Dialogues with Darwin: An Exhibition of Historical Documents and Contemporary Art

Submitted by Margaret Brock on Wednesday, June 17, 2009, at 6:35pm

I find it interesting that there is still such a great debate regarding the study of evolution.  I am not only a Biology Educator, but also the wife of a Presbyterian Pastor.  I have no issues with evolution and have a wonderful time teaching it.  My students enjoy this as well and many feel that they can ask questions of me that they might not be comfortable asking other teachers.

Dobzhansky was certainly right—evolution is the unifying concept in biology.  Teaching biology without evolution is leaving out way to much.

Submitted by timbrown on Thursday, June 18, 2009, at 12:01pm

You <could> teach the natural sciences without evolution, just as you <could> teach mathematics without multiplication. In both cases, it would be difficult to meaningfully go beyond even the most rudimentary knowledge and application.

Submitted by Steve Stough on Sunday, July 05, 2009, at 11:22am

As part of my seventh-grade life science instruction, evolution (approached as change over time leading to the diversity we see among living things today), and in particular, natural selection serve as the framework of my curriculum.

I begin the year by introducing my students to the concept of natural selection via the acronym VISTA- variation, inheritance, selection, time, and adaptation. As the year progresses, I take every opportunity to address each of those elements. Of those, the element that I concentrate on the most is the idea of “big time” as I believe that to be the most abstract for seventh-graders. How difficult is it for anyone of us, let alone a seventh-grader to conceptualize 3.5 billion years ago or 530 million years ago? I am constantly referring to timelines.

Inheritance and variation are addressed heavily during my genetics unit. Adaptation appears in our study of ecosystems; selection is presented as a process driven by environmental pressures and competition for limited resources.

Referring to evolution and especially natural selection throughout the school year brings a sense of system to the students. They see the big picture- how everything is intertwined.

Having been a plaintiff in Kitzmiller vs Dover School Board, the question posed has a special significance for me. I am a science teacher in a nearby school district, but my daughter was a student at Dover High School during the “Intelligent Design” days. Prior to that time, I was naïve about the “controversy” and mentioned evolution/ natural selection freely within my classroom. During the course of the litigation. I found myself being very wary of any reference to the theory. Since the court’s decision, I again freely use evolution/ natural selection as the backbone of my year of instruction. I believe that the decision of Kitzmiller has freed many of my fellow teachers into feeling free to do the same.

Submitted by Dave on Saturday, August 15, 2009, at 9:23pm

I think science can be taught without referencing evolution. Isaac Newton did not believe the theory, and is recognized as one of the world’s greatest scientists. I believe that the general theory of evolution is a hindrance to research and does not enhance the progress of knowledge at all. If you study the natural record without evolutionary glasses on, it makes much more sense. Evolution helps nothing in the progress of science; I believe it is useless and harmful to scientific progress. If anyone would like some examples of the obvious problems with the theory (they are numerous) I would be happy to expound. To answer the question: YES I believe strongly that you can teach the natural sciences without mentioning evolution. I believe that the theory of evolution will only warp and hinder scientific inquiry. Thank you.

Submitted by JohnM on Friday, September 11, 2009, at 2:30pm

Why would anyone even contemplate teaching a course of natural science without evolution? How could you teach Chemistry without the atom, or Physics without mentioning energy?

Dave, the poster who says you are better teaching without it, and that it is harmful so to do, is marching to the beat of a different drummer, perhaps. But his observation that Darwin was rejected by Newton, who died 80 years before Darwin was born, indicates that his drummer is quite sparing with the truth.

Submitted by Dave on Friday, September 11, 2009, at 6:56pm

A couple of comments on JohnM’s post…
I did not say that Darwin was rejected by Newton. Obviously that is impossible since Newton preceded Darwin. All I said was “Newton did not believe the theory”. Please don’t put words in my mouth and then imply strongly that i am “quite sparing with the truth”.
My question is, did Newton teach science or not? Or did anyone teach the natural sciences before Darwin? Think about it! Am i hearing that there was no science before Darwin came up with the foundation for scientific research??
Think about something else: can’t you describe how flowers pollenate each other without assuming or mentioning evolution? And how CAN you assume an evolutionary history when considering the woodpecker? Try to picture a bird half-way to a woodpecker! Evolution makes no sense when you look at nature. When you look at rock formations, or fossils, or sybiotic relationships, or irreducibly complex creatures or anything else in the natural world. Why is there no delta at the mouth of Grand Canyon? Why are there fossilized trees standing upside down, running through layers of rock that evolution says are vastly different in age? How could a land-dwelling mammal evolve into a sea creature and survive the transition? The inevitable accidents and mistakes on the way to becoming bigger and better? These are questions that evolution can not answer. My opinion: Darwin and his theory have contributed nothing to the progress of science. To say that you MUST believe evolution in order to teach natural science is an amazing statement to me and, i would say,"quite sparing with the truth”.

Submitted by Margaret Brock on Friday, September 11, 2009, at 9:15pm

Dave—there were many scientists who were working on how species evolved for many years before Darwin, they just didn’t put everything together like he did.  Like most scientists, Darwin built on the work of scientists that went before him.  Of course there was science before Darwin, no one is suggesting otherwise. 
That being said, the evidence for evolution is so great that it really must be integrated into the curriculum.  Yes, we can teach without it, but why should we.  Evolution brings it all together. 
Yes a land dwelling mammal evolved into a sea creature and survived quite well.  It just took more time than most people can comprehend.  I find looking at woodpeckers (or most any other creature) much more interesting when considering evolutionary history.  The similarities to other birds, the differences that make it unique—they are all part of evolution.  Co-evolution led to the symbiotic relationships we find so fascinating today.  Accidents and mistakes don’t always make bigger and better—but when they do nature finds a way.
You don’t have to believe in evolution to teach the natural sciences—but not teaching it leaves a gap that is unfillable.

