relaxification

I'm assuming you creationists know what I'm talking about because you claim to be up on evolutionary theory. So how do you explain these findings? How could evolutionary theory have predicted precisely what was found, years later, to be true? What is your alternate explanation, and why didn't you guys predict it as well?

My last question was clearly too complicated. I realize it was long but this is an issue fraught with so much misinformation I thought a little explanation was necessary. I was wrong. Only one creationist even attempted to answer the question. All the others just told me why they don't accept evolution, something I already knew. The one attempt at a response simply pointed me to a list of scientists who work in other fields who happen to be young earth creationists. So here's a really simple question. I don't care if you don't believe in evolution: I assume this to be true. So please don't tell me why you think evolution is false. It's not important. Here's the question:

What scientific advancements in the field of biology have been accomplished by biologists using creation science instead of evolutionary biology?

I'm not interested in nuclear physics. I don't care about the MRI. These advancements took place in fields where disbelief in evolution was irrelevant. I'm looking for breakthroughs in biology or genetics or any field which generally requires knowledge of evolution. Have any breakthroughs been made by people whose knowledge is informed by creationism, not evolutionary biology?

Again, and I hate to have to say this, I don't care what you believe. I'm going to assume you wonder why there are still monkeys, and that you demand that a chicken gives birth to a dog in order to change your mind. Just try to answer the question.

I've been largely absent from YA for more than a couple of years, but coming back recently I see that the constant stream of comments from people who "doubt" the theory of evolution (TOE) is true continues unabated.

First, to the people who use the the argument that it is "just" a theory, are you aware what a scientific theory is, and that it is not the same thing as a hunch? Do you realize that by making this argument you're only displaying the degree to which you're not qualified even to have an opinion. And why don't more sensible christians step in and correct you? Surely the truth is more important than ideology.

Primarily I'm curious what you hope to achieve. TOE is a scientific theory, meaning since its initial proposal it's been tested, modified to include all new available and conflicting data, and used to predict many counter-intuitive things which have turned out to be true. Like every scientific theory it is provisional - should new data arise that it can't explain nobody is wedded to it ideologically - what's important is that it cover all the data, so it's been regularly updated to do so and now is quite substantially different than Darwin's original idea. This new, current TOE is known as the modern synthesis and it takes our modern knowledge of genetics and chemistry (and physics, and statistic...) and together the result is a highly useful scientific model.

That's the point - that it's useful. It really doesn't matter if a scientific theory is "true," although it's generally the case that by any definition they are. Nobody cares if a theory is true - it's not even the right question to ask. Theories can be false, of course, and science is in many ways a big machine designed to falsify theories - one of the hallmarks of a scientific theory is that it must be falsifiable for it to generate meaningful data - but the question of whether they are true or not is academic. If a theory accounts for all the available data, generates interesting predictions that turn out to be true, and points research in what turns out to be valuable directions, then it is what it is intended to be: a useful tool.

it's undeniable that TOE is a useful tool. A kid last year received the first treatment based on new gene therapy and his blindness was cured. This is a direct result of years of research beginning with an understanding of TOE, leading through Watson and Crick's discovery, leading up to the decoding of the human genome, and ending with a boy who can see for the first time. That's a pretty solid series of independent steps, all balancing on a theory whose "truth" you guys keep questioning, isn't it? Without TOE the kid would still be blind.

So what are you really proposing? You like to point out inconsistencies that are all non-issues for real scientists working in the field. You claim things like macro-evolution has never been observed, even though you can observe it yourself if you're willing to take a few years to cultivate some fruit flies. You claim that because nobody was there all those years ago to witness what happened we can't claim anything about what did, as if the concept of evidence is completely alien to you. But let's pretend for a moment that you're right. That somehow it's all been a big mistake. What do you offer to replace it?

Whatever it is it had better be at least as good as the TOE. Can it account for all the data? Can it successfully predict things? Can it lead to research that enables a blind kid to see? Where's the science being done by creationists, so at least we can have a look and see what miraculous stuff we've been missing out on?

Think carefully because it sounds to me like you're proposing something irresponsible. Creationists aren't scientists, they're bloggers - you know this, you copy and paste their posts here as your "evidence." But do you really want them in charge?

