (sans an actual body of a cryptid) is the use of evolution and archeology to demonstrate why said cryptid could/was known to exist.

    *Pet peeve. Scientific theory = law, ie Theory of Relativity, The main difference between a law and a theory is that a theory is much more complex and dynamic. A law describes a single action (ie, gravity), whereas a theory explains an entire group of related phenomena. Real scientific theories must be falsifiable, we must be able to TEST them.

24. ukulelemike responds: February 11th, 2009 at 9:42 am

    Dogs and wolves do, indeed, have a common ancestor, but they are both still dogs-they are able to breed with one another, as can any dogs. And the changes necessary to produce different types of dogs can be done in the time of a man’s life, or less, by selective breeding, which man has done with them through the ages.
    Now, evolutionists say that we came essentialy from apes, with the chimp being the closest relative. But we can’t breed with them, thus, we are different kinds of creatures. Boa constrictors and pythons seem alike, yet they can’t breed, one laying eggs and the other bearing live young-they are different kinds, though both snakes in our understanding.

25. bigfootsdad responds: February 11th, 2009 at 10:17 am

    To MattSouth and Scott C.

    Well said. Especially, “Creationists are no more blind to the evidence than evolutionists, they simply admit that their presuppositions shape their interpretations, and evolutionists do not.” - Scott C.

26. HOOSIERHUNTER responds: February 11th, 2009 at 11:30 am

    I will say again that we need to have mutual respect and peace in the cryptozoological camp. I have studied and done my own research and come to a creationist conclusion. Others have come to an evolutionist conclusion–so be it. I can not submit and say “well, maybe” Because that negates the word of God. In Genesis, the days and nights are clearly spelled out. They are days, not epeochs, not eons. The meanings of the words used in the original language is very clear and concise. So I cannot compromise my belief without destroying it completely.
    I respect all of you and the obvious intelligence with which you have reached your own conclusions. I ask that mine also be respected.
    Let us work together to find cryptids and, as I said before, we can argue where they came from later.

27. fuzzy responds: February 11th, 2009 at 12:32 pm

    Bah, HUMBUG! Expecting the diligent, left-brained, rational Scientists and the adamant, right-brained, emotional Creationists to declare some kind of “truce” is absurd, and as predicted about Y2K, it ain’t gonna happen!

    Why not recognize, accept and teach that there are MANY Alternative Theories about Life’s origins and developments - divine manifestation, intelligent design, holographic projection, panspermia, interstellar seeding, extraterrestrial intervention, alien manipulation, miscegenation, mutation, Darwinistic evolution etc etc…

    …and that examination of ANY of these opinions creates new questions and conflicts- how does one explain Miracles or Alien Abductions or the Platypus - and that there are very few absolutes in this world?

    Perhaps encouraging students to openly view the evidence and actively pursue their various truths is a more realistic approach to intellectual understanding than a handshake and a grin?

28. DWA responds: February 11th, 2009 at 1:49 pm

    MattSouth says:

    “The Daily Telegraph article cited hardly called for a truce. It called for militant atheistic Darwinists to be a little less rude, and for creationists to give in and accept that Darwinism is true…basically, “Let’s all stop arguing and agree that I’m right.” This is asking for surrender, not a truce.”

    This is exactly how I - as someone who thinks that Darwin was right, even though we haven’t ironed out exactly how yet - read it.

    See. We CAN agree.

    The THEORY of evolution is just that. We have nothing more than secondhand evidence that the Creation may be working itself out that way, although that evidence is pretty durn compelling to many of us, including most scientists.

    Many of us (including most scientists) don’t think that cryptids exist, either.

    Caution big-time advised. Scientific smugness -on any topic - is not only uncalled for; it makes intelligent design look downright scientific by comparison.

    Says someone who, personally, thinks that God could have created the whole thing - and thought that starting with the Big Bang, and letting chemicals run wild through a process we now characterize as evolution, might have been the most fun way for Him (Her?) to go.

29. DWA responds: February 11th, 2009 at 2:06 pm

    kittenz says:

    “The world will be a better place when the people who so rabidly oppose the idea just deal with it so that we can move on to more important issues, such as how to prevent evolution in many species coming to a dead end because we humans broke their world and made them go extinct.”

    Heh heh.

    What we’re doing here will soon sound like arguing about the angel population of the head of a pin without the angels, or the pin, to contradict us. Peace then, eh?

30. DWA responds: February 11th, 2009 at 2:18 pm

    A recent debate in Time Magazine between a creationist and a scientist ended with the comment that, if God exists, God will be something far grander and more amazing than any theologian of any religion has ever imagined.

    The SCIENTIST said that.

    And he, I think, is right.

    Once we get over creating God in our own image - something that’s been going on since, um, the Creation - we’ll really be ready to tackle big topics.

    I think that the evidence suggests that God (should He/She decide to exist) is the kind of being that figured if you wanted six days, i.e., magic, (S)He’d give you David Copperfield. (S)He had bigger plans.

31. DWA responds: February 11th, 2009 at 2:23 pm

    “Creationists are no more blind to the evidence than evolutionists, they simply admit that their presuppositions shape their interpretations, and evolutionists do not.”

    I can second that.

    Scientists ALWAYS let their presuppositions shape their interpretations. One needs to look at no more than their view of cryptids to discern that. It’s unthinking bias, in the face of copious evidence, and more counter to science than anything a creationist could come up with.

32. Scott C. responds: February 11th, 2009 at 3:23 pm

    DWA,

    Although you have not acknowledged Scripture as God’s inerrant, infallible revelation to us, you have been more honest than many other evolutionists. For this, I sincerely thank you. It allows more meaningful interaction to ensue.

    Btw, I would encourage anyone who thinks that Yahweh–the God who IS, whom you may know simply as the God of the Judeo-Christian tradition–is a projection of man, and fashioned after man, to see what He has to say about Himself.

    Read the Bible cover to cover.

33. ukulelemike responds: February 11th, 2009 at 3:34 pm

    “If God exists, God will be something far grander and more amazing than any theologian of any religion has ever imagined.”

    indeed true, if we did, in fact, imagine Him. And while he is certainly greater than we could ever understand, He HAS provided us a written record, so we don’t have to imagine Him. We understand He created, but we don’t need to try to understand how-we never will. The deeper we peer into the more minute details of creation, the more impressive and complex they become, exactly the opposite of what evolution expected. A single-celled animal is far more complex that the piece of goo previously thought.
    No, creation and evolution can never find common ground unless one relents to the other. However, this doesn’t mean we can’t have genuine, polite conversation. And so we should, as both sides are guilty of bad manners at times. Maybe we can ‘get along’ in that manner.

34. Viergacht responds: February 11th, 2009 at 4:29 pm

    Atheism has nothing to do with acceptence or rejection of evolution, actually. Theists, however, are bound to be creationists because their mythology demands it.

35. kittenz responds: February 11th, 2009 at 4:36 pm

    ukulelemike said:

    “Dogs and wolves do, indeed, have a common ancestor, but they are both still dogs-they are able to breed with one another, as can any dogs. And the changes necessary to produce different types of dogs can be done in the time of a man’s life, or less, by selective breeding, which man has done with them through the ages.”

    Not quite so. Dogs and wolves are closely related and can interbreed readily, but they are different species. The changes necessary to produce different types of dogs are accelerated by human intervention, guiding the design, if you will, but, left to their own devices, dogs adapt to their various environments through evolution, wherein animals most suited to survive in a given situation are most apt to bear viable offspring that also will survive to reproduce.

    “Now, evolutionists say that we came essentialy from apes, with the chimp being the closest relative. But we can’t breed with them, thus, we are different kinds of creatures.”

    How do you know that people can’t breed with chimps? As far as I have been able to ascertain, no one has really tried to combine the two species (not that I’m advocating it ), and we are probably at least as closely related to chimps and bonobos as horses are to donkeys (two different species which are bred together to produce mules). Probably humans and chimps are more closely related than lions and tigers, which can be bred together to produce ligers. We don’t place ourselves in the same genus as chimps more from superstition and custom than from scientific reasoning.

    “Boa constrictors and pythons seem alike, yet they can’t breed, one laying eggs and the other bearing live young-they are different kinds, though both snakes in our understanding.”

    Boas and pythons are both types of snakes, similar in appearance and habits, because they evolved in response to the same types of environments but they are different genera, not closely related, not just different species in the same genus like dogs & wolves, horses & donkeys, or lions and tigers. That’s why they can’t interbreed.

    Ferret,
    I agree with you nearly word for word. Well spoken.

    One pet peeve: people, PLEASE stop saying “Darwinists”. There is no such thing as a Darwinist.

36. ARO responds: February 11th, 2009 at 4:43 pm

    I’m sorry but, why all the hate? If you think evolution or creationism is right, thats good for you. Why waste your time on the internet arguing your beliefs when there’s so much to do in life. Seriously guys, get a life.