Submitted by quantumburrito on Saturday, September 12, 2009, at 11:41am

I think the answer to the question would have to be no. Now of course that does not mean it’s technically impossibly; after all before Darwin natural sciences were taught without recourse to evolution. But evolution ties together all the threads like nothing else, and to teach the natural sciences without it would be to present disparate facts without really connecting them together. It would be like presenting someone with a map of a city without a single road in it.

Submitted by Dave on Saturday, September 12, 2009, at 1:49pm

Margaret-
You brought up a point that all evolutionists like to reiterate whenever there is a problem with the theory: “Well no, this really doesn’t make sense, but the answer is TIME. TIME is the miracle worker that explains everthing.” All it took was TIME for a land dwelling creature to become a sea creature? One thing evolutionists don’t seem to remember is that if any ONE change in an organism doesn’t operate properly, that branch of evolutionary progress goes back to SQUARE ONE. It’s not like a creature can evolve a harmful trait, die, and then try again. You have to have a functional model at every step of the way. When you try to explain or imagine this with our example of land-dwelling creature to sea creature, you have mental absurdity.
The theory of evolution has humungous gaps that are unfillable. It is a bankrupt theory, one with no real evidence and many facts that directly contradict it. (Continental erosion, the fact that our moon is moving away from us, polonium halos found is the earth’s crust showing that it did not form as a hot molten mass, (check out http://www.halos.com/ ) “transitional forms” found in rock layers lower than fossils they are said to have evolved from, etc.) There are thousands of problems with the theory.  Science and evolution are most certainly not synonomous, nor must you have one to have the other.

Submitted by Margaret Brock on Saturday, September 12, 2009, at 9:57pm

Dave,
There are thousands of problems with most theories.  But evolution makes sense.  I didn’t say that science and evolution are synonomous or you don’t have to have one to have the other.  However (as “quantumburrito” said) evolution connects them together. 
As for the website you referenced (I did look it up)—as a Christian I find it amazing that the faith of some is so fleeting that they must “scientifically” find “the location of the Great White Throne, God’s dwelling place in the heavens as described in the book of Revelation.” According to a DVD sold on the website—they’ve found this center of the universe nearby.
By the way, which Biblical Creation account do you belive is literal?  The first or the second?
By the way, no mental absurdities have been diagnosed at the present time—but I’m sure that will happen eventually!

Submitted by Dave on Sunday, September 13, 2009, at 5:51pm

Margaret,
After i posted that link I saw some of the other things they have on the site and certainly DO NOT endorse it all. The only part i wanted to bring attention to was the discussion on the halos. I still think that the research Dr. Gentry has done poses a significant problem for evoutionists.
Also, I don’t know how someone can say evolution makes sense. For one thing, we have pretty good evidence that the earth is less than 30,000 years old, which would totally ruin the theory single-handedly. And again, try to imagine the evolution of the woodpecker. Try to picture a good,working intermediate of a bird developing a tongue that goes up around its head and anchors at its left nostril. Does that make sense? Can you see it happening? Let me again mention the land mammal becoming a sea creature. Imagine it at the halfway point. That makes SENSE? You can really believe that happened? The faith needed to believe that makes my faith look pretty small.
Even the mechanisms evolution is said to use aren’t sufficient. Mutations- we have never observed a mutation ADD information- it only scrambles the information, and is always harmful to the organism. Natural selection- is a quality control system incapable of producing anything that doesn’t already exist. Isolaton- you can isolate all want but if there is no mechanism to add new, beneficial information, what good is it? I would be interested to see anyone post what they believe is the BEST evidence for the evolution theory...because I don’t know of any.
I’m not sure what you mean my “the first or the second” Biblical Creaton account. I believe Genesis chapter one is a literal description of the creation of the earth as we know it.
Since you are a Christian, I am curious: do you believe there is any conflict between evolution and the Bible? And what natural evidence, if any, caused you to discard or reject the Biblical account of creation?
Btw, I think it’s great that people are willing to have this discussion and thank the APS for this opportunity. What we believe about evolution will impact many areas of our lives, including our belief about God, the Bible, and morality.

