Evolutionism

We've done experiments were we take different species of protozoa and had them compete over periods of months and seen one species wipe out the other by adapting quicker. The ever changing FLU is a common experiment that goes on all the time in us.

As far as speed you're looking at months to years as evolution is gradual change unless you look at bacteria or virus' which change quickly. HIV in the human body can change ever letter of it's genome once ever 24 hours and ever 2 two letters once ever 7 days.

A lot of the people I work with go out into the field and measure live animals and record how they slowly change. Just yesterday I was looking at data on how Gila Monsters were changing to adapt to live on golf courses here in Arizona.

Oh, excellent...

I forget you are some kind of a lab rat... ... lol...

I just thought you were referring to something a little more observable... :dry:

But you can observe evolution and evolution is a proven fact. Wether the theory of evolution is true which stats all life on earth derived from a single organism cannot be proven because we dont have a time machine to go back and see if it didnt come from another source.

But yes evolution is an observable fact and ive personally done experiments in a labartory and seen it.

Did you see my post quoting Asimov?

Creationists have it "mostly right"... lol...

They just see and define... They dont wonder...

In my opinion, "God"/ the force, is evolution, and therefore, yes, he/it, made all this...

He made the world in seven days, but how long is a "day" to god? Like a year to a housefly?

Just talking...

Streen wrote: My parents are Christian Baptists so I've learned a thing or two about the battle between Creationism and Evolutionism.

This shows you how strong beliefs can be.

ChillBroBaggins wrote: I will second the assertion that evolution is a fact. Here is one strong piece of evidence:

Evolution is not fact. You have good observations and a sound theory and in your “Final Thoughts” you formulated a well proposed statement that I have no issue with; but, that does not constitute fact.

Br John...
I respect you as an individual and I respect your ideas and opinions. But the article you linked to is not entirely accurate. They cited a few other documents where they took their interpretation of what was stated and worded things to support their argument.

I agree with the statement in the link,

“In science, a theory is not a guess, not a hunch. It's a well-substantiated, well-supported, well-documented explanation for our observations.”

That is correct.

“we use laws to describe them, and a theory to explain them. You don't promote a theory to a law by proving it. A theory never becomes a law.”

Is not entirely correct.

“A theory never becomes a law. In fact, if there was a hierarchy of science, theories would be higher than laws. There is nothing higher, or better, than a theory”

is not entirely incorrect.


Personally, I think that is not one of the better links to point people to. It is very misleading and contains several inaccuracies.

A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. If enough evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, it moves to the next step—known as a theory—in the scientific method and becomes accepted as a valid explanation of a phenomenon.

When used in non-scientific context, the word “theory” implies that something is unproven or speculative. As used in science, however, a theory is an explanation or model based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning, especially one that has been tested and confirmed as a general principle helping to explain and predict natural phenomena.

Any scientific theory must be based on a careful and rational examination of the facts. In the scientific method, there is a clear distinction between facts, which can be observed and/or measured, and theories, which are scientists’ explanations and interpretations of the facts. Scientists can have various interpretations of the outcomes of experiments and observations, but the facts, which are the cornerstone of the scientific method, do not change.

A theory must include statements that have observational consequences. A good theory, like Newton’s theory of gravity, has unity, which means it consists of a limited number of problem-solving strategies that can be applied to a wide range of scientific circumstances. Another feature of a good theory is that it formed from a number of hypotheses that can be tested independently.

A scientific theory is not the end result of the scientific method; theories can be proven or rejected, just like hypotheses. Theories can be improved or modified as more information is gathered so that the accuracy of the prediction becomes greater over time.

Theories are foundations for furthering scientific knowledge and for putting the information gathered to practical use.

A few theories do become laws, but theories and laws have separate and distinct roles in the scientific method. A theory is an explanation of an observed phenomenon, while a law is a description of an observed phenomenon.


I am normally pretty passive when it comes to people’s opinions and how they choose to interpret things. But the scientific method and the structure we use to determine theories and law is not open to opinion, debate. Having a ridged structure to follow creates an even playing field where information can be gathered and recorded. Now if we could only get people to interpret said information without bias.

There is an abundance of information and observable data which supports the theory of evolution. I have no issue with the theory. But these observations neither make evolution “fact” or Law.”