37. DWA responds: February 11th, 2009 at 4:59 pm

    Scott C/ukulelemike:

    I get where you’re coming from, which is why what I am going to say is not going to be “what I believe,” but rather what I believe occasions the divide between evolutionists and ID/creationists.

    People get testy when their beliefs are challenged. And much of that testiness comes from the way the other side asserts its position as truth.

    There are those who believe the Bible is God’s written record of himself. There are those who believe that it is people’s written record of people’s impressions of God, which is what the scientist in the Time Magazine discussion I refer to was getting at.

    Many have “not acknowledged Scripture as God’s inerrant, infallible revelation to us,” becaise many demand evidence for such a statement. Many do not think that God would deliberately set out to confuse us, which is what the many religions that don’t consider the Bible the truth at all would seem to be God’s way of doing. When you say to them that the Bible is all, and they ask, what about the Quran? the Talmud? the Tibetan Book of the Dead?, well, to refer them right back to the book you consider the truth isn’t really helping them one jot. It’s just your opinion. (And to say no, it’s God’s, read the Bible, isn’t, again, helping them one jot. Read the Quran, and it’ll tell you: don’t read the Bible, read me.)

    Many people don’t think that God would ask us to make a heaven-or-hell choice on faith alone. Particularly when an objective person could consider there to be no basis for an agnostic, say, to make a choice among the alternatives. OK (here I go), personally, I don’t believe God asks us to choose, anything. We’re all, all or us, “saved,” because none of us ever was in any jeopardy. How do I know? Many nights gazing at the stars, many days walking in the mountains, which to me ring as true as any holy book. If you want me to read the Bible, then you do that, too, with a completely open mind to the Bible NOT being all that, and not even being necessary for a well-lived life that any man would have to call holy. (Say, that of the Buddha.) See? You have to get out of your camp to make peace with the other camp. (And I just gave you my opinion, to which, if we’re all entitled, then, God entitles us, if there is One.)

    Now, you evolutionists. THERE IS NO FIRST-HAND EVIDENCE FOR EVOLUTION. This is the chief reason why it’s not a LAW. We don’t SEE evolution working. We tap open rocks. We find patterns and impressions. These are not, absolutely proven, the remains of anything. We INFER, from what we ‘know’ - and the state of that knowledge is always changing - by looking at the very different world that we see around us today, what these patterns and impressions mean about what happened in the past. We know NOTHING about ANYTHNG in the fossil record, except that we have rocks with patterns in them. We may have much intelligent speculation. And I sure think we should go with it, until it is replaced by better speculation based on further knowledge. (If you are trying to convince me, based on this, that Tyrannosaurus rex didn’t exist, well, good luck.) But. IT IS NOT KNOWLEDGE, because none of us has ever seen a fossil animal alive (unless you’ve seen a coelacanth ). None of us has ever - or will ever - see a fossil get made. Or a rainforest giraffe with a short neck metamorphose, over uncounted generations, into a desert giraffe with a long one. We can infer what has happened. But we better be prepared for surprises as we find out more.

    I could go on forever, but I hope people are gettiing the point.

    Not only does neither side have a monopoly on knowledge. NEITHER SIDE HAS MUCH KNOWLEDGE AT ALL. There is much informed speculation on the scientific side - and a vast universe, which sure seems to have some kind of inspiration behind it, on the creation side.

    But there is one heck of a whole lot of room in the middle to talk.

    (Said God, thinking to Herself: haha! I never thought I’d see that happen - OK, I did, but it sure was serendipity - and they’re calling it a platypus! Cool!)

    ukulelemike: as to “The deeper we peer into the more minute details of creation, the more impressive and complex they become, exactly the opposite of what evolution expected,” I’d argue that evolution takes you right through the complexity, step by step. The complexity was what got Darwin going.

38. Scott C. responds: February 11th, 2009 at 5:25 pm

    ARO,

    Disagreement, and the willingness to discuss it, is not hate. It may sometimes be accompanied by hate; but, to my knowledge, that has not happened here.

    Your comment is the product of postmodernity.

    Kittenz,

    Remember that taxonomy is a descriptive practice. Our classifications are not based on certain knowledge of origins. Our taxonomy is based on perceived similarities.

    The Genesis account categorizes animals by “kind” (Heb. “mineu”). How broad is a “mineu”? We don’t know for sure; but, it’s probably equivalent to “Family” (Canidae, Felidae, Ursidae, etc.).

    It doesn’t bother me one bit that there is adaptation within a Family. Adaptation within a “mineu” is not the same thing as evolution, popularly defined.

    Nor does it bother me that two different “species” within a “Family” can interbreed.

    But to say that humans are probably more closely related to bonobos than lions are to tigers… Well, the onus lies with you to demonstrate that one. Have fun.

39. Scott C. responds: February 11th, 2009 at 6:00 pm

    DWA,

    The discussion of presuppositions (that is, the discussion of what we consider “properly basic”) is logically prior to any other discussion.

    So, irregardless of what two people are discussing, either one has the right to regress the topic to epistemology in general or presuppositions in particular.

    I say that to justify the following discussion:

    The existence of absolute transcendentals (morality, logic, etc.) cannot be denied. “There are no absolutes” is an absolute statement. “Nothing can be known for sure” is a very sure statement. “It is wrong to condemn the practices of others, since there is no absolute morality” is a moral statement.

    You accept absolute transcendentals, whether or not you admit it (forgive me if you already do admit that… in my ignorance, I am merely preempting unnecessarily laborious interaction).

    So, assuming absolute transcendentals, I say this:

    The Bible, and the world-view which it contains and prescribes, is incomparable to other “holy books” and other world-views, because it accounts for transcendentals in satisfactory ways. Others do not.

    This is not the place for comparative-religions; but, every other world-view either self-destructs or cannot account for absolute transcendentals. This is demonstratable, but I will not expand on that claim in this context.

    As a student of philosophy, logic, and religion, I am certain that the Bible simply cannot be classified with other holy books, and that kind dogmatism is warranted.

    DWA, you are looking to existential zaps and personal preferences for your understanding of religion. I am looking to a source outside of myself.

    I sincerely appreciate your honesty about science’s limitations. And, I sincerely hope that you will continue star-gazing, because the heavens declare the glory of God.

40. sschaper responds: February 11th, 2009 at 6:05 pm

    I would suggest that as far as cryptozoology is concerned, that we shelve origins research and look for uncatalogued animals.

    What do you all think?

41. Munnin responds: February 11th, 2009 at 7:49 pm

    Wow, there are lots of different gradations of creationist or evolutionist viewpoints here, and clearly many are very passionate. Maybe I can interject yet another shade. I am no atheist, but I hold that the reality of natural selection is overwhelmingly supported by the evidence, which has been collected and analyzed by hosts of researchers ever since Darwin (and Wallace!) first articulated the concept.

    While I am not an atheist, nor even a rationalist, I am also not an adherent to any of the several Abrahamic faiths. I think that the evolution vs. creationism debate is too often presented as Atheists vs. Christians, or Atheism vs. The Bible. I think this is an oversimplification.

    I also agree that Intelligent Design is a sort of modified version of creationism. While persons of faith are welcome (in my book) to believe this, it is a religious view, and not a theory constructed through the application of the scientific method to the available evidence. This is why I feel it should not be taught alongside the theory of evolution in science class, as if it were a competing or alternate scientific theory. It may be true, it may be false, but it’s impossible to confirm either view scientifically.

    Lastly, an observation: When I was a young man growing up and first learning about science, EVERY science teacher I remember was clear regarding the popular notion that the theory of evolution says we are descended from apes or monkeys. “The theory of evolution says no such thing!” was a typical, spirited pronouncement in response. “The theory of evolution teaches that humans, apes, and monkeys all descend from a distant but common ancestor.” This is a clarification which seems to come up less frequently these days, and I’m curious as to why. It seems like a key point for many who reject the theory of evolution.

42. DWA responds: February 11th, 2009 at 10:30 pm

    Scott C,

    All I’m trying to do is show why the gulf we’re talking about here is a gulf.

    And I think I did. Neither side is willing to budge. Of course, if you could show a scientist the proof of

    “The Bible, and the world-view which it contains and prescribes, is incomparable to other “holy books” and other world-views, because it accounts for transcendentals in satisfactory ways. Others do not.”

    …then you might make a convert.

    And you bet I’ll continue star-gazing, because if you want to see the infinite, it beats books.

43. rsswope responds: February 11th, 2009 at 10:52 pm

    Loren, I say Amen.

    I’ve been a believer in theistic evolution for over 25 years, and the two are NOT mutually exclusive at all. In fact if you take the timeline of Genesis 1 in the original Hebrew and not take the the word for day (yome) as literally a 24 hour period but rather a literary device you have an amazing correlation of the creation sequence and the evolutionary sequence.

    That is if the ‘birds of the air’ from Genesis are meant to imply the connection between birds and their saurian ancestors.