Submitted by Margaret Brock on Monday, September 14, 2009, at 7:23pm

Dave,
Thank you for looking at the website—when I saw it I had a very difficult time taking it seriously.  I would imagine that the halos will have a very interesting explanation at some point in the future when we have had the time to explore it further.  I’m sure what Gentry has posted will be a really interesting for scientists (not just evolutionary scientists) to explore.
I don’t know how someone can say that evolution does not make sense.  I believe there is much more information that the earth is more than 4.5 billion years old.  Just looking at sea-floor spreading and the magnetic anomalies would show us that.  The geologic similarities between the continents that support continental drift show this planet being a great deal older than 30,000 years.  I’m curious about the scientific evidence of this “young earth.”
I can imagine the evolution of the woodpecker.  I can imagine hundreds of intermediate species.  It does make sense to me.  I look at things in small pieces and how they can change little by little. 
I can also see how land mammals became sea mammals (great activity found at http://www.indiana.edu/~ensiweb/lessons/whale.ev.html).  Again, I believe it happened little by little.  Yes, my faith is huge—for many reasons.
I disagree with your thought on mutations.  I believe that too many people look at mutations as only being bad.  I believe that we have equal numbers of positive mutations, negative mutations, and neutral mutations.  Each situation is unique and should be treated so.
As for the two creation accounts in Genesis.  The first is the traditional chapter one six day (rest on the seventh) account (chapter 1 vs 1- through ch 2 vs 2).  The second is chapter 2 verse 4 through verse 24.  Looking at these accounts literally has difficulties in a couple of ways.  They weren’t written in English—the original Hebrew doesn’t include the definate article “the.” So when people say “in the beginning” isn’t exactly correct—it could also be “in a beginning.” If we’re looking toward the Biblical accounts for a “how” we’re asking the wrong question.  Shouldn’t God be the “why” we’re here.  It’s the more important factor in the world.  I also don’t believe that God time is the same as human time—our existance is a mere blink in God’s time (although it’s an important blink).
I don’t see conflict between evolution and the Bible.  I haven’t discarded or rejected the Bible.  I believe that it is the answer to the “why” we’re here.  No matter which way humanity came into existance (instanteous creation or evolution) I believe that God is at the center of it.  Given that, my question becomes “are we asking scripture to do too much?” This scripture was written about 4000 years ago by a people in exile that were trying to answer the question of why they were there and how did they get there.  Theology answers why, science has a hard question with why.  Science answers how—theology has a hard question with how.
There are both scientists and theologians that over-reach.  We have to be careful of that on both the science and theology sides.  There are going to be some things that will remain a mystery—I am very thankful for those things.
I’m glad that people are willing to talk about this as well.  My husband and I speak with groups that are curious about how these two topics go together—it’s refreshing to have good discussions about it.  It’s also been funny to see people realize that I really do have a job outside of “pastor’s wife!”

Submitted by Dave on Wednesday, September 16, 2009, at 10:01pm

Margaret,
I have a lot to say concerning your last post. Let me begin by saying that since you admit that it takes faith to believe in evolution, it’s not really possible to disprove it or falsify any evidence. Every time I expose an absurdity, you can just say “I have faith that it could have happened. I can imagine it.” Which is precisely my point. Evolution takes FAITH. It is not supported by natural evidence. You have to imagine it. Believe in it. Try to picture it happening. That’s not science. It a figment of the imagination. If you want to believe evolution on the basis of faith, that is fine with me. But, i see no reason to compromise a perfecty good Bible because of an unsupported theory on how we got here. By the way, if the first chapter of the Bible is not literally true (which you are saying if you believe in evolution ), then who’s to say that John 3 is true? What basis do we have for believing anything in the Bible if it is undependable in the very first chapter? It’s impossible to say you believe the Bible and evolution at the same time and be intellectually consistent. I believe they’re opposed to one another and mutually exclusive. Now, I’m not saying we should go with the Bible on the basis of blind faith. I believe it largely because it’s consistent with the natural record. Evolution, on the other hand, does not fit with the natural record. I maintain my position that there is no evidence to support it.
You said theology answers why- science answers how. Shouldn’t correct theology and correct science agree?? One property of truth is noncontradicton. You can’t have two different truths. The Bible has a LOT to say about HOW. Again, how can you trust the why if you can’t trust the how? I encourage you to open your mind to the thought that perhaps the Bible is correct about the how as well as the why. If there is some evidence in the natural world that is keeping you from this position, i would certainly like to know about it. 
You said you believe there are an equal amount of harmful, beneficial, and nuetral mutations. Do you have any examples? I challenge you to point out one mutation that has been beneficial in the long run. Furthermore, for evolution to advance, the mutation must ADD new information. This has never been observed. Hence, the main mechanism that evolution is said to hang on has no supporting evidence. Hundreds of years of selective breeding has strongly pointed to the idea that there are barriers and limits to the amount of variation that an organism can exhibit. Little changes or variations that are observed in species are NOT evidence for macro evolution.
So, about the woodpecker: you said you can imagine the intermediate forms. Your imagination is better than mine. So you think that all the while,as its tongue slowly developed from a normal one to one that goes around the back of its head (slow, small changes, remember) that is was fully functional and allowed the bird to eat, drink, and survive? You believe that slow, random, freak accident mutations happened to change the beak and the tongue at the same rate? And would you say science supports THAT?
It’s funny that I’m even discussing this at a “living animal level” because we can scientifically demonstrate that life couldn’t even have BEGUN spontaneously. It can’t begin WITH oxygen, because the acids would oxidize. It can’t begin WITHOUT oxygen, because oxygen creates ozone, and ozone blocks UV light, and UV light destroys ammonia, which is one of the neccessary ingredients. So we see that Darwin’s poor theory has fallen flat on its face before it ever got going. Why speculate further? With all due respect, it’s time for a new theory. One that can be supported by the evidence. One that is based on more than imagination. It’s time to admit that God knew what He was doing in the first place, and it’s time to stop compromising a perfectly good Bible with an outdated, unsupported, illogical theory such as evolution. Darwin simply got it wrong.
Going back to the question that began this discussion: Can you teach science without evolution. My question is: Can you teach science WITH evolution? The evidence says no.

Submitted by Margaret Brock on Thursday, September 17, 2009, at 7:58pm

Dave,
You and I will never agree.  No matter what rational arguement or evidence I provide you are not going to accept it or understand.  I’m not sure you truly understand the concept or have any idea where I am coming from.  Perhaps I just have had a long week, but I am not going to continue this any longer. 
We will simply have to agree to disagree.  I am able to put my faith and my science in my life and have them work together.  I’m sorry you are not.

Submitted by Dave on Thursday, September 17, 2009, at 10:05pm

Margaret,
I agree that we will probably never agree. =) Forgive me if I got too arrogant in that last post- I think I let my passion carry me away a little. I’ve enjoyed this discussion. Let me just say that science and my faith work together perfectly. God give us wisdom as we continue to explore His wonderful Creation. Take care.