•Fact: In science, an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as “true.” Truth in science, however, is never final and what is accepted as a fact today may be modified or even discarded tomorrow.
•Hypothesis: A tentative statement about the natural world leading to deductions that can be tested. If the deductions are verified, the hypothesis is provisionally corroborated. If the deductions are incorrect, the original hypothesis is proved false and must be abandoned or modified. Hypotheses can be used to build more complex inferences and explanations.
•Law: A descriptive generalization about how some aspect of the natural world behaves under stated circumstances.
•Theory: In science, a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses.

National Academy of Sciences

Jestor wrote: Oh, excellent...

I forget you are some kind of a lab rat... ... lol...

I just thought you were referring to something a little more observable... :dry:

But you can observe evolution and evolution is a proven fact. Wether the theory of evolution is true which stats all life on earth derived from a single organism cannot be proven because we dont have a time machine to go back and see if it didnt come from another source.

But yes evolution is an observable fact and ive personally done experiments in a labartory and seen it.

Did you see my post quoting Asimov?

Creationists have it "mostly right"... lol...

They just see and define... They dont wonder...

In my opinion, "God"/ the force, is evolution, and therefore, yes, he/it, made all this...

He made the world in seven days, but how long is a "day" to god? Like a year to a housefly?

Just talking...

Well then we will have to define the difference between creationism and evolution. Creationism believes an intelligent being intervened in the creation of modern creatures. Evolution states that modern creatures evolved by natural means (no intervention). There is no evidence of divine intervention and we can explain almost all (you'd need a PhD for the stuff we don't know) aspects of the evolution of organic life on earth by natural means.

Now if you want to say some power set up the rules of nature I can't argue either way because there is no way to know that yet ,but its very clear that once the universe got started in this state intervention was no longer needed and that is the difference between creationism and evolution.

Wescli, by the definition of "Fact" that you quoted from the National Academy of Sciences, evolution is actually a fact. It is an observation that has been repeatedly and independantly confirmed by numerous subjects. Evolution for all intents and purposes is true, it is a fact about as actual as one can get. Now, the theory of evolution and speciation by means of natural selection and several others, that is not a fact. That is a scientific theory, a model that more or less accurately describes and explains the factual process of evolution in nature. It may be incomplete and imperfect, which is why it is deemed a model of evolution, a theory of evolution.
But evolution itself pretty much is a fact, and indeed our theory of it is one of the most accurate models of a real phenomenon we ever discovered. Our theories of gravity are nowhere near as close and as reliable as our theory of evolution but for some reason the fact of evolution is denied for that reason while the fact of gravity was never in dispute.

Now, as for the usual creationist fallacy that for some reason no one pointed out here, the theory of evolution does only explain the diversity of life. It does not account for any origins nor does it ever claim to. Creationists usually try to say it does which unfortunately only testifies to their ignorance of what it is they are opposing. Indeed it has been observed multiple times how creationists will accept every single bit of the theory of evolution but then deny the label because of the strawman that they have constructed under that label.
And if there was some sort of theory accounting for origins of everything in the way that creationists claim evolutionary theory does, and it was even half as well tested and understood as the theory of evolution, they would still under no circumstances be worthy of equivocation. Comparing evolutionary biology to creationism is about as out of place as comparing plate tectonics to flat-earth geology.

Before posting I was tempted to yet again write an open invitation to an informal public debate, but now that I think about it again, perhaps even the little public that TOTJO is, is still too much of a platform for creationism... If however anyone considers that there is some benefit to be gained from the humiliation to both participants that this necessarily must end up being, feel free to challenge me.

Vesha wrote: Well then we will have to define the difference between creationism and evolution. Creationism believes an intelligent being intervened in the creation of modern creatures. Evolution states that modern creatures evolved by natural means (no intervention). There is no evidence of divine intervention and we can explain almost all (you'd need a PhD for the stuff we don't know) aspects of the evolution of organic life on earth by natural means.

Admittedly, I am not scientifically minded, but are the two therories really exclusive of each other? I dont for a second believe that the world was litterally created in 7 days, but at the same time, how do you see evidence of divine intervention? The fact that we can explain scientifically how things work in an extraordinarily complex system of life doesnt nessesarily mean that there wasnt intervention. When people say intervention I think theres an assuption that an intelligent being just dropped fully formed creatures on the planet and was done with it, is it not possible that evolution is a part of a divine design created to operate within certain laws? Seems an intelligent design to me...

@ Gisteron...

That is correct. It was not my intent to imply that evolution is not a fact (or that things do not evolve). There are several documented occurrences where evolution has taken place. I was referring to the theory of Evolution.

@Brenna the idea that creatures were fully formed as is, is what creationism is and why its an ism unlike evolution.