    Not too far a leap in my mind. In my Seminary training I always perceived as evolution as an active ’sustaining’ by the hand of God, constantly molding His creation through time. A constant action and interaction to bring about His will.

44. mystery_man responds: February 11th, 2009 at 11:14 pm

    Well, I’ve been trying to stay out of this one, but I may as well throw in some things.

    DWA- You say there is no first hand evidence for evolution, but this is not correct.

    First of all, evolution could be defined at its most basic as a change in the gene pool of a population over time. In this sense, there have actually been many observations of this occurring both in the laboratory as well as in the wild. Besides, evidence need not always be based on directly observed phenomena anyway. Are you going to discount geology and astronomy simply because many of the phenomena in those fields cannot be observed first hand or held in one’s hand? In science, predictions are made of what you would expect to see, and if what you find in your research bears that out, then that could be considered evidence. It is a mistake to think that evidence has to always be in the form of something you can watch in a laboratory.

    Second, the fossil record is of incredible importance. The progression over time of millions of fossils is precisely what evolution predicts, with no evidence of, or need at all to invoke a subjective creator. Again, evolution makes predictions of what one would expect to see in the fossil record, concerning things such as comparative anatomy, geographical distribution, ecology, and so on, and these predictions have been verified and born out many times. Also, paleontology has made many advances over the years, and there are a huge number of transitional fossil forms, showing intermediary changes, which further backs the basic evolutionary concept of species changing over time. I cannot agree that fossils do not count as evidence. I am sure any paleontologists here would object to that line of thinking. It is a completely arbitrary thing to say.

    The thing that HASN’T been observed is an animal changing suddenly from one form into a completely different one, but this is not at all what evolution claims in the first place. In fact, if we were to observe, say, a fish suddenly turning into a frog, that would be very strong evidence AGAINST evolution. This is a process that typically takes a very long time to occur, so most of the observations of course are going to be made with fossils, but not always.

    What evolution has is evidence that is supported by a wide range of different fields, throughout the world, such as the fields of genetics, ecology, paleontology, anatomy, and others. There will be disagreements among scientists, but the basic premise, that life changes in response to its environment, is not disputed. The finer points will be made through experimentation and observation. On the other hand, there is no objective way to resolve all of the differences between the world religions’ myriad views and forms of creationism.

    So it is not accurate to say there is no observable evidence for evolution. Likewise, you make the mistaken claim that there is something that could be called absolute knowledge. There is no absolute knowledge, it is something that would only be obtainable if you had the luxury of setting and knowing all the parameters of reality. That is not how it works, since we are learning more all of the time. Absolute knowledge is a myth. Science does is collect evidence and through the examination of this evidence and peer review from all sides, tries to come as close to knowledge as is possible. Based on EVIDENCE, which evolution has in spades.

    _____________________________________________________________________

    To no one in particular- Anyway, I thought I might also repeat something I wrote in another thread on this topic because I feel it is relevant here, with a few points added here and there.

    I really wouldn’t like to see this whole thread turn into a drawn out flame war on creationism versus evolution. That would be disappointing to me as there are a lot of creationists on this site who I feel actually make a great contribution and post very good, intelligent comments. Look, I’m in a scientific field, my goal is to try and understand how the world works and find the truth. I’m not interested in being right or wrong, I just want to know how things are.

    Seriously, what would one have me or any other scientist do? Try to look at it from a research perspective. When scientists explore how things work, what is most conducive to helping my understanding of the natural world and furthering our knowledge? Would you have me take every piece of data or finding and subject it to the criteria of a list of countless possible creation and ID ideas, all of which are largely subjective? That’s the way it would have to be if I am to take into account all possible viewpoints in an unbiased manner. Is that really the best way?

    Or perhaps a better way would be to use the scientific foundation of evolution, which is regarded throughout the scientific world as a solid working model for life on Earth, and use that as a guide? It is true that there is debate as to timelines and rates for the process or the why and when of the evolution of some species, but the basic concept, that living organisms adapt to survive in response to their environment or biological niche, remains unchanged.

    This is not a “theory,” at least not in the layman’s sense of the term (and those who claim it is show a remarkable lack of knowledge about science and its terminology). A “theory” in science is a much different animal. A good definition is this “A coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena.” Basically, a theory is a solid, well supported model that has been researched from all angles, built upon through evidence and peer review, and so now has gained general scientific consensus from all over the world as a realistic model for how things work. It can be built upon, amended, or changed in response to new evidence, but it is an accepted guideline. A theory is NOT A GUESS in science. I wish that people who throw out the fallacious statement that evolution is “just a theory,” would wrap their head around the real definition of the word. Concerning how life developed to be the way it is, evolution is a theory, which is to say that it is generally accepted by scientists as a very real process. Are you going to doubt the Theory of Relativity or Numbers Theory because they are “just theories”? The “just a theory” argument is an erroneous one made on the basis of a misunderstanding of science and is terms.

    There are a lot of mysteries of life on Earth, I won’t deny that for a minute. We may never fully understand this planet of ours and all of its workings. I won’t at all say that Intelligent design is absolutely impossible. At this point it is an unprovable thing. Heck, for all I know, evolution itself is an intelligently designed process. I won’t even claim we know all there is to know about evolution and its intricacies. All I know is that right now, the core concept of evolution is the most solid, reliable and objective way scientists have for trying to understand how life developed on this planet. Point out all of the claimed “holes” in evolution all you want (none of which debunk the basic premise), but it remains that a lot of very good findings have been made upon its foundation.

    Should this foundation and all of the work built upon it be thrown out to entertain the myriad subjective views of how the world came to be? Seriously, what would you have a scientist do? Surely you cannot expect them to throw everything we have learned out the window and go back to cross reference our findings with all known creation beliefs simply because one of them could be true?

    Like I said, I value a good deal of input from people on this site who I know believe in intelligent design. The last thing I want to do is to alienate these smart people. But please try to look at this realistically from the perspective of a person trying to do research on animal life and why it is what it is.

    Science is not a religion for me, it is a tool for trying to understand this world of ours and amend our knowledge of it through evidence and building upon concrete, widely accepted laws and principles. As much as many would like to have you believe otherwise, I think that generally there is no ulterior motive or social agenda involved. Most scientists (the good ones anyway) are not particularly against religion or people’s beliefs. They are just trying to find the truth in the best way they know how.

    I really wish the focus here would remain on cryptozoology, something I feel all of us, creationist and scientist alike, can come together and discuss.

45. DWA responds: February 11th, 2009 at 11:54 pm

    mystery_man:

    “you make the mistaken claim that there is something that could be called absolute knowledge.”

    Actually, if everything I wrote could be distilled to one sentence, it would be: There is no such thing as absolute knowledge.

    Nothing you are citing as first-hand evidence for the theory of evolution is, in fact, first-hand evidence. Were it so, evolution would be a law, which it isn’t. What I am saying is: no one can prove that evolution occurs; all we have is a lot of evidence (a lot a lot a lot; against which the creationists have, well, none) that added up leads us - reasonably - to believe that is what is going on. The change of a gene pool over time is something that happens that lends credence to the theory. It doesn’t prove it. (Remember? No such thing as absolute knowledge.) Gene pools can change because God says, let’s change that gene pool! But it does appear that the gene pool changes for reasons that support evolution as the mechanism.

    Evolution does have evidence, in spades. But that’s not proof, as any bigfoot advocate can tell you.

    What the scientists don’t have? Proof - or anything close to evidence - that God didn’t start - and keep -that ball rolling.

    I’d rather hunt cryptids myself. This stuff is angels and pins.

46. Scott C. responds: February 12th, 2009 at 12:44 am

    I commend your faith, guys. It’s greater than mine!

    To believe that a specie’s interdependent traits all showed up in a single generation…

    To believe that an organ’s interdependent parts all showed up at the same time…

    To believe that our arms and legs both developed along the same lines…

    To believe that corresponding male and female sex organs both showed up during the same generation…

    For me… it’s just too much to ask.
    Kudos.

47. mystery_man responds: February 12th, 2009 at 7:07 am

    DWA- I think you misunderstand the definition of scientific law and scientific theory. Read my definition of “theory” again. You seem to think that it means it does not have serious scientific weight, but it does.

    What do you mean? Speciation has been observed, like I said, especially in short lived organisms that we can observe over multiple generations. There are many examples of this being observed in the wild as well. That is first hand observation. What would you call it? What do you expect, that we get to see a fish morph into a dog? The very nature of evolution limits our ability to observe it happening, but it still has been observed. When we look at evolution, we are looking at which explanation best fits the evidence at hand, and one of those pieces of evidence is first hand observations of speciation. That evolution has not been observed in any capacity is false. Besides, like I said, if you are only going to accept first hand observations, then say goodbye to geology and astronomy.

    Perhaps we can’t know for sure. That is true. But we CAN try to understand which idea fits the evidence better. At this point, by the account of the vast majority of scientists, evolution is the best theory we have right now.