Submitted by taina.tu on Thursday, October 15, 2009, at 10:44pm

Taina Linder
Professor Joe Giuffre
Mosaic II
10/14/09
The Wonderful World of Adaptation

In The Origins of Species, Charles Darwin talks about the idea of “Adaptedness” and “Natural Selection” and how both of these terms relate to species in the past and eventually the species we see today. The idea of “Adaptedness” is depicted as how well species can adapt as their environment changes and if they cannot adapt than they simply become extinct. For example, if the climate changes in a specific area the species have two choices. They can either learn to adapt to the new climate and may possibly inherit new traits, which could eventually lead to a whole new species. Or they are unable to adapt to the new conditions of the climate so those who have adapted outrun and soon outlive them, therefore they eventually die off and become extinct.
Darwin states, “We shall best understand the probable course of natural selection by taking the case of a country undergoing some physical change, for instance, of climate. The proportional numbers of its inhabitants would almost immediately undergo a change, and some species might become extinct”(Darwin 131). This statement is the whole idea of how natural selection is something that nature chooses and can be best described as a destruction process. The destruction process eliminates the ones that are less “special” or “perfect” and keep the ones that have adapted to the new climate and conditions. As things struggle to survive the little things change and as time goes pass they add up into a big change that eventually has changed into another type of species. This is what Darwin was referring to when he try’s to explain how natural selection can build a more “perfect” organism. If they are not selected to have certain characteristic, than those characteristics fade away and that specific species could become extinct.
At the APS museum there was a specific document by Alexander Von Humboldt, which talked about the geographical planetarium. It was drawings of plants at different altitudes and latitudes and how plants and animal species tend to live only within certain climates. Humboldt’s work influenced Darwin to compare and contrast species in different geological areas, which informed him about how species were adapt to their environment (Humboldt, De distributione geographica plantarum. Paris:Lutetiae Parisiorum, 1817). This talks about the idea of adaptation because these animals and plants were only found in those specific areas and climates. Therefore you would not find those plants or animals in another climate because this was the only climate where they could thrive and continue to live. New climates can also lead to new types of species because some species will not adapt to the new changes so the ones who have adapted usually inherits new characteristics for that climate; therefore making it an entirely new species. Similarly, Darwin states, “the inhabitants of each country are bound together, that any change in the numerical proportions of some of the inhabitants, independently of the changes of the climate itself, would most seriously affect many of the others” (Darwin 131). What this basically means is that species from a country are similar in their traits because of their climate and any change in that climate could very well change that species. Therefore, the idea of “Natural selection” and “Adaptedness” is how well you adapt to your climate and how well you can continue to adapt in order to remain alive.

Submitted by Lauren M on Friday, October 16, 2009, at 3:01pm

I don’t think it’s possible because evolution is the basis of life in general..It is a theory that can be seen as life progresses, if species did not have the ability to adapt to changing conditions and environments they wouldn’t be able to survive which is why we’re still here. Evolution is a very significant biological phenomenon that shouldn’t be overlooked, doing so would be promoting a science that is biased and inconclusive.

Submitted by Nico on Sunday, December 06, 2009, at 8:53pm

Dave:

“(life) can’t begin WITHOUT oxygen, because oxygen creates ozone, and ozone blocks UV light, and UV light destroys ammonia, which is one of the neccessary ingredients.”
The Henry-Chase experiment demonstarted how organic compounds could be formed under lightning in the early atmosphere, so far it is believed these organic compounds eventually started gas-exchange with the environment turning CO2 into oxygen.

“Let me again mention the land mammal becoming a sea creature. Imagine it at the halfway point. That makes SENSE? You can really believe that happened? The faith needed to believe that makes my faith look pretty small.”
If you observe the bones in a whale’s fin, a bat’s wing, a dog’s front paws, a cat’s front paws, and the human arm you will realize the structures are homologus. The only possible explanation for this is a common ancestor.

“For one thing, we have pretty good evidence that the earth is less than 30,000 years old, which would totally ruin the theory single-handedly”
Carbon-14 testing shows dinosaurs are millions of years old, not to mention geologic evidence.

“Isaac Newton did not believe the theory, and is recognized as one of the world’s greatest scientists.”
Of course Newton did not believe the theory, he was dead when it appeared, as with the theory of relativity this proves nothing.

“Going back to the question that began this discussion: Can you teach science without evolution. My question is: Can you teach science WITH evolution? The evidence says no.”
We can’t explain it therefore God (and the bible) does nothing more than bring in confusion

“Hundreds of years of selective breeding has strongly pointed to the idea that there are barriers and limits to the amount of variation that an organism can exhibit. Little changes or variations that are observed in species are NOT evidence for macro evolution”
Hundreds of years of selective breeding, on the same “farm”? Keeping a meticulous record of each animal’s mates? Scientifically observing differences? Hard to believe
besides, take into account changes take thousands of years to happen you seem expect to see an ape give birth to a human.

“Again, how can you trust the why if you can’t trust the how? I encourage you to open your mind to the thought that perhaps the Bible is correct about the how as well as the why”
When the Bible was written people could not explain atoms, or even lighting. It was a common belief that the earth was flat and that it was the center of the universe. Morality is the only thing the Bible could be right-if it is.

Submitted by Nico on Tuesday, December 08, 2009, at 4:23am

Polonium halos were refuted:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/po-halos/gentry.html

Submitted by Dave on Sunday, December 13, 2009, at 7:54pm

Nico,
“The Henry-Chase experiment demonstarted how organic compounds could be formed under lightning in the early atmosphere, so far it is believed these organic compounds eventually started gas-exchange with the environment turning CO2 into oxygen.”

Your use of the words “it is believed” suggests a certain amount of faith, not fact. Remember, evolutionsts believe the early atmosphere was a random atmosphere; there was nothing and no one directing the process to create the environment used in the experiment.

