Why is evolution considered fact if it is based on a theory?
61
Evolution - The Basics of Darwinism.
Evolution is the science of adaptation in living creatures. In modern times there is a schizm between two schools of thought on how mankind came to be. The first school of thought is creationism, whereby God created Adam and Eve and through those two beings, modern man has his roots. The second school is evloution or Darwinism stating that man evolved from the primordial ooze, and underwent a series of mutations leading up to his modern state.
UPDATE!!!UPDATE!!!UPDATE!!!
Go down to the comments list to find the hyperlink to the History Channel's story called "The Link". This show details the evidence uncovered by a team of top scientists on "Ida", a fossil that has been called the missing link between primates and humans. This is a 95% complete fossil of our earliest human ancestor!
Evolution and Creationism have always been at odds because one stems from faith and faith, by its nature, does not abide questioning, while the other is a series of scientific discoveries that have led to enduring hypothosis. Evolution is considered a fact because it can be proven beyond reasonable doubt.
The theory of Evolution stems from scientific research that has unearthed the bones of prehistoric man, dinosaurs, and other such specimines. Through processes like carbon dating, we have been able to determine dates that these creatures walked the earth. Carbon dating, like all things that are considered scientific fact, can only be called fact once they have been proven to be reproducable. Creationism is a faith based doctrine that excludes the idea of man being in any other state than his present one, because in the Bible it is stated that God created the heavens and the earth and in his image made he man.
The problem with faith based doctrine is that it forbids the very idea of inquiry by its nature. To question shows a lack of faith. However, the intrepid mind will look anyway and the discoveries one makes sheds light on any situation. For example, it is well known and documented that inbreeding of any species creates genetic flaws, flaws which over time would render the species unable to survive or procreate. This would tend to discredit the idea of Adam and Eve populating the world. We also see that Christianity is not the first religion of its kind to try it's hand at the mythos of creation. In fact an ancient deity known as Mithras parallels the story of Jesus Christ perfectly in every way, from being a carpenter to dying and rising again. There is also the Dead Sea scrolls, the Gnostic Bible, and the Councel of Nicea to keep in mind as well.
Personally, I believe that there is a Supreme Being, a God if you will. I also believe that we evolved from a common ancestor of the modern ape. In short I believe that evolution is a fact and the truth, but that such a complex and intricate plan; indeed the very workings of our everyday world, could only have come from the divine.
Your Oppinion
So What Do You Think?
See results without votingPrintShare it! — Rate it: up down flag this hub
Comments
You make some excellent points. But allow me to counter point some of them if I may. You first state that creationism has not changed, and to that I beg to differ. If you are saying that Truth or Fact is that which changes least, then you must be willing to accept Islam and the Quran as the only true Word of God since that has remained unchanged since Mohammed first spoke the words. The original Arabic is still included in the book. The Bible has undergone numerous edits and changes, afterall it's not called the King James Version of the Bible for nothing. As a matter of fact the statement that kicked off the Salem Witch Trials, "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" by the original Hebrew (the original language of the Bible) read "Thou Shalt not Suffer a Poisoner to live". Also, you can find a source that says carbon dating is unreliable, but for every source that says one thing, I can dig up one that says the opposite. Faith is a wonderous thing, but you are correct in saying that everything should be researched. Your link to the above website is run by those who have an interest in seeing the creationist view point emerge victorious, and history is afterall written by the victors. Lastly, your point to the missing link, true the exact humaniod figure has not been found, but there is entirely too much evidence to support the idea that one did exist. Skeletons of homo erectus,Australopithecus and others have been found.
As to your comment also on allowing differing ideas to be examined as options for study, that would violate the separation of church and state. To disregard that ideal would be to welcome theocracy back into our culture, and theocracy has given the world nothing if not war, genocide, and the sanction of hate crime. Every theocracy that has ever existed, has violated basic human rights while it was in power, and nearly every theocracy eventually got overthrown.
I agree that the kjv is not the original uncoruptable WORD OF GOD, which is why I am actively studying Biblical Hebrew which like most languages is slightly different from the modern versions spoken today. This however does not make me a Bible scholar, Which is why I am not going to debate Which religion is true. I am in no way qualified to do that. But correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't the topic Evolution Fact or theory? I don't see how Islam, or any other religion supports evolution. Please correct me again if I am wrong, since I do not claim to study all other religions as closely. Besides that to point out the harm caused by misguided Christians does not mean YAHWEH'S WORDS have changed, It just means that man has tried to change what they could not understand. I do not choose to hinge my faith solely on King Jame's understanding either. But while we are pointing out the harm in belief systems, lets get back to evolution. This belief is responsible for Racism, and antisemitism Hitler based his beliefs on superior race. But we could point fingers all day and still get nowhere. My point remains this, evolution though popular in opinion should be looked at as Theory only Hence the title The Theory Of Evolution. Secondly it is just as much a religion as Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, or any other. Thanks for being so open, I admire that.