    God may have gotten the ball rolling, but I’d remind you that there is no proof that God DID get the ball rolling either. In this case, the logical principle of parsimony (Occam’s Razor) actually is that the default setting for any phenomena is to NOT believe in it. When there is equal evidence for or against, the logical default is that the phenomena doesn’t exist, until shown otherwise. Belief in any phenomena is a positive condition that demands justification, and the burden of proof is on the claimant. So I’d say, God COULD have gotten the ball rolling, but there is no reason to suppose he did. It’s based on faith. There’s nothing wrong with that, but demanding someone to prove God doesn’t exist is an absurd request.

    As for the other things that people are being pointed out here, I don’t have nearly enough space to go into all of these here, and many of them show a total lack of understanding of how evolution works in the first place. If there are those not willing to even bother to learn how the process works before arguing against it, I don’t feel the greatest urge to bother going into point by point rebuttals. I’ll just put out something to think about.

    There are thousands of scientists studying evolution with tools of ever increasing sophistication. These scientists have mostly an excellent understanding of physics, ecology, biology, anatomy, and how fossil evidence should be interpreted. Also bear in mind that science is a self correcting process, it progresses and changes due to findings from all sides of the fence. Scientists are not all in cahoots. They actively try to peer review and go to great efforts to falsify their hypotheses, and this is a good thing as whatever is left is likely closer to the truth. Science is hard on evidence, and scientists are more than willing to point out holes in each other’s arguments. And yet after all of this process, from scientists all over the world, none have found a better alternative to how life developed on tis planet than evolution.

    As I said before, the finer points may be disputed, but the basic premise of evolution (that life forms change in response to their environment) still has unanimous scientific agreement the world over. If one wants to challenge this, they must address the considerable accepted evidence.

    It is interesting that someone could propose that all of these scientists may have missed something with evolution (like the absurd claim that it defies the second law of thermodynamics, which it does not, among many others) and that they are all mistaken, yet without showing any peer reviewable data to that effect in an actual scientific publication. If scientists and the vast body of observations made are all wrong, and someone has valid evidence to this effect, why not put it out there and put it to proper scientific process and peer review? The person who could show through evidence (and not subjective pseudoscience based on one set of faith based beliefs), that evolution is wrong, that the overwhelming observations from all fields that support it are wrong, and propose a process that rationally challenged it, they’d have prestige, fame and fortune beyond their imagining.

    It hasn’t happened yet. And until it does, evolution still provides our best understanding of how life came to be the way it is.

48. mystery_man responds: February 12th, 2009 at 7:35 am

    DWA- Since speciation HAS been observed, and since organisms HAVE been seen to change in response to the environment (which fits into the basic definition I gave of evolution), I’m not sure how you can say that my example does not constitute first hand observation. This is a common argument against evolution, and it is false. Evolution has indeed been observed to happen in both laboratory and in the wild. It has been observed that the environment or certain events can exert a force on organisms that lead to certain individuals better surviving to pass their genes on.

    The most famous example is the white moths that lived in a polluted environment. The trees became blackened, which caused the white ones to stand out more and be eaten by birds. The black ones, on the other hand, blended in better, and within a few generations, these black ones had become the norm while white ones had died out. What is this if not first hand observation? this is only a very simple example too. There are many observed instances of speciation and species evolving in response to their environment.

    I’d have to disagree with you and say that these instances could be considered first hand evidence of the basic processes of evolution.

    These observed instances at the very least show that the environment can influence how an organism develops.

49. mystery_man responds: February 12th, 2009 at 8:32 am

    DWA- I thought I might give you some examples just so that you know what I’m talking about, besides the case of the peppered moths I mentioned.

    Just to run through a list of simple ones first. Many species of plant have demonstrated observable and measurable speciation in response to changes in the environment. Also insects exhibit changes in response to the use of pesticides. Many species of fruit fly have been well documented to show observable changes to their gene pool including speciation. Some parasites, such as the apple maggot fly and gall former fly have shown evolutionary changes as well.

    A famous case of observed evolution in insects occurred with the blue moon butterfly Hypolimnas boliva. An infection of a bacteria known as Wolbachia infected females and caused male embryos to destroyed at an early stage. This caused a huge drop in the males numbers, however, infected females developed a gene that inhibited the effects of Wolbachia, suppressing its ability to kill the male offspring. This gene spread quickly through the gene pool and showed a definite response to an environmental event, in this case the bacteria. The male population returned to normal.

    Microevolution in organisms that we can observe over many generations are well documented. Many types of bacteria have evolved in the laboratory in response to the presence of predators, such as a type that experienced a change in morphology in response to a ciliate predator. Unicellular bacteria have developed multicellularity in response to predators as well.

    A famous instance of observed evolution occurred with a population of E. coli bacteria at Michigan State University, which have been observed over 44,000 generations (over one million years for us in comparison). At the 31,500th generation, the E coli developed traits not present in the original population, including larger cells and faster growth rates. Most amazing of all was that they developed the ability to metabolize citrate. This is interesting because the inability to do so is one of the ways in which bacteriologists identify E. coli. This was recorded under strict procedure and the results are freely available to peruse.

    These are just some examples, and you may think that some little changes to these small organisms doesn’t add up to much, and it is not as spectacular as some of the changes the fossil record suggest. However the fact is these cases represent observed instances of organisms changing in response to the environment and those changes becoming established in the gene pool. This is more or less evolution. And it was observed first hand. It is compelling evidence.

    Unless your definition of first hand observation is different from mine, I’d ask you to consider these cases.

50. DWA responds: February 12th, 2009 at 9:14 am

    mystery_man:

    “God may have gotten the ball rolling, but I’d remind you that there is no proof
    that God DID get the ball rolling either. In this case, the logical principle of
    parsimony (Occam’s Razor) actually is that the default setting for any phenomena
    is to NOT believe in it.”

    Couldn’t have said it better. The default setting is, always, to ask for the evidence.

    But once again I see a critical skeptical failing, actually two of them:

    1. The failiure to distinquish between evidence and proof.

    2. The apparent background belief (never expressed, because it would of course be absurd to admit it) that our failure to perceive evidence means something doesn’t exist.

    I’m not asking anyone to prove or disprove God. I’m simply saying that not putting our finger on God doesn’t mean there’s no God, that’s all. In fact, the only evidence I can come up with for a God is: EVERYTHING. (No. People wrote the Bible, and it doesn’t stand by itself as evidence, period. Ask anyone who belongs to a non-Christian religion if you won’t believe me.)

    However compelling one may consider all the evidence for evolution (and I consider it pretty compelling), it no more adds up to proof than the evidence for Bigfoot does. In fact, the evidence for the latter CAN add up to proof; I can’t see the evidence for evolution ever adding up to proof, because we don’t see it happen. Even those instances in which people believe they’re seeing it happen - the moths, which I knew about, and certain species of walkingsticks come to mind - don’t mean it happens everywhere. At least they are not PROOF - far different from evidence, even from compelling evidence - that it does, anymore than watching a fish lay eggs should lead to the conclusion that all animals do.

    Evolution most certainly has a LOT of scientific weight. So do scientific observations of the universality of gravity - even though no one understands, exactly, how it works. Theories have weight; it’s why they become theories. They simply cannot admit to PROOF. I think you’re implying that I consider evolution “weaker” for not being proven. I don’t. It’s really a technicality; but it is an important one.

    Anyway. I just wanted to show why the gulf is a gulf, and apparently unbridgeable, and I think I’ve done that.

    I’m gonna go looking for the sasquatch now.

51. DWA responds: February 12th, 2009 at 9:19 am

    m_m: OK, one more thing as I just saw this.

    “And it was observed first hand. It is compelling evidence.

    “Unless your definition of first hand observation is different from mine, I’d ask you to consider these cases.”

    Considered. They’re EVIDENCE. That those species do something that is very consistent with the way we believe evolution works.

    Not PROOF, however, that evolution is a universal mechanism.

    Although I’d be willing to bet money that evolution works, basically, in the way it is shown for these instances.

    But remember: if asked up or down based on evidence so far submitted, I’d place a bet on the yeti and sasquatch, too.

    Speakinawhich.

52. kittenz responds: February 12th, 2009 at 9:43 am

    Munnin,

    I like your post. Especially ” I think that the evolution vs. creationism debate is too often presented as Atheists vs. Christians, or Atheism vs. The Bible. I think this is an oversimplification.

    I also agree that Intelligent Design is a sort of modified version of creationism. While persons of faith are welcome (in my book) to believe this, it is a religious view, and not a theory constructed through the application of the scientific method to the available evidence. This is why I feel it should not be taught alongside the theory of evolution in science class, as if it were a competing or alternate scientific theory. It may be true, it may be false, but it’s impossible to confirm either view scientifically.”