“If you observe the bones in a whale’s fin, a bat’s wing, a dog’s front paws, a cat’s front paws, and the human arm you will realize the structures are homologus. The only possible explanation for this is a common ancestor. “

The homology arguement is one of most incredibly futile arguments of all for evolution...these similarities could just as well be explained by a common Designer...to say a common ancestor is the only possible explanation is completely untrue. Did you know that the lug nuts from a Honda will screw onto a Chevy? According to your logic, this proves they both evolved from a Ford about 20 million years ago…

“Carbon-14 testing shows dinosaurs are millions of years old, not to mention geologic evidence.”

C14 dating cannot be considered an accurate dating method, which is demonstrated by the wildly incorrect dates given to objects whose dates were already known. It assumes a steady amount of C14 in the atmosphere over the history of the world, which we know is not the case. There is no reliable evidence that the earth is old (more than 10,000 years) but this belief is strictly guarded by the evolutionst for the sole reason that the theory looks completely ridiculous without a vast amount of time.

“Of course Newton did not believe the theory, he was dead when it appeared, as with the theory of relativity this proves nothing. “

This proves nothing EXCEPT that it is possible to teach the sciences without mentioning evolution, which is the whole question in this dialogue.

“Hundreds of years of selective breeding, on the same “farm”? Keeping a meticulous record of each animal’s mates? Scientifically observing differences? Hard to believe
besides, take into account changes take thousands of years to happen you seem expect to see an ape give birth to a human. “

My point: change from one species to another has never been observed. I know that evolutionsts don’t believe that an ape gave birth to a human (unless you buy the “hopeful monster” hypothesis, which, by the way, was proposed because of the lack of evidence that species evolved slowly.)

When the Bible was written people could not explain atoms, or even lighting. It was a common belief that the earth was flat and that it was the center of the universe. Morality is the only thing the Bible could be right-if it is.

You are correct, the Bible was written when many people thought the earth was flat. But the Bible specifically mentions the fact that the earth is round, and this lends credibility to the fact that it was divinely inspired. Isaiah 40:22- “He sits enthroned above the CIRCLE of the earth...” The Bible is correct both historicaly, scientifically and morally. I encourage you to study it if you really want to know the truth. It has changed my life, and has withstood every attack against it by skeptics and unbelievers through the ages, and it is this Book, God’s Word, that will judge us in the end.

Submitted by Nico on Wednesday, December 23, 2009, at 10:29am

Dave:

First let me rephrase my first statement:
Scientists have researched and inferred how the earth was formed. After that, scientists could determine what gases made the earth’s early atmosphere. The henry-chase experiment recreated that environment, and run an electric current, simulating lightning which was abundant on the early atmosphere. Organic compounds were later found sedimented, providing a REASONABLE and TESTABLE HYPOTHESIS about how life begun. These organic compounds eventually gave way to the first cells which at some point started gas exchange with the environment releasing oxygen.

The theory that God designed the unvierse or created it directly has not been able to either provide a useful explanation or be tested.

“The homology arguement is one of most incredibly futile arguments of all for evolution...these similarities could just as well be explained by a common Designer...to say a common ancestor is the only possible explanation is completely untrue.”
Two word’s: Occam’s Razor. Do not invent identities to provide explanations, unless you can prove the identities.
Life came to be as it is because organisms evolved after millions of years.
or
God did it, in the way the bible says. In order for the latter explanation to be true first we would need to prove that:
1. God exists
2. It can’t be any god, it must be th God as it is told in the Bible.
3. God created all of us (How?)
Until then, we cannot conlcude anything.
“Did you know that the lug nuts from a Honda will screw onto a Chevy? According to your logic, this proves they both evolved from a Ford about 20 million years ago… “
You are taking my argument out of proportion my friend. In the case of the cars, WE created them, you can search and find the designers, the factory were the cars were assembled etc. As in the case of God, how can we knoe He actually designed them and more important, how did He create them? I can explain how a factory’s assembly line works, can you explain how God’s assembly line works?

I stand corrected on my C-14 testing argument. C-14 only works to date objects 50,000-60,000 years old like young fossils, mummies and neanderthal men (pretty acurately if done correctly). Dinosaurs and rocks are tested with Uranium-235, allowing us to regress up to 700 millions of years ago.

“My point: change from one species to another has never been observed. I know that evolutionsts don’t believe that an ape gave birth to a human (unless you buy the “hopeful monster” hypothesis, which, by the way, was proposed because of the lack of evidence that species evolved slowly.) “
We have seen the outcome of evolution (homologus structrues) and we have also been able to hypothesize different ways in which many organisms evolved (reproductive isolation, stabilizing selection, diversifying selection, directional selection). Or why do organisms from a different ancestor look similar and why sometimes organisms evolving from a common ancestor look different (convergent evolution, divergent evolution respectively). These changes require millions, hundreds of thousands of years at the least, this is why we have not seen evolution running, but we have seen its outcomes. We can still see sexual selection working.
What I mean is that evidence that species evolved slowly, does exist.

“You are correct, the Bible was written when many people thought the earth was flat. But the Bible specifically mentions the fact that the earth is round, and this lends credibility to the fact that it was divinely inspired. Isaiah 40:22- “He sits enthroned above the CIRCLE of the earth...” The Bible is correct both historicaly, scientifically and morally. I encourage you to study it if you really want to know the truth. It has changed my life, and has withstood every attack against it by skeptics and unbelievers through the ages”
The bible also says the earth is the center of the universe which has been refuted. So far, nobody has proven that God created us in the way the bible says. The bible is not right scientifically.