Do you understand any of this? How would you like to see things change, and is that change possible without horrible consequences, like lots of blind kids staying blind?

There are many, many questions which commence with the word "Atheist." Because I'm charitable I won't assume that such a large number of Christians don't know how to pluralize nouns (that would mean that a large number of them here are illiterate or poorly educated), so I'm left with the assumption that they're talking to a person named Atheist. Who is this guy?

For the purposes of this question it doesn't matter whether or not the theory of evolution is true or a hoax. Please just do your best to respond.

There are many examples of creationist arguments that even the figureheads of the movement have stopped using.

Whether or not evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics has been cleared up to the satisfaction of both sides: it doesn't.

As to why there are still monkeys around if we supposedly evolved from monkeys, I don't know where to start, except to say it's APES.

You get the point. What I would like to know is if anyone can find an example of a creationist correcting one of these errors here on YA. Surely the smarter ones know these are deeply flawed, yet none of them seem disturbed that a fellow creationist harbors such a grave misconception.

Finding one example doesn't do much if it's anomalous. Can you show me that it happens all the time, as it does when someone from the other camp errs?

If not, what does this say about creationists, in particular in light of their damning assertions about the honesty of the mainstream scientific community?

A modern day Christian praying to Jesus, hoping his sick mother will recover.

and

An ancient Roman, praying to Mars, hoping his next battle will go as planned.

Both individuals truly believe(d) that the addressed god is real. Both are sure that all the other gods (the ones worshipped by other cultures, mainly) are false.

How do we reconcile this? Does it make sense, as an atheist, to group Christians, Romans, ancient Nordic tribes, and all other deists into one large delusional group? Or do Christians have something extra, something that convinces them that they are more correct (both in the way they feel and in absolute terms) than their historical counterparts?

In a recent issue of the New Yorker there is a fascinating article about current research looking in particular kinds of retrovirii (Dec 3, 2007, Specter, M, Darwin's Surprise.)

I'm curious what creationists think about these developments, particularly those who take issue with the idea of common ancestry shared between apes and humans.

I'll briefly summarize what struck me as important.

1. It is clear that certain types of retrovirii have the ability to both modify the host's DNA and cause that change to be inheritable. In other words there are virii out there that have been shown to "infect" an organism such that future offspring are born with the viral DNA as part of their own. This has been demonstrated, duplicated, observed, and is not in any doubt.

2. It is also clear that our "junk" DNA (the vast majority of our genetic code that doesn't seem to "do" anything) is made up at least in part from old retrovirii, rendered impotent over many generations.

Having spent a fair bit of time reading the various evolution/creationism questions and answers I see that, for the most part, the people on the pro-evolution side understand what the theory means and explain it fairly well.

But there are common mistakes, logical errors, and misstatements made all the time by creationists to defend their view of things. While some of these might be considered judgement calls, the ones below are not. Yet they recur at such a dramatic rate that I wonder about the cognitive skills of the people who perpetuate them. A few examples of errors made in defending creationism.

1. "Evolution is just a theory." How many times do people have to be told that a "theory" is not the same as a "scientific theory?" They are not the same words. So basing any arguments on what "theory" means outside of science proves nothing more than a lack of understanding.

to be continued...

It's easy to find examples of Christians, Jews, followers of all the other religions, and atheists who believe in evolutionary theory.

But are any of evolution's detractors non-Christians?

If your answer is no, do you find this suspicious?

I'd like to characterize the opposing sides.

Evolution is an explanation that scientists have arrived at through measurement, experiment and hypothesis. First came the observations, and then came the theory, which was then revised as new information came to light.

Creationism, began with a conclusion ("God did it.") and worked backwards, looking for physical evidence that supports it. It accepts as a given the claim that the bible is completely accurate, and it refuses to probe deeper into a glaring question: "If God did it, who created God?"

Regardless of one's spiritual views it seems to me that the first process I described is vastly more reliable than the second.

I can't think of any other example of a widely held theory that was arrived at backwards. In this sense it seems apparent that creationism is fundamentally tainted, and that an unbiased judge (unfamiliar with both Darwin and Deuteronomy) would have to side with science.

Thoughts?