    That’s what I was trying to say, but you presented the idea in a much more articulate way. Thanks

53. cmgrace responds: February 12th, 2009 at 12:19 pm

    This may be a point, then again it may not. On the dogs descended from wolves subject, were not wolves selectively bred over time by people to produce certain aspects they found desirable? So if I am not wrong (I usually am, if anyone can enlighten me please do) then this is not a sufficient example of evolution.

    mystery_man, tell me if I have this right, evolution is simply adaptation to an environment and not species change. All the examples you listed were just adaptations of an organism to compensate for pressures in their respective environments. Not one example of yours showed one species turning into another species, no matter how many generations the process went through. E. coli was still E. coli. Except, maybe the example of the one celled bacteria becoming multi-celled. But was it still the same type of bacteria, or would it be considered a new type? I always thought (and I think taught) that evolution was a process where one species, again over a long period of time, gradually changed to a new species to live in a new environment. Please let me know if this is wrong.

54. Scott C. responds: February 12th, 2009 at 1:09 pm

    Speciation within a Family is to be expected, and is not the same thing as evolution, popularly defined.

    If there are both black and white moths to begin with, then of course environmental factors could favor the continuation of one and discontinuation of the other. Nothing evolves in that case: one of your two options simply ceases to be.

    This is a very simplistic model that sheds light on more complex examples.

    How thoroughly have you looked at creationist resources? Although there are more academic treatments, Ken Ham’s stuff–written on the popular level–is the an accessible way to get the gist.

    Poke around on http://www.answersingenesis.org, esp. their “Get Answers” tab.

    Btw, their Feb. 11 post concerns the famous Bahnsen/Stein debate. If you’ve never wrestled with the interaction that went down during that one, you need to.

    The Dawkins/Lennox debate is also worth your time: http://www.dawkinslennoxdebate.com

    The scientific method (let alone a merely anecdotal knowledge of science!) is simply too small a sandbox for this sandcastle.

    There seems to be a profound misunderstanding of
    a) the role of presuppositions
    b) the limitations of induction

    Anyways, to pit the way that people arrive at evolution against the way that people arrive at creationsim, is to demonstrate a profound misunderstanding of your own thought processes. Both are faiths and both interpret science in light of themselves.

    You might enjoy “The Reason for God,” by Theistic Evolutionist Tim Keller.

55. Revelation responds: February 12th, 2009 at 1:21 pm

    cmgrace, this, I think, is one of the reasons this argument is destined to continue. No one here has bothered to define what we’re discussing. Two types of evolution are in discussion here. Microevolution can be observed and reproduced. This is the various changes to a species based on selective breeding or natural selection. But this always results in the same species with slightly differing characteristics. For example, the british moth that changed from white to brown due to it’s reccesive melanistic traits that became dominant because of a shift in it’s habitat. It was still the same species. However, macroevolution cannot be observed nor reproduced, and I would argue that since it can’t, it needs to continue to reside in the realm of theory.

56. cmgrace responds: February 12th, 2009 at 2:19 pm

    Revelation, thank you for pointing out the difference.

    Scott C., thank you for the links. I will be looking at those shortly.

57. Revelation responds: February 12th, 2009 at 2:32 pm

    Scott C., The moth example would certainly be an example of evolution. Or, rather, natural selection. The moth with the better natural charactaristics thrives and passes down those traits while the lesser moth (for lack of a better term) loses the race. Originally, in this example, the white moth had the advantage over the black because of the white trees where it made its home. But the advent of the industrial revolution caused the trees to gradually change color, shifting the advantage to the darker colored moth. This is exactly what Darwin postulated, and has been observed. However, the further speculation that this could, over vast ammounts of time, lead to new species (macroevolution) is simply that, postulation, and can’t be empirically proven. It still must reside in the realm of theory. A creator God and evolution are not really mutually exclusive, exept when it comes to humans. Myself, I don’t deny that macroevolution occurs, I just don’t see any proof that it does. I do, however, object to it being treated as fact, as much as I object to a 7 day creation being taught as fact.

58. DWA responds: February 12th, 2009 at 3:45 pm

    Revelation:

    “However, macroevolution cannot be observed nor reproduced, and I would argue that since it can’t, it needs to continue to reside in the realm of theory.”

    What I have been saying above. In fewer and better words.

59. mystery_man responds: February 12th, 2009 at 5:09 pm

    cmgrace- I hope that has been explained for you by the other posters. I do apologize if I did not make it clear enough in my posts.

    DWA- Ah yes, you were talking about macro evolution, why didn’t you say so? The only reason why I went into all of that is that you made the blanket statement that evolution has never been observed, and I felt I had to respond. You did not specifically say macro evolution, but rather evolution in general. We do have first hand evidence of micro evolution in progress. We are not talking about PROOF, I was addressing your comment on FIRST HAND EVIDENCE. Macro evolution is inferred from loads of evidence, but no direct evidence, true. However its very nature makes our options limited on that front. But as I said, many fields in science rely almost exclusively on examining evidence for things that cannot be directly observed. The earth has not ever been directly observed rotating the earth, but we don’t doubt this happens because the evidence says it does.

    Anyway, I’m not going to sit around and nitpick on the evidence. All I will say is that there IS evidence, and this what drives science, its how we come to understand how the world really works. Evidence is the basis upon which we change paradigms and expand our knowledge. It seems you agree with me on that, so I don’t think there’s a problem.

    I have no proof that God did not get the ball rolling, any more than I do for the world being created by aliens, or an infinite amount of other possibilities. If you believe everything that could be true, you are opening yourself to endless possibilities that are impossible to verify. All we have is the evidence, which overwhelmingly points towards evolution. Whether that was guided by an outside force is unprovable, unfalsifiable, and lays with a person’s faith. I won’t CAN’T be, but as someone trying to study how the world works, I have to go where the evidence leads me.

    Again, the demeaning on evolution as a “just a theory.” Look, the buildings all around you are built around the concept of stress theory. When you fly in an airplane, the wings on the plane are kept in place by stress theory. Are you going to stop going into buildings or flying planes because it is “just a theory”?

60. mystery_man responds: February 12th, 2009 at 5:12 pm

    I meant the “Earth rotating the sun” not “the Earth rotating the Earth” in my comment above. Of course. Groan.

61. DWA responds: February 12th, 2009 at 7:15 pm

    m_m:

    We’re closer than you may think. But you knew that.

    Fine, I’ll say “macro” next time.

    (Personal Belief Alert: I feel no need to do anything about God until The Last Trump. I figure God’s doing whatever it is God does, and needs nothing from me, if God’s there. I don’t think God feels any need to leave tracks, because it matters not, to God nor to us, whether we know of God’s existence or not. All is OK, and the universe is unfolding as it should.

    I find it a little funny that The Force Behind All That Is And Is Not feels some sort of need for us to believe in Him. Her. It. It’s almost as funny as that we are created in His/Hers/Its Image. EVERYTHING is. And isn’t. But I don’t want to get into arguments about stuff for which there is absolutely no evidence. And Books of whatever kind - even on Kindle - can offer no evidence for The Infinite. End of Personal Belief Alert.)

    “Again, the demeaning on evolution as a “just a theory.” ”

    I’ve taken pains to piont out that I’m not doing anything of the kind! That it is a theory means one thing: we and our science cannot be the vehicle for proof of evoution; we’re too ephemeral. That is our problem. For evolution - macro and micro - I find more than enough evidence to satisfy me that natural selection is the way organisms relate to environments over time. I’m good with it.

    And I say we need to make peace with those who subscribe to alternatives for which no evidence testable by the scientific method can be provided.

    And they need to make peace with us.

    Because there is no way to scientifically test their beliefs.

    And there is no absolute assurance that evolution is natural law.

    Even though - to both camps - there is more than enough to convince them of the right road, for them.

62. mystery_man responds: February 12th, 2009 at 7:23 pm

    I also think it is important to remember in the examples I mentioned that in some cases changes in form and function were quite profound. When unicellular organisms develop multicellularity, or when bacteria change into vastly different shapes to deal with predators, or when E. coli exhibit a trait for which the lack of s a defining characteristic for that bacterium, this is significant and should not be trivialized.

    DWA- I thought I mention some other thoughts on the whole proof versus evidence thing. For one, you would have to define what you mean by proof. The thing is, just as there is no absolute knowledge, there really is no absolute proof in science either. What science does is reach levels of certainty based on the evidence presented. When enough evidence is brought forward and backed up by peer review and lack of falsification, it becomes a widely accepted theory, or a working model for how things are. It is ALL based on the weight of the evidence.

    Let’s go back to the importance of what a “theory” is. They have A LOT of weight in science. Theories are widely accepted, well researched working models of how things work. Many advances in science and things that we all take for granted everyday are based on the principles outlined in theories such as the stress theory and the theory of relativity that I mentioned before. These theories are not immutable, they can be added to and refined based on evidence, but the basic premises are solid enough, and supported by enough evidence for scientists to accept them as a working model.