Evolution is an important part of biology, essential to grasp the big picture. My biology teacher kept referring to evolution in each unit, because it is part of science and is seen everywhere. Could you teach WWII without teaching the holocaust? You could try to approach the outcomes of the battlefront but you would be leaving a huge and important part out of the picture.

Submitted by Nico on Wednesday, December 23, 2009, at 10:31am

Dave
Polonium halos have been refuted, can you defend your claims with any other evidence?
By evidence I mean a thorough scientific research disproving evolution, not just philosophical inferrences.

Submitted by PhillyJim on Friday, January 08, 2010, at 4:47pm

On topic, of course we must teach the Theory of Evolution as part a natural science class. It is the first thing that should be taught in Biology because it is the foundation of Biology.  You must teach the Theory of Gravity and Atomic Theory in physics class. 

Dave - Let’s lay our cards on the table, you are what I would call a young earth creationist.  You believe that the Universe along with earth was created in 7 days as is written in the Bible, authored by your all knowing and perfect God. 

Creationist have always and always will have a problem with Evolution because it would prove that the bible was in the literal sense wrong.  Man would just be an animal and not created in the image of god.  Most creationist I have encountered, will never accept that is is possible that the Bible is flawed in any way no matter how much evidence is presented to the contrary.  When I encounter someone who has this locked mindset all I can say is, “no one is a blind as he who will not see”. 

I used to be a theist and a believer in that 2000 year old book about the son of a father with no mother, who is actually the father, a ghost and a man all at the same time, that will become a savior-zombie, that was born of a virgin.  Not to mention the the talking snake. Also how did Noah find polar bears in the desert? Did someone really live in the belly of a whale/fish, wow he could really hold his breath!

Maybe I am crazy, but this seemed to be a bit too much, so I actually looked critically at all explanations for what we see in the physical/material world and modern science is the best and only tool to explain it.  I let the evidence take me to the most reasonable logical explanation, I don’t try to fit the evidence into what the bible or any other book says.  To me the purpose of the Bible is not the same as Science’s attempt to explain the physical materialistic world. 

For me if there is a god, why would he make all of the physical evidence appear to create the illusion that Evolution is true?  For example, let’s focus only on DNA (to take Darwin completely out of the talk because he wasn’t aware of DNA). The new DNA evidence is a slam dunk that it supports Evolution 110%.  You clearly see the branches of the tree of life.  You see how close man and chimps are just as Evolution predicted.  While not everything has been explained, but if you put 950 pieces of a 1000 piece jigsaw puzzle together you can clearly see what the picture is.  The picture science has put together has nothing to do with any old stories in a book written 2000 years ago. 

I am opened minded and if anyone could prove that every single word in the Bible was 100% true and most of modern science was wrong.  That person would be the greatest scientist to have ever walked the earth. That person would be greater then Einstein, Newton, Galileo and Darwin… Scientists have big egos I think I could find more then a handful that would want to be known as the greatest scientist that ever lived.  But if the Bible were 100% true, I wouldn’t be happy having to stone to death an unruly child as directed in the good book just seems a tad bit harsh. 

On to the subject of TIME.  Dave you said “we have pretty good evidence that the earth is less than 30,000 years old” but we also have ice cores from Antarctic that go back at least +150,000 years.  I doubt the scientists doing this ice core work were all evil faithless heathens out to prove the bible is wrong and thus in a massive conspiracy falsified the real physical evidence.  It just seems a bit excessive.  So this is one of many many conflicts with your 30,000 year Universe/Earth old statement. 

All I have to say is, if any Scientist found conclusive testable evidence that the Universe or Earth was only 30,000 year they would race as fast as possible to publish the work and then book a flight to Sweden to pick up their Nobel prize.  A discovery like that would change everything and they would be the greatest scientist of all-time. 

Before anyone books a flight, the first burden of proof is you have to prove your (30,000 year old Universe/Earth) theory is correct.  Then the 2nd burden of proof is this new theory needs to also disprove all of the other tested theories that conflict with your theory.  A 2000 year old book with a nice zombie isn’t scientific proof of anything.  If something is true then it is true, now or 2000 years ago or it can’t be called science.  Otherwise it would just be a personal belief based on spiritual/supernatural faith that is outside the realm of science.

Also if someone can’t comprehend a scientific theory; count me in the group that can’t understand quantum mechanics.  If it doesn’t make sense to them, it doesn’t prove anything isn’t true. If I say quantum mechanics is wrong and I reject the entire theory in spite of the physical testable evidence no matter what, then I am just ignorant. 

If someone can’t believe in Evolution because it conflict with their personal religious faith, I can and will respect that but just man up and say it.  Don’t create a pseudoscience to support your supernatural beliefs and DO NOT try to force your supernatural (intelligent design) beliefs down my throat or in the public school classrooms. 

I’ll die to defend your right to believe in what ever religious or spiritual beliefs you choose. If someone takes away my right to worship however I see fit, I’ll also start another revolution to gain back my right. No one has the right to force their personal beliefs down anyone’s throat.  I think there are some religious groups in this country that need to be reminded religious freedom is the core principle that this country was founded on and the primary reason many groups fled Europe (I don’t know why they were afraid of the Inquisitions).  Just a reminder to the groups that want to make our America a “Christian Nation”.  Religious freedom is the one thing we really got right.