The idea the universe was created with a purpose is called Theism, the idea it was created is called deism, the idea the universe always existed in one form or another without intervention is called atheism.

More appropriate, I should think, is the view that God created the universe out of an interest in spontaneous creativity - that he wanted nature to produce surprises, phenomena that he himself could not have foreseen. What would such a creative universe be like? Well, it would for one thing be impossible to predict in detail. And this seems to be the case with the universe we inhabit.

The information theorists find that even if the entire universe were a computer, or could be converted into a computer of the maximum theoretically possible capacity, that computer would be incapable of predicting all future phenomena. Further, a creative universe should give rise to agencies that are themselves creative, which is to say unpredictable. There is in our universe such an agency, spectacularly successful at reversing the dreary slide of entropy and making surprising things happen. We call it life. It would be suitable if this agency were to inquire into the workings of the universe, winnowing out the predictable from the unpredictable and inventing theories to account for the difference. And that is what intelligence does. Better still if thinking creatures were to perceive that they are all in the same boat --- "Poor, benighted members of the same ship's company," in Adlai Stevenson's phrase --- and hence treat one another kindly and assert that God is Love. And so we do, though not often enough.

Finally, in a creative universe God would betray no trace of his presence, since to do so would be to rob the creative forces of their independence, to turn them from the active pursuit of answers to mere supplication of God. And so it is: God's language is silence.

[O]ne can learn to live with ambiguity - that much is requisite to the seeking spirit - and with the silence of the stars.

All who genuinely seek to learn, whether atheist or believer, scientist or mystic, are united in having not a faith but faith itself. Its token is reverence, its habit to respect the eloquence of silence. For God's hand may be a human hand, if you reach out in loving kindness, and God's voice your voice, if you but speak the truth.

---

Timothy Ferris

Who can say we are smart eonugh or advanced enough to understand divine intervention?

If we are the creators creation how would we know?

If evolution is the creators complex plan how would us mear mortals know?

How would we know if there is a creator and if everything we call science is just our feble attempts to understand that which we will never understand?

I can acceipt there is a lot I don't nor ever know. That is the wonder of life as we know it.

I can live with that.

To respond to the initial question, the reason the dictionary doesn't contain "evolutionism" has to do with its roots. Someone who agrees with the theory of evolution based on presented evidence isn't an "evolutionist" nor are the agreeing with an ideology or philosphy beyond perhaps rationalism. However, arguing against "rationalism" sounds like a losing battle right away so the biblical literalists invented the term evolutionism to try and make what they were arguing against sound as though it were on equal footing with them without directly engaging rationalism. There's nothing stopping the co-existence of someone believing in theistic deity, however, if, as is common in the evangelical and southern baptist churches, a literalist interpretation of the modern translation of the bible is required it creates a point of conflict as there are many scientifically falsifiable claims within the bible.

So, in short, if you follow the spirit of christianity, there's nothing there to contradict what the scientific method has produced (evolution, parthenogenesis, thermodynamics, astronomy, astrophysics, etc.)
However, If you require that the bible is a literal book espousing the true word of your deity, the falsifiability of its claims become a threat to your faith and thus you get things like the Creation Museum with mountains of simply made up information presented as uncontroversial and arguing against a version of paleontology which became outdated 30 years ago.

That said, I'm an atheist and my opinion on church ideology may be specious.

Yes I keep forgetting that when people hear evolution Vs creationism they think it's Theism Vs Atheism and nothing could be further from the truth.

Creationism is the Idea that the whole universe was created as it is by an intelligent creator. Which is absurd and contradictory to everything we know and why its such a huge battle to keep it out of schools in the United states and other places. It has nothing to do with weather a god or anything else exists. When scientist fight the teaching of creationism in the court they often use religious people as key witnesses to drive that point home, most famously Ken Miller a god believing catholic. Evolution has nothing to do with the existence of a god however it does contradict the story of genesis to some people, which makes some people very upset.

Evolution is not fact. You have good observations and a sound theory and in your “Final Thoughts” you formulated a well proposed statement that I have no issue with; but, that does not constitute fact.

Evolution is a fact. The origin of species are theories and will remain such until someone builds a time machine or somewhat manages to get out of the universe. one of those theories is based on darwin's theory of evolution, which have been refined over time, mostly thanks to dna and fossil evidence... an other is basically the same old "I reckon someone else must have done it", which could be true, yet miserably ignores simple logic by failing to explain why some things need to have been created yet others do not.

To briefly interject on the "evolution is a fact"argument occurring, I think you're all agreeing but getting hung up on an irrelevant semantic...