    Theories, in fact science in general, are based on the idea that their predictions might be wrong, in other words, they have to be falsifiable. So for example, if you wanted to falsify evolution, you could, as one biologist put it, find fossil rabbits in the Pre cambrian. Saying “prove God did NOT do it,” does not count as falsifiability. The more the evidence stands up to scrutiny, and the more this evidence bears out predictions, the more weight a theory gains. So for instance in evolution, we have millions of fossils that show exactly what evolution predicts, and so this adds weight to the model. A few concrete, verifiable exceptions would be needed to seriously challenge the theory or change paradigms.

    I find it interesting that people can take for granted all of the benefits of these “theories,” yet criticize the science that produced them or try to cheapen the principles behind them. The fact is that, theories are very important in science, and are not to be taken lightly.

    So evidence is really what it is all about, not proof (which is a tenuously defined term anyway), or the corollary of that, “absolute knowledge.” Talking about PROOF is not really useful. The long and short of it is, the more the evidence adds up, the more it bears out predictions, the stronger our level of certainty in a phenomena becomes. If this evidence is not falsified, it becomes all the stronger, and believe me scientists go to great lengths to falsify their data and record their mistakes. This is more or less why evidence is so important.

    It is all about the evidence, and at this point in time, as far as the scientific community goes, there is a very strong amount of certainty in the principle processes of evolution. I think you maybe understand what I’m getting at here. Proof is a moot point. If one wants to debunk evolution, they have to address the evidence.

    I’m not even going to try to show whether God guides that process, just that it seems the process happens. There could very well be an outside force at work, scientifically it is here nor there. I’m not atheist, in fact I’m Buddhist, but that is a philosophical and faith based debate more than a scientific one based on physical evidence.

63. mystery_man responds: February 12th, 2009 at 7:32 pm

    DWA- Some of that stuff above is not directly aimed at you, by the way. You seem to understand the importance of theories. I was throwing out some general thoughts on the matter and it just happens to be mixed in with the part addressed to you.

64. jerrywayne responds: February 12th, 2009 at 7:47 pm

    Since Darwinism is the cornerstone of modern biology, and hence of zoology as well, one would hope its importance to cryptozoology is obvious.

    I’ve had long term discussions with creationists over the years and have come to two conclusions: 1. Creationists view nature and science with one eye always focused on the Bible or they wrestle with natural history with one foot planted firmly in a position of supernatural history.
    2. Creationists simply do not visualize or understand evolutionary earth history in the same way as a mainstream scientist would.

    As to the first conclusion, creationists cannot claim to treat evidence objectively if their primary intent is to hold onto and save their religious claims, claims which on their face are anti-Darwinian. The idea that creationists “admit” their presumptions is a suspect idea because such an admission is made to political advantage and not a statement of open epistemology. Without the political context (namely, how to present creationism in a secular classroom or school text), creationists are quite happy to present their beliefs as absolute, unquestionable fact based as it is on unchallengable unbending fact (the “inerrant” Bible). Their admission of preconception is meant to soften what is really a dogmatic stand and to put creationism superficially in the company of true scientific presumption (which is bound to what we find in nature).

    As to the second conclusion, creationists seem to have a unique view of Darwinism that often muddles any real dialog with evolutionists. For instance, geographic distribution of life forms lends serious credence to evolution. If evolution is true, we would expect to find uniquely distributed animals in their natural state (habitats). Indeed, it is a PREDICTION of evolution. Yet to creationists (or to the one’s I have read and talked to), this is no evidence at all. Never mind that the known geographic distribution of life runs completely counter to what one would reasonably expect from an “answer in Genesis”, namely the Ark of Noah story, or that any generic creationist account would have to pile on ad hoc explanations for what we find in nature concerning distribution, and never mind that evolution predicts such facts and creationism has no such predictive benefit: THIS IS NOT EVIDENCE OF EVOLUTION, PERIOD.

    Also in this vein, the issue of transitional forms. Creationists are confident that the fossil record has no transitional forms. Yet their definition of a transitional form is not what would be demanded by evolutionists. They want to have forms that are perfect half-measures (for instance), showing such things as half-wings. Evolutionists, on the other hand, consider transitional forms as forms that exhibit “mosaic” characteristics, features that show a mixture of two forms (bird and reptile, for instance).

    Anyway, I would like to suggest the following books to creationists (I believe in the power of the book).

    For an overview of evolution, I highly recommend Jerry A. Coyne’s new WHY EVOLUTION IS TRUE.

    For a decisive refutation of Morris/Gish type creationism, see Arthur N. Strahler’s SCIENCE AND EARTH HISTORY: THE EVOLUTION/CREATION CONTROVERSY.

    And for a strong critique of Intelligent Design, there is Robert T. Pennock’s TOWER OF BABEL: THE EVIDENCE AGAINST THE NEW CREATIONISM.

    Happy Birthday, Charles Darwin.

    Peace.

65. cmgrace responds: February 12th, 2009 at 7:53 pm

    mystery_man, thank you for responding. I may not have read your previous posts correctly. How would I learn if I didn’t ask questions.

66. mystery_man responds: February 12th, 2009 at 8:10 pm

    cmgrace- I think I should explain further on the significance of the observations made on bacteria. A lot of people will tell you “but it is still just bacteria,” but this is based on the mistaken assumption that all life forms are necessarily geared towards more advanced, complex, or “better” forms. This is not true, and those who say it is show a lack of understanding of how evolution works.

    Think about it. If all organisms were constantly changing into more advanced forms, we would not have any bacteria or one celled organisms to begin with. To expect a bacteria to morph into a frog is an unrealistic expectation, it is not what evolution predicts, and this happening in the conditions of these experiments would in fact be evidence against evolution.

    Organisms evolve precisely as they must, under selective pressures, in order to better survive under the pressures of their environment. There are many species alive today that have changed very little in millions of years because they are adapted well enough to survive in their environment and there has been no selective pressure for them to radically change. Evolution does not implicitly demand that animals keep changing and getting more complex, there is nothing that says they have to get “better” or “more advanced.” This is why finding a dinosaur alive today would not be evidence that evolution is incorrect. If its form is suitable for surviving in its environment, then a dinosaur could remain a dinosaur. The fact is, after millions and millions of years, we still have bacteria, we still have one celled organisms. They have certainly undergone minor changes to deal with changes, but there is no need to expect that the ones in these experiments should become something other than bacteria.

    A bacteria changing forms, yet remaining a bacteria, does not in any way contradict evolution. But the observations that its gene pool changes, or that organisms undergo speciation, show that there are adaptive and selective processes at work.

67. comstock responds: February 12th, 2009 at 9:04 pm

    Oh, my. I never had any idea there were so many creationists here at Cryptomundo. Not a good sign of the scientific literacy of many of the above commenters, I’m afraid. I know people will take offense, but I’m really surprised to see tired, debunked creationist arguments here. Oh well. We’re united in our love of cryptids, I guess.

68. fuzzy responds: February 12th, 2009 at 10:21 pm

    WOW! What a great post! And what fascinating comments!

    Can’t help thinking, as I read everything above, that the list of possible alternative Theories I mentioned waaay above - divine manifestation, intelligent design, holographic projection, panspermia, interstellar seeding, extraterrestrial intervention, alien manipulation, miscegenation, mutation, evolution and many more - could ALL have played a part in the development of all that is and ever was (and ever may be) contained in the Universe as we think we know it, and, therefore, may all be part of the Truth Proof around which we are dancing…

    Thanks, Loren - we need a controversial shrubbery-shaker (note sly Squatch reference) like this every now and then!

69. cryptidsrus responds: February 12th, 2009 at 10:32 pm

    Comstock:
    Not everybody here is a “creationist.” It depends on what you mean by “creationism.” I’m an IDer. Slightly different definition.

    Mystery_Man and DWA and others:
    Good points everybody!!!

    Although I must ask Mystery_Man a question:
    Point-blank:
    Do you believe that evolution occurred randomly—i.e., by chance? (As in, we’re all a “lucky accident”.)
    Or was it kickstarted by “something?” Like, a “designer” (which pretty much covers a lot of ground).

    The intellectually honest answer would be—”Don’t know.” Let’s admit that much, Ok?
    The problem is, Darwinists like Dawkins and Ruse and Dennett say it is PROVED it was a “random mutation.” Period. End of story. No need to say anything else. Please move along. Nothing to see here, folks. You get the drift. So what do you think?

    If you’ve already stated it, please understand it takes a while to read ALL the comments here. But good discussion. And I have to respectfully disagree with Kittenz. I’m through here. Toodles. Carry on, folks.

70. cmgrace responds: February 12th, 2009 at 10:58 pm

    mystery_man- I guess I have always looked at evolution in the “macro” form. I had never considered the “micro” form (although I have always accepted it as a natural process) to be evidence of macro-evolution. I like to think of myself as open-minded and willing to accept evidence as it is given to me. This thread has given me much to consider about my views of evolution.