P.S. From a Creation view point, GOD created many other creatures that are no longer in existence. this does not mean they evolved into something else. Who is to say GOD didn't create homo erectus, Australopithecus and others. Evolution is based on faith that a missing link exist, which further supports my point.
I feel the need to say again though that I completely believe that God indeed did create man, just not whole and entire. You said "who's to say God didn't create homo erectus and australopithecus and others", well whose to say that he didn't create them by creating a simple celled organism with the genetic plan to become them in a few million years? There is too much evidence to support the theory of evolution. True, there are other species that are no longer on this earth, though I do not claim that they evolved into anything else. I point out the intricacies of other religions because I have studied them, most of the major ones anyway. You can't really say that evolution is responsible for Hitler's genocide though. Hitler was, let's face it, kinda crazy. I don't think it would have mattered what he thought, blaming the Jews for all the woes of Germany and giving Germans a sense of superiority was largely political. That would be tantamount to blaming Christianity or Catholosism for terrorism because of the Holy Crusades. Since we are talking about proof, if we were to stack evidence on a scale, what evidence would there be to support creationism? As far as I can tell, Eden has not been discovered, the remains of Adam, Eve, Enoch, Cain, Able, or any remnants of the Tree of Life have not been uncovered. Genetics shows the impossibility of like genes continuing to mesh unflawed. Even if the entirety of evolution is incomplets, the evidence is much more persuasive than that of creation. I don't want to upset you or anyone else when I say this, but the vast majority of the support for creationism is the Bible. The existance of the Bible is not proof that the Bible is either the truth or the word of God, just that it's a book that exists. Lastly, evolution is not a religion. Many could argue that science is a religion who's temples are laboratories, and whose God is the gene, but really that is more of an attempt to classify science as a means to refute God's existance which it is not. Science is the attempt of man to understand his world. Fossils, primative man's remains, tools that have been unearthed etc, these all support the idea that man has changed over the years. And to your point, it is the Theory of Evolution, you are correct. Every time I have ever heard it spoken of, I have heard it spoken of in that way.
Rest assured that your difference of opinion in no way upsets or offends me. As I said I am not an authority on either side of the fence. I do appreciate your insight, I to agree that man has changed since Adam and Eve. I believe that we are a product of breeding. How ever this does not support that modern man came from any thing other than man to me. Furthermore if we evolved from apes, why are there still apes unchanged today? To say we came about from any other species does not fit into how species reproduce today, or have they lost the ability to evolve. You can breed many different kinds of dogs and get a new breed of dog, but it is still a dog. You will never be able to breed two dogs and get a human. And there is not a very high success rate for inner- species breeding, as far as I Know when ever species tampering has been done the results are always death, or the offspring are sterile. Please forgive me for being so pasionate about this topic, I just feel that this theory being sold as science is false advertising. As I said there are others better qualified then I to debate this. My main goal is simply to get people to look at what is being taught to us as fact with an objective mindset rather then to except things as fact because someone else said so. That is all I have to offer at this time. Thanks for being so patient and kind, some poeple tend to get nasty when questioned about there beliefs.
I agree that it is a real shame that many folks out there get super upset when talking about belief. I have really enjoyed our conversation. I want to say one final thing though, since you brought up breeding. I believe that we share a common ancestor with prehistoric apes. That is why our genome so closely resembles that of the ape family. You mention breeding dogs, well if you take a Poodle and breed it with a Labrador you get a Labrodoodle (an actual new breed of dog). You also have Golden Doodles, a golden retriever and a poodle. Stand both of those dogs side by side, they may not have much of a resembleance to one another but they both have a common ancestor, the poodle. Modern science also has a theory about why our pinkie finger is smaller than the rest of our fingers, and that is that we are evolving further to the point where it becomes an ancillary digit, and will eventually dissapear. Our appendix is also a vestigal organ. I look forward to having more discussions like this. Thank you.
I must say I've really enjoyed reading this article! CM Johnson, I am in the same boat you are. It is terribly difficult for me to deny evolution (especially difficult because of my science background), but I too believe in a Supreme Being (for me it is God). For years I have thought about writing a paper with all the "evidence" I've come across, one way or the other, but have never found the time.
What if God (or a Supreme Being, however you would like to view it) put the evidence for evolution out there just to make us question our faith and to see who would remain faithful no matter what. I ask myself questions like this and can never come up with an answer.