Submitted by Dave on Monday, February 01, 2010, at 10:53pm

PhillyJim,
If you are trying to discount the historical accuracy of the Bible, you will have to give a lot more evidence then using inflammatory references to it’s primary Subject (Jesus Christ). I don’t know where you’re getting the “zombie” notion from, but it goes to prove your ignorance on the topic. Anyone who examines the evidence with an open mind will come to the conclusion that the Bible is scientifically and historically solid. I would like you to reference a section of the Bible that you believe science can falsify.
I don’t know, but it sounds like you had a bad experience with Christianity and are now going with the only alternative belief regardless of the evidence. I maintain my position that REAL science and the Bible reinforce each other.
You said that DNA “is a slam dunk that it supports Evolution 110%”. Really? Are you arguing from homology?  You said that chimp and human DNA are so similar...this in no way points to evolution. Let’s approach this from the middle of the road- can’t DNA similarity just as well point to a common Designer as a common ancestor? Don’t you see how your evolutionary glass are shading how you look at the evidence? Similarity in different life forms is a pathetic arguement for evolution the proves nothing. By the way, depending on what you compare, we are more closely related to a fern, a sunflower, and an octopus than a chimp. Again, similarity proves nothing.
Your insinuation that since i disagree with evolution, i must not understand it, is faulty. That is a common implication from evolutionists though...if you disagree with evolution, you must be stupid. I almost feel like the theory is being stuffed down my throat. Talk about “stuffing beliefs down throats"- look at the one-sided presentation in classrooms!! This is anything but education...it’s indoctrination. Kids aren’t allowed to look at the evidence and come to their own conlusions. They’re told what to believe, and the THEORY of evolution is shoved down their throats. And what is the theory? If you trace it back, its a theory that says that humans and chimps and all other living things came from a rock in the ocean about 3 billion years ago! The only reason that this theory hasn’t been discarded long ago is because the only alternative is that there is a Creator who had the right to make rules for His creation.
You stated:
“All I have to say is, if any Scientist found conclusive testable evidence that the Universe or Earth was only 30,000 year they would race as fast as possible to publish the work and then book a flight to Sweden to pick up their Nobel prize.  A discovery like that would change everything and they would be the greatest scientist of all-time.”
I had to laugh when i read that. Are you aware of the extreme censurship that there is against science that disproves evolution? It’s not given a chance in the public square. This is because evolution cannot stand against an open exchange of evidence.
Anyone who studies the human eyeball and concludes “it made itself” is not logically coherent. Evolutionist want to make it sound that evolution is simply “change over time”. That is ridiculous- everyone believes in “change over time”. But to say that the human eyeball evolved by random accident is a far cry from just “change over time”. It is utterly stupid. But you must believe it if you don’t want to believe in God.
My rejection of evolution is based on scientific evidence as well as belief in the Bible. I cannot believe evolution because everything in nature contradicts it.
PhillyJim, have you studied the Bible for historical and scientific accuracy with an open mind? I would like to send you a DVD as a gift that may very well change your life. It tells the story of an atheist who was led to Jesus by following the evidence wherever it led. If you would be kind enough to send me your address, I would like to send that DVD to you. If you don’t want to post your address here, you may email it to me at .
I truly believe that the evidence is in my favor and strongly against evolution. This is an incredibly important topic with potentially eternal consequences. Let’s be open-minded.

Submitted by Nico on Thursday, February 18, 2010, at 10:32pm

Dave:
I’ll certainly repeat something PhillyJim said:
LAY YOUR CARDS ON THE TABLE. Before arguing you should first define your position.

Your earlier posts read:
“change from one species to another has never been observed. I know that evolutionsts don’t believe that an ape gave birth to a human (unless you buy the “hopeful monster” hypothesis, which, by the way, was proposed because of the LACK OF EVIDENCE THAT SPECIES EVOLVED SLOWLY” (emphasis mine)

Now you claim:
“everyone believes in ‘change over time’”

Second:
“can’t DNA similarity just as well point to a common Designer as a common ancestor? Don’t you see how your evolutionary glass are shading how you look at the evidence?”
-If you wish to teach in a clasroom that homology points to a common designer, you would need to provide solid scientific evidence for the existence of the designer, otherwise you would just be misinterpreting the facts to fit religious ideas.

“Anyone who examines the evidence with an open mind will come to the conclusion that the Bible is scientifically and historically solid.”
-You have claimed that all along, its been 8 posts and you have not provided more evidence other than polonium halos.
-what about the Census in Luke or Herod’s massacre of children. Where is the historical evidence for that?

“Are you aware of the extreme censurship that there is against science that disproves evolution? It’s not given a chance in the public square. This is because evolution cannot stand against an open exchange of evidence.”
-Resorting to denial are we?

Before anybody sends any email, please provide at least some sort of evidence (the one in the DVD counts!) in this discussion.

“Let’s be open-minded.”
Of course, but we would need some at least some of the evidence you claim you have.

Also I forgot to say this before, 100% my bad:
Bacteria develop resistance when bombarded to antibiotics. This happens when a resistant bacteria survives an antibiotic and then reproduces, pasing its resistance genes with it. Bacteria tend to mutate and reproduce much faster than other organisms. If bacteria can evolve in hours, why can’t organisms evolve after millions of years?

Submitted by Nico on Friday, February 19, 2010, at 12:04am

Ok dave I just sent you an email, please send me the dvd to see what you have....
I still believe you should have posted some of this “information” you claim to have on the discussion but I realized that the sooner I get your evidence the better (for the discussion)

Submitted by St.Darwin on Tuesday, March 23, 2010, at 2:54pm

Evolution never happened, and never will.

To begin with, “Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.” is not a remark by geneticist Theodosius Dobzhansky, it is falsely attributed to him. It was something stated for the first time in conjunction with the plot behind the Scope trial. This was how they convinced Scope, against his better judgment, that he must have been mentioned evolution in class at a time when evolution was allegedly banned from schools. In actuality, the accusations were false, especially since the Monkey Bill was not yet the law of the land at the time they concocted the Scope trial.