71. mystery_man responds: February 12th, 2009 at 11:45 pm

    cmgrace- I’m glad you are considering what I have been saying here. Macro evolution is mostly represented in the fossil record, but the instances of micro evolution, unquestionable, measurable changes in many plants and animals due to changes in the environment or even human influence (such as animals or plants developing smaller sizes and shorter gestation periods in response to the bigger specimens being most likely to be harvested), certainly shows that animals develop differences in morphology across the gene pool in response to these pressures, which is the core concept of evolution in a nutshell. This is exactly what evolution predicts, and this can lead to speciation and macro evolution after a long enough time and under the right conditions. Anyway, thank you for taking the time to read my rather long posts.

    cryptidsrus- Wow, that’s a tough question. Do you want my personal view or my scientific, professional view?

    I’ll give you both views, and I’ll try to make this as concise as possible.

    Scientifically speaking, you could say that evolution is not really based solely on chance to begin with. Chance, in the form of mutations, certainly form the raw material for the process, but the process is guided by natural selection, which has nothing to do with chance. Natural selection takes these random mutations and sorts these variations out based on how beneficial (or detrimental) the mutation is to the organism’s survival. A mutation will quite simply either a) benefit the species, allowing it to spread more readily through the gene pool, b)be detrimental, in which case the mutation will likely die out, or c)become a neutral mutation which neither helps nor harms the organism and may or may not become a feature of the organisms gene pool. This is all guided by the environment and the organism’s niche. So the mutation is random, the selection is not.

    This concept follows into abiogenesis as well. Atoms and molecules do not arrange themselves by chance. They do so according to their chemical properties, and this can eventually lead to a situation where more complex molecules form. The odds of one becoming self replicating and causing life are very small, but remember you have a whole sea of these reactions going on, trillions and trillions of opportunities for this to happen. All it would take is one of these molecules to approximate a self replication process, and natural selection would take over and guide the formation of more efficient self replicators. Remember, there would be countless opportunities for this to occur and a self replicating molecule need not be particularly complex to begin with.

    That is the scientific explanation in its most basic form. My own personal opinion? Well, that is complicated. Abiogenesis has not been reproduced in a lab, but remember it is has not been possible to fully recreate those conditions either, and even if we could there is no guarantee that we could mimic the scale of what was happening and be sure to see it occur. I would have to say, personally speaking, that we don’t know with absolute certainty. It is something we may never know for sure, and I don’t think we can rule out anything absolutely.

    Now before you jump up and down as if I’ve just made some revelatory admission, remember that I am saying that we “don’t know,” which does not necessarily follow that some intelligent force in fact DID start things. No need to start a false dilemma here. I don’t want what I am saying here to be misrepresented as some sort of an admission if ID. It is simply an admission of “we don’t know for certain how life started,” no more, no less.

    Your question is a bit of a red herring, anyway. We are not discussing abiogenesis, or how life started here. This discussion is about whether evolution occurs, which by all accounts it does. Even if some sort of intelligent outside force started the “spark,” this is beside the point, and even if an intelligent kick start could be proven, it in no way debunks the process of evolution. It still does not refute the mountains of evidence that evolution occurs, that species change over time in response to their environment.

72. mystery_man responds: February 13th, 2009 at 12:11 am

    Cryptidsrus, other IDers here- I want to take just a moment to make something perfectly clear. None of what I am saying is in anyway a dig against you. I said before, I value the opinion of many IDers here concerning cryptozoology, and I do not want to alienate these smart people.

    As I said before, I am not atheist. I’m Buddhist. I do have a sense of spirituality, I am not some kind of cold hearted robot. I know other scientists who have a spiritual side too. I appreciate that there are mysteries out there that we may never know the answer to, indeed, may not even be capable of knowing the answers to. This is a thing of faith, and I recognize it as such. I really do think it would be unfair to say that all scientists are atheists, as is often implied.

    What I am trying to do, as much as I am able to, is understand the world and the universe through the best tool I know of for doing so, science. What I have been doing here is trying to illustrate how science views these issues and how information and evidence is processed. These are important concepts to understand, and invaluable if we are ever going to get cryptozoology further out of the fringe and more accepted as a serious scientific field.

    Isn’t that what we all want?

73. springheeledjack responds: February 13th, 2009 at 1:12 am

    I love these posts that become a group effort (I was going to say bar-room brawl, but it has been very civil).

    Really, where we will get our ceasefire and our peace is when all of us can acknowledge the validity of everyone else’s thought and stance…even when it is opposed to our own beliefs.

    Is there one source of wisdom in this world? Nope. Is there one infallible road of thought? Nope.

    Creationists, Darwin-backers, ID’ers, evolutionists, what does it all come down to?

    Trying to figure out and explain how the world works, plain and simple. Everyone’s trying to get their head around how we got here, why, and where it’s all going, and some people feel more comfortable with the God theories, while others are more of a scientific brand of thought (and while it seems that science and God are diametrically opposed, I personally don’t believe so).

    Personally, to my mind, science has all the hallmarks of a religion (hey, was that a landmine I just stepped on???:). Take it as you will, but as I said, it all comes down to trying to explain our world and our place in it, and people do it in different ways with different perspectives.

    The reason we get into trouble is when we think we have the corner on the “right answer” and everyone else does not…or those who don’t follow our line of reasoning don’t–”I believe this and I know I’m right, so everyone who doesn’t is obviously deluded and wrong.”

    If you can live with the idea that there is more than one path to knowledge, even when it seems like they don’t add up to the same thing, then we can all get along.

    SHJ

74. Scott C. responds: February 13th, 2009 at 1:23 am

    Dead-horse-beating isn’t something I do for K’s & G’s; but, at the risk of doing just that:

    The science sandbox is simply too small for this sandcastle! I congratulate those of you who have dedicated your lives to the scientific method– it’s valuable. But I really hope that you weren’t deceived concerning it’s kind or degree of value.

    If you never wrestle with the limitations of induction, and the role of presuppositions…if you never come to grips with your own inescapable assumption of absolute transcendentals, and never seek satisfactory justification for them… well, then you’ll never ask the right questions.

    If your intellectualism refuses to be any more multidisciplinary than science (strictly speaking), then it is stunted indeed.
    Please step back and consider your epistemic basics. This doesn’t require a degree in philosophy: thinking along the lines I suggest should be a cinch for guys as bright you obviously are.
    The Bahnsen/Stein debate, the Dawkins/Lennox debate, and “The Reason for God” by Tim Keller, are very accessible resources at your disposal.

75. cmgrace responds: February 13th, 2009 at 11:57 am

    Scott C.- I know you’re comment wasn’t specifically directed at me, but I must respond.

    My faith hasn’t been questioned. I still believe in God, and I do not need a scientific explanation for my faith. I was trying to get a better understanding of evolution and it’s apparent meanings (macro vs. micro) when it comes to science. I have also reviewed the evidence in favor if ID (Creation) and still have more to review on both sides of the subject. No, I don’t believe any species came into existence by a series of accidental mutations, but that is a matter of faith. However, I cannot deny that life on Earth has the ability to adapt to changes in it’s respective environment, that is a matter of science.

    I will continue to expand my knowledge, discuss all viewpoints, and ask questions. I think that this is what everyone here is trying to do.

76. DWA responds: February 13th, 2009 at 1:17 pm

    Final word.

    I’ve made my peace with science. I don’t ask any scientist to go out in the woods looking for the sasquatch or the yeti. I get it; they have jobs; they’re busy already.

    It’s individual scientists who laugh, guffaw, hee-haw (appropriate) and pooh-pooh, without having looked at the evidence, that arouse my ire. They are speaking from ignorance; they are obstructing progress; and they need to shut up.

    Same goes for anyone - creationist; IDer; evolutionist; on-the-fenceist; shoot, Darwin and Einstein themselves if they ever did it. ANYONE who, without having considered anything of the other point(s) of view, makes fun of them.

    If you cannot bring the evidence to the table and present it in a dispassionate fashion, you have no call to disparage.

    There’s been amazingly little disparagement on this thread. That’s good.

    But I don’t think anybody has convinced anybody else. That’s OK too.

    Peace is: if you are comfortable, I’m happy. I am too. Or if you aren’t, and still searching, well, so am I. Let’s continue our quests; not feel the need to enlighten the ignorant when we may be the ignorant ourselves; and maybe we’ll both find what we want to.

    The search isn’t aided by brickbats or smugness, so let’s get beyond them (which we may, from evidence presented here, be starting to do).

    Peace. Really.

77. Munnin responds: February 13th, 2009 at 1:32 pm

    kittenz responds:

    “Munnin, I like your post…” “…That’s what I was trying to say, but you presented the idea in a much more articulate way. Thanks”

    Thank YOU Kittenz, for your kind words. I appreciate them.

    mystery_man responds:

    “I appreciate that there are mysteries out there that we may never know the answer to, indeed, may not even be capable of knowing the answers to. This is a thing of faith, and I recognize it as such. I really do think it would be unfair to say that all scientists are atheists, as is often implied.”