Evolution can be observed though. When I took an anthropology class they showed us the example of a type of lizard (the name of which escapes me now) and how they migrated. When they got to a mountain range some of the lizards traveled left around the mountain, and others traveled right. Scientists found that these lizards evolved differently due to the differences in conditions from either side of the mountain range. Also, fish who are found living in caves have white scales and no eyes because it is dark and evolution has allowed them to expend their energy elsewhere besides trying to see in a pitch black pool of water.
I also like how you pointed out that we did not evolve from apes but that we share a common ancestor. This is often misunderstood. (We do share 99% of our DNA with chimpanzees.)
Thanks, I appreciate your feed back. This is a great discussion to have.
Have you read anything on "irreducible complexity"? That would lend support to ID and upset Darwin.
Irreducible complexity, for those not familiar with the term, is the idea that certain biological systems are far too complex to have either been created simultaneously or to have evolved from less complex systems. The theory states that these systems are so important to the life form that anything less complex than their current state would not only be detrimental to the organism, but would almost certainly cause the organism to stop functioning entirely.
This theory has been used in an attempt to prove the theory of Intelligent Design, which states that these systems are so complex that they could only have been designed to work that way, that there is no way that chance or natural selection could have been involved. The theory stretches back, in many forms, all the way back to ancient Rome and Cicero. It has also been regarded by modern science as an “argument of ignorance”, or a theory that says “it cannot be proved false, and so therefore must be true.” Even Professor Behe , who attempted to use this theory as a defense in the Kitzmiller vs. Dover case, admitted to holes in the theory. The main problem is that it assumes that complexity cannot be created by chance. Several of his examples for the theory, for example the mouse trap, E. Coli bacterium, and the eye, have all been shown to have come from simpler mechanisms, and mutated into their present state because of the demands placed upon them, or in short, evolution.
This theory is mainly based in belief that direction must be present from an external source, but does not actually have any evidence to support it. One can see this in the variation on the theme known as "the watchmaker" theory, which postulates that the existance of the watch itself, by it's complex nature, admits to the existance of the watch maker.
Your question was very intelligent and well thought out, I appreciate the opportunity to have discussed it with you. Thank you.
Quotes from the Case.
In the final ruling of Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, Judge Jones specifically singled out Behe and irreducible complexity:[70]
"Professor Behe admitted in "Reply to My Critics" that there was a defect in his view of irreducible complexity because, while it purports to be a challenge to natural selection, it does not actually address "the task facing natural selection." and that "Professor Behe wrote that he hoped to "repair this defect in future work..." (Page 73) "As expert testimony revealed, the qualification on what is meant by "irreducible complexity" renders it meaningless as a criticism of evolution. (3:40 (Miller)). In fact, the theory of evolution proffers exaptation as a well-recognized, well-documented explanation for how systems with multiple parts could have evolved through natural means." (Page 74)
What about the failed experiments in Evolution to produce the so called primordial soup?
Also how come the E. Coli after 30 some years of experiments hasn't mutated into something other the E. Coli? After all on a generational equivalence that is millions of years for human life, and look at the supposed changes we have gone through. That should be good enough to demonstrate a very good definitive change, and not just a few subtle changes.
Failed experiments are a part of science. You can't always get it right the first time out of the box. What about all the succesful experiments that have been accomplished? Remember, I'm not saying that the world happened by accident, nor am I denying the hand of a divine being. What I am saying is that these theories tend to be mutually exclusive, and I don't agree with that. Creationism seeks to disprove science, science is accused of seeking to disprove creationism. Inteligent Design is a step up, but it still seeks to disprove evolution, which I find rather strange. Why can't God have created whatever He created with the express purpose that it adapt and mutate over time to more effectively survive? Why must one cancel out the other? Plus, 30 years for a bacterium isn't equivelent to millenia for us. The rate of change is still dependant on the surrounding environment. Taking a small sample of bacterium and subjecting them to experimentation, does not qualify as continual, and significant change. Remember that to mutate a relative constant must be maintained on the majority of a population.
The reason they choose creatures like guppies, fruit flies, and E. Coli is to achieve in short order what would be thousands/millions of years. In the E. Coli expirment, it should be equivalent to several million years, which is more than enough time for New Genetic information to be added, and a significant change especially under various controlled environments.
So to me it does as a Scientist myself, the E. Coli experiment is good enough to be a continual. And failed experiments aren't necessarily bad news, it means going back and either revising the experiment, the theorem it's based on, or it proves the oppossite of what one is trying to prove.
Some Scientist think our life here comes from Space itself (me thinks those guys are space cadets). It still doesn't answer the question how life started, they are only copping out.
Now as to God creating an abilitiy for mutation, that isn't beyond His power. In part the diversificaton, and adapation of various species demonstrates that.
I am just trying to exchange ideas here, and you seem to be very thorough (and seemly well informed) in your responses. I enjoyed this and created some food for thought.