Darwin was never convinced he had a real case for evolution, reason why he only reluctantly and pushed by some of his friends he decided to publish his book at a time when Wallace was about to still the show by publishing something similar. If one reads carefully On The Origin of Species he will be able to find out Darwin was aware of all the problems with his theory, the “difficulties” how he used to call those grave problems. Thomas Huxley insisted he publish the book not because he believed in Darwin’s theory but because he was convinced he could use it as a tool to fight against religious irrational and the malefic influence of the church on the society. Huxley was actually a saltationist and, to Darwin’s expressed chagrin, many times in his writings we find him dismissing gradual evolution as an impossibility.

No one has ever observed one species morphing into another species and the entire theory is based on assumptions, on unfounded inferences, and wishful thinking. You do not fight a lie with another lie and we should stop inoculating the minds of our children with false theories about evolution or about a confused god creating the world in six days. 

The fossil record, especially the Cambrian fossil, totally conflicts with the concept of gradual evolution and Darwin knew about it. He was only hoping the problem will eventually be solved by the way of new discoveries. It never did and it only got worse, especially due to what the new discoveries have proven in China, Canada and in Utah,USA. His tree of life, where everything starts with a common ancestor, was turned on its head: we had many more species in the beginning than we have today.

No one knows how a self-replicating cell has appeared on Earth or how a not-so-simple amoeba was formed in the process of evolution but they claim they know how the amoeba became Albert Einstein. Have you ever asked yourself, though, how come that such a brilliant physicist and philosopher like Albert Einstein never issued a statement in support of what the theory of evolution suggests? 

The irreducible complexity of all living organism imposes on us the conclusion that all parts within a living form had to be there simultaneously or the living form would not function. No one has ever witnessed parts being added by mother nature to an existing living organism. Common sense says that is totally impossible and even Stephen Gould, the famous American evolutionist, was writing in reference to the alleged evolution of the giraffe that one cannot have a longer neck without having to change the circulatory system, the joints, the muscles, the brain and so on and so on. 

Natural selection can only be associated with small adaptations or the extinction of some of the species, never with evolution or with the appearance of a new species. If that would be possible,we should continue to see natural selection producing new species, something that we are yet to witness.

Small changes occur only within the same species, and it is never something spectacular. The DNA has devices in place that do not allow major mutations to happen. All errors in the copying of a gene result in malformations, not in a better species. No one knows also where does the information stored in the DNA comes from. You cannot have though self-reproducing cells without having first the information. It is inevitable thus for us to conclude that we must have an idea, a blueprint, a written program before we have a material living form, or a planet, or a universe.

All that being said, there is no proof, no evidence, no credible records attesting to the existence of a god-creator or of any kind of divine power. The question is, do we have a source for all the ideas behind everything material? Common sense and logic tells us that is a very strong probability. Everything in the universe is energy and information, and no one would dispute that. Once again, does anyone know where the information comes from. However, that source of spiritual energy and information is not something we should worship, we should not expect it to help us or to punish us or to make our life easier or more pleasant for us. We live here to experience the material based on the choices we make. 

Both creationism and evolutionism are two doctrines based on pure belief and not much else. We can do better than that as a civilization.

Submitted by JamesRLamar on Thursday, July 15, 2010, at 12:03am

I have been a devote evolutionist for many years before taking a very thorough and unbiased approach into researching the claims of evolution. I, like others before me such as C.S. Lewis, have been won over by the truth, not some man made religion and certainly not artist renditions of Cro-Magnon Man. I encourage you to do the same. Remember, “thorough “ and “unbiased”. That’s what science is supposed to be about anyway, right?.

No offense to the rest of you folks, but none of you have adequately refuted Dave’s arguments. Not that it matters if I say that. I’m just text on a screen to you. The truth is that your mind is already made up. Any contentions with what you believe will be largely inconvenient and consequential to your comfortable mental fantasies and will undoubtedly be dismissed as ignorant, incompetent or farce. This is not to say that everything you believe is wrong, just that you refuse to acknowledge the most significant arguments because of their potential impact upon your soul. I’d like to see just a few sound rebuttals to Dave’s remarks. Dave mentioned quite a few, but I would have stopped after the first few were practically ignored.

BTW, not trying to be a troll here, I just wish folks actually listened before they spoke. I have heard some very intelligent things said on this post so I am confident you’re intelligent people. I just can’t believe you’re as truly open minded as you think you are.

Dave, if you’re still reading up on this post, please send me a message some time.

Submitted by Philip Bruce Heywood on Sunday, September 19, 2010, at 2:36am

I’m late to this quality diablog, but not as late as science has been to answering its own question—something like half a century late, since Crick & co.’twigged onto DNA. Incidentally, didn’t that enlightenment help turn Crick to panspermia? 

The answer to whether science needs or doesn’t need Evolution is yes and no, depending on what one means by Evolution.  Read GENESIS, and we find a creation account that implies species pre-existence and the revelation of species over time.  And what set Crick off on a radically different angle?  He recognized what he was looking at.  Information technology.  What does I.T. imply?  Species can pre-exist, provided a living cell is on the Earth, and the I.T. can kick in.  This isn’t rocket science.  Quantum I.T. helps, but even a schoolchild with an old PC conventional computer can see it. 

The answer is, yes and no, depending: but THE QUESTION IS NO LONGER RELEVANT.  Technologic advance, it seems, waits for no man-- and for no man’s personal ideaology.

Owen carries off most of the prizes—remember his archetype concept?  Instead of archetype, type in Information-- Responsive Transformer.  The man was brilliant. 

For an introduction to modern evolution in the quantum age, one could glance at http://www.creationtheory.com

If you find any errors, kindly advize.

Philip Heywood, geologist, Australia.