    Well said mystery_man. I believe that more than a few scientists do also have a spiritual side. Oddly enough, I think many of those on either side of this debate would agree that science and spirituality are not mutually exclusive.

    cmgrace responds:
    “No, I don’t believe any species came into existence by a series of accidental mutations, but that is a matter of faith. However, I cannot deny that life on Earth has the ability to adapt to changes in it’s respective environment, that is a matter of science.”

    Very succinctly put, cmgrace. I agree.

78. kittenz responds: February 13th, 2009 at 7:23 pm

    springheeledjack said:

    “Personally, to my mind, science has all the hallmarks of a religion”

    Hear! Hear!

    The religion of TRUTH.

    (But I guess that’s how everyone feels about theiir own religion, isn’t it ?)

79. springheeledjack responds: February 14th, 2009 at 1:26 am

    My point on science and religion is that too many times (and usually in relation or reaction to cryptozoology) science or rather scientific types (I don’t know if I will actually give them the title of scientists) approach science like religious zealots/fanatics.

    While I like the scientific process, it is entirely tooooo easy to take a stance of arrogance and close mindedness. And I have no time for people who try to hide behind science…saying that science would not support the existence of cryptids because of the lack of evidence, or because someone supposedly took a scientific look at a cryptid and just decided it wasn’t there.

    Science is a really simple system of trial and error, built over time upon ideas that were explored, tried out, researched. And science has made plenty of mistakes over the centuries. Dinosaurs were first thought to be big, dumb, slow and inferior animals. We now know much more (or at least speculatively:), and that they may have been very advanced in their ability and thinking, especially to survive for so long.

    Now, the more complex an equation, the more variables and the more things that have to be factored in. With cryptozoology, there are a huge number of factors to be taken into account, and often the so-called scientific-scoffers either overlook these variables or just outright ignore them. Example? Loch Ness. Large body of water…24 miles by 1 mile wide…also the water is peaty so visibility is nil. Also depth–up to 700+ feet deep. If there is a creature (see I’m being open minded:), we know little about its appearance, intelligence, eating habits, diet, social patterns, sleep patterns, mating habits, its abilites (sight, hearing, echo location as suggested with Champ?), amphibious nature?, and that is just off the top of my head.

    From a scientific standpoint, you may be able to say that based on just the eye witness evidence you are not convinced that it exists, and that’s fine. But do not even try to talk in absolutes–that it does not or cannot exist. No one to date has enough information to be able to make a claim like that. Nuff said.

    Which brings me back to our present debate…science runs afoul of creationism so often, I think because of its own arrogance–it is too easy in science to take the same sort of stance as any religious fanatic…that science knows all and has the corner on the knowledge market about how the world works. And when that card comes out, it’s enough for creationists and IDers to laugh and scoff, because everyone knows full well that science is at a loss on way too many fronts to explain how the world works.

    The reverse is also true…and for scientific supporters, to just throw everything in the “faith” category is too neat and tidy…but hey some people like neat and tidy. That’s the point of religion…it helps you cope, helps you explain the world…and somedays it just helps you get through the crappy day.

    Bottom line again is that I don’t see that science and religion have to be at odds…as long as both can accept the idea that no one has all the answers and that the other guy’s ideas are just as valid as our own…that’s a hard one for most people:)

    Alright, enough of this, I have to go plan a trip to Lake Champlain…

80. DWA responds: February 14th, 2009 at 11:42 am

    shj:

    OK, I had to come back.

    To agree with you, every word.

81. fuzzy responds: February 16th, 2009 at 7:24 pm

    Of interest, see: “Seven signs of evolution in action.”

82. Terrell H King responds: March 10th, 2009 at 3:03 pm

    Greetings fellow cryptid fans.

    This is my first time posting, so I’ll quickly introduce myself.

    My name is Terrell and I head up Creation Science Outreach over here in London.

    It is my policy not to seek arguments, and unfruitful engagement, so in that sense I agree their should be mutual respect between both parties of Creation and Evolutionism. Respect that all have the right to their own opinion, and to pursue science and the promotion there of.

    What I am adamantly adverse to is the unwaiveringly biased, blinkered and unscientific view that some adhere to with religious zeal and faith. Namely x amount of Evolutionists.

    First we have to realise that there are 6 types of Evolution. Only one - variation within a kind - is scientific. The others - stellar, cosmic, chemical, organic and macro are purely religious.

    Cosmic - The main evidences of the Big Bang theory posited are background radiation and Red Shift. The radiation comes from every where, not from any central point of a magical ‘bang’ of nothing, and most things are Red Shifted, which is explained best by Tired Light or Gravitational Red Shift. Otherwise it would seem Earth is the centre of the nothing that exploded with magical energy from nowhere.

    Stellar - No one has conclusively seen one star form. You might see dust clear or a nova happen, but not a star being born. How can dust magically come together in frictionless space into a solid? - it doesn’t happen on Earth. Boyle’s gas law drives it apart. Plus to get this many by random chance for no reason from no here? We’d need to see 6 million defying the laws of physics every minute or so to get this many even in 20 billion years.

    Organic - A year after the publishing of Darwin’s ‘Origin…’ (in which he never discusses the origin of species), Louis Pasteur (a real scientist, not an apostate divinity student/ medical school drop out) devised an experiment that proved Biogenesis (that living matter comes from living matter), and disproved the dark ages myth of spontaneous generation. The chances of left handed amino acids being produced with or without oxygen in water by complete random chance, after being hit by lighting, and then forming itself instantly into proteins, a cell, and instantly having a way of respiring, excreting, reproducing and x amount of other essential things is so way beyond ridiculous that any man that holds to it does so simply by religious choice. No oxygen - no Ozone - UV light kills life in 0.3 seconds. Oxygen - oxidizes life and kills it. Law of Mass Action breaks apart any proteins attempting to magically form themselves for no reason. Simple protein forming by nothing but random chance chance - 1 in 10 to the power 119.

    Haven’t got time for Chemical, but simply try and cross the Mass Gap at Helium 4.

    Macro! - Dogs produce dogs, and the wolf, the dog and the coyote probably had a common ancestor. No new information is ever added to any genome that can produce a new kind. Mutations are a loss of information and there are no positive ones. Nature can by blind chance produce patterns, but never information. You need an intelligent designer to initiative a first cause of information. FARM? We still have fish, amphibians, reptiles and mammals and none of the ones we’ve observed have started to change into any other kind in the 5000 years of recorded human history (Evolutionists cry in unison - ‘that’s not long enough! it was a long, long time ago in a land far away). Where does this new genetic info and rearranging of the chromosome come from? Aliens? (No Francis). You’re staring at something physically, mathematically and scientifically impossible. It’s religious! That’s why Goldschmidt posited the ludicrous Punctuated Equilibria religious idea.

    Anyway, apologies if I was rude or crass, I can’t help if that’s my manner.

83. lincoln s responds: July 5th, 2009 at 7:38 pm

    why don’t they try to find a way merge creation and evolution if you take it from my point of view evolution fits in just fine in the bible (except for the transition from ape to man) once you do they won’t be arguing about living dinosaurs noahs ark or the missing link. and also I won’t be stumbling upon sites like stupid dinosaur lies.com and can research living dinosaurs seriously:)

84. deadx responds: August 19th, 2009 at 10:32 am

    Mr. King,
    Well said my friend!
    I am a creationist who is an eyewitness to a cryptid sighting in Lake Michigan that makes any Loch Ness sighting I have ever heard of pale into insignificance. Myself and a friend and an unfortunate young man (or fortunate, depending on how one wishes to view this experience) saw at least 10 and possibly 12 (plesiosaurs?) in Lake Michigan on July 1966. The largest of the animals was more than 100 feet long and that portion was just the back of the animal protruding from the surface of the lake. If all of the fins or flippers that we saw coming out of the water belonged to only one animal then the creature was several hundred yards in length. The largest fin was more than 20 feet high. These creatures were only 200 yards, or less, from the shore and were plainly visible especially to the young man who was on the lake with an inflatable air mattress and who himself was only a few feet away from the creatures. I at first thought I was seeing a pod of killer whales because of the shape of the “dorsal” fins I saw coming out of the water. Of course Lake Michigan is fresh water 973 feet deep and 300 by 120 miles in size so there are no whales in that body of water. We did not observe any of the heads or necks or tails of the creatures since they were never raised out of the water but the creatures were obviously feeding on enormous schools of alewives which were everywhere easily seen.
    I have had other close encounters with cryptids, namely Big Foot on a camping-fishing trip in Illinois and a giant spider in the jungles of Cambodia during my tour of service as a Green Beret in 1969-70. I have been laughed at and mocked for my stand and for relating my experiences but I am the one amused by the resistance to the fact that these creatures exist. I thank God for my experiences and hope for more of them. I enjoy visiting this site frequently and waiting for others to come forth with their stories.

Leave your comments

You must be logged in to post a comment.

|Top | Content|