Let me remind you that "fact" is merely the patterns observed thus far....

As they are good patterns, and seem to be solid... So did a bunch of other patterns and observations, till we learned better...

So, before anyone gets all uppity, remember that please....

We are at but a moment in time...

I don't have an issue with evolution at all, but I did find the following conversation between Richard Dawkins and Ben Stein to be interesting and thought provoking:

Ah, yes, Ben Stein emphasizing on points Professor Dawkins didn't make.. Its a famous scene and a prime example of badly attempted dishonesty in creationist journalism.. But I won't go down that rabbit hole yet unless it gets caught up.

Brenna: No, two theories are not necessarily mutually exclusive. However one of the two opposing ideas in this case is not a theory while the other one is. And also, if you were an engineer and designed your machines the way they are 'designed' in nature, depending on the type of machine, you would earlier or later definately be fired. The 'designs' we find in nature for the most part are bad, incomplete or unnecessary and I can provide prominent examples, if needed. Long story short, the world looks exactly as we would expect it to be without divine intervention in its creation but nothing like it should look like if any intelligent, let alone benevolent being, was in charge of any bit of it. If a god is responsible, it is either being dumber than a fish or more cruel than anything that would remotely deserve worship. In either case it makes an enormous effort, as Dawkins quoted, to make sure we have no indication of its existence.

Rickie: Let's assume it is correct and we have no indication for a god nor against a god. Is it not the same with Santa Clause? If we cannot tell, disbelief is the only reasonable position to take until such time that more evidence comes in. In a court room, the accusation would be existence (or intervention or whatever that follows), and if we have not enough to tell either way, while we cannot assert the accused is innocent, we must not rule him guilty for the time being. But of course the existence of an intervening or smart god is a scientific claim that can easily be and has easily been falsified.

Lila: I would disagree that the spirit of Christianity doesn't necessitate creationism. Sure, there are people calling themselves Christians and accepting evolution and viewing Genesis as the book of fairy tales that it is, but without the story of Adam and Eve and their sin, let alone the horrific constantly broken commandments that follow it throughout the pentateuch, salvation through the Messiah becomes unnecessary. Without both a few old testament stories and the life, death and resurrection story of Jesus of Nazareth being literally true, the entire Christian doctrine collapses. So while you can maintain an occasional good teaching or two (and none of the good ones are original nor exclusive to Christianity), if you want to keep believing or following any core doctrinal aspect of the Christian faith, you must reject evidence and reason against at least a few rather important and equally falsified parts of the Bible and insist they are literally true.

Jestor: That's right, we haven't observed it all yet. Facts usually grow in number, they don't die per se. What ever other facts we may find in the future, the observation of evolution that we keep making every day will always remain an observation, always remain a fact. We may find new facts and have to refine our scientific models of reality, but we will never find a piece of (this) reality that would tell us we never found any of the pieces we have today.

There are billions of suns and multi billions of planets. Keeping that in perspective, who are we to cling to our beliefs to the exclusions and intolerance of others. I/ we may be wrong. There is a good chance I/we are wrong.

Discussion stimulates the mind and thoughts, that's good, just be flexble with your conclusions and others.

Peace

Gisteron,

I agree with you in general and find the idea of externalizing responsibility morally troubling, however, as you mention, ostensibly the basics of christianity are the teachings of jesus whom in message is comparable to Buddha and other such figures. When I said "in the spirit" of, this is what I was referring to.

As far as the people espousing the "we just don't know and we're probably wrong"...
There are a few things to consider here: 1. Evolutionary theory can predict outcomes. That is to say, given a set of variables, evolution can reliably predict the way an organism will evolve. Theistic creationism has no such consistency. 2. Evolution matches with what we observe. Creationism adapts what we observe to a preconceived belief and when taken with literal interpretations of the bible contradicts what we observe. 3. Evolution has a specific set of criteria which could prove it wrong. Creationism in general, theistic or deistic, has no such criteria, its advocates have a constantly moving goal post preventing it from ever being disproved.

We are not wrong about evolution. We have direct observation of it both in the fossil record and in the small scale with bacterium and other small organisms. Could we learn more about it, about mechanisms in evolution we weren't aware of? Sure, but then the predictive models would likely be less accurate than they are. Could we be wrong on parthenogenesis? Certainly, but, again, there is a specific set of criteria under which it could be falsified. From a rational world view, any time you find yourself holding a belief that cannot be disproven without divine intervention, its time to reassess your logic from the ground up.