I went a did some reading abuot irreducible complexity. It was interesting, thanks for the suggestion. My thoughts are, if GOD is omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent in the traditional sense of these words, the it is possible for creation theory to be true and evolutionary theory to be ture.
The scientific community need to many device to analyze microscopic organism and objects in the cosmos, yet they still cannot know for an absolute fact, because they were not there, so they must have faith in their theories.
I liked what Goaters4848 wrote
"What if God (or a Supreme Being, however you would like to view it) put the evidence for evolution out there just to make us question our faith and to see who would remain faithful no matter what. I ask myself questions like this and can never come up with an answer."
I ask myself thesame types of questions and I could never come up with the answers. I just think that GOD musthave fun watching us try to find answers for questions that have no answers.
Very interesting hub. As a biologist and a Christian, I find it annoying that people feel a need to merge science and faith into one group. What people don't understand is that evolution is about more than one species being descended from another. It's about natural selection. Survival of the fittest through our ability to adapt. I really enjoyed hub.
That's true. It is kind of interesting, in a sad way, that no one gets as passionate about the disappearance of some of earths creatures because it has no bearing on their lives. Faith and science have always been hot topics because it deals with belief, and for some reason people seem to believe that if you hold a belief about something, it can't be questioned. I have often heard people exclaim, "How can you tell me what I believe is wrong!?!?!" Well, facing facts, no matter what you believe, if there is more evidence, real evidence, to support the opposing idea....you're probably wrong. Faith doesn't make it right. Like with evolution. There is tons and tons of evidence to support the theory. But I'm still writing this hub, because evidence will always have to battle it out with faith.
UPDATE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The History Channel has recently released its footage of a show entitled " The Link ", which shows a 95% complete skeleton of what is being called the missing link. Click here to go to the History Channel's story on Ida. http://www.history.com/content/the-link/about-the- . This fossil has been dated to 47 million years ago by measuring the radioactivity of isotopes found in the material the fossil was incased in and in the bones of the fossil itself. Carbon dating has been held to be unreliable by critics of the technique, but using radioactive isotopes and applying the known shelf life of those isotopes to the degredation of the radioactivity of the trace isotopes found with the fossil, a very acurate timeframe can be found. This fossil was found in Germany's Messil Pit, which over the years, has yielded up many and various fossils.
Jesus_saves_us_7 says:
10 months ago
If you state that we all have a common ancestry"ape" or any other. Where is the evidence, all of the changes from one to the other. This would have to produce a common link. this does not to my knowledge exist, hence the search for the "missing link" if you will. Also where are the stats on the accuracy of carbon dating. To say that creation science is not science is absurd and that it is not supported by facts is unfair and unresearched. The fact that evolution has the upper hand by controlling the main stream of media and allows only "facts" that support their theories does not make creation nonfactual. It just means evolution is a well protected religion, based on the fact that it too requires faith. The difference between the fact of creation vs evolution is that creation has remained unchanged, where as any one who can read a text book can see the theory of evolution has changed greatly over the past 20 years. Where your facts still facts 20 years ago, if so how could they change. the truth is the same now as tomorrow, or it was never really truth. I am not saying that evolution should not be an option for study, but if it has nothing to hide why not allow oppositional thoughts to be taught along side each other. All I am saying is this, to anyone who reads this, Don't take any thing for fact without researching it for your self. I learn new things each day, this tells me I don't know everything. The fact that facts change over time means that "science" is still learning too. To get some of the facts on creation science for yourself go to www.drdino.com or www.answersingenesis.com . I apologise for ranting and raving and going on and on, but I just feel that there are still a lot of holes in the theory of evolution. Which is why it should still be sean as theory instead of fact. I am not a scientist and therefore can not do as much justice to the facts supporting or disproving any one or the other which is why I encourage anyone to click on the links I have posted if this message if approved by this Huber, who did by the way do a good job of answering the request for this hub. I do respect your opinion but, I strongly disagree. My main problem with evolution is this, it is a physical impossibility for life to evolve from a single celled organism into a complex structure such as humans and apes over any length of time. There is no way for us to survive to transition of life supporting organs such as a heart and lungs without some form of external life support, and even if it could it would leave some evidence. THE MISSING LINKS TO FILL IN THE HOLES! From a creation stand point, there is a similarity between man and animals such as apes do to a common creator"GOD". That is my opinion, and I encourage you to seek your own truth be it in line with my belief or popular opinion. Lastly I would like to say that any statement that says GOD'S WORD and evolution are both true or acceptable together is not well thought since each one is calling the other one a liar. Are you willing to call YAHWEH a liar? HIS WORD says I (meaning HIM) created the heavens and the earth, and everything in it. HIS WORD Also states that HE made us in HIS image. Are you to say He looks like an ape or primordial ooze? just food for thought. Thanks for being unbiased in posting this if you should choose to do so.