Creationism's damage to Christianity

[Rian]

I disagree, and I also think you're equivocating, but if you insist ... then what is the name of the thing that the field of study of macroevolution studies?

I'm not equivocating. Those who are in the field of macroevolution study evolution. They just happen to study how evolution works over large time scales, rather than small time scales.

Yes, they study macroevolution.

Here's a nice link to a non-religious university describing macroevolution:

That's a nice, succinct explanation. Note in particular:

Macroevolution is the study of evolution over geologic time (thousands to millions of years).

That's pretty much what I said, wasn't it?

No, it's not - that was only PART of what you said - you also said that it was "not a separate natural phenomenon." The article (and pretty much every reference I've come across) refers to it both ways.

I'll let the next few points go, because I think we're closer than we appear, but could you please tell me how agriculture would be changed?

Dating that far back is also conjecture (although certainly educated conjecture) [...]

It's as good as any scientific process gets. If radiometric dating doesn't work, then we need another explanation as to why nuclear power plants work.

They work in the present, not in the extrapolated past.

This is a crucial point, which a lot of people don't appreciate: We have a lot of independent lines of evidence, all of which give the same answer, and none of which give an answer to the contrary. You can bet your life on evolution. Indeed, many people who receive modern medical care do precisely that.

Balderdash. How do they do that? And because evolution takes the present and works backwards and then says, hey, it matches what we have in the present, I'm just not that impressed.

Understood. And just to be clear, I don't think that the majority of those who disagree with evolution are stupid. There's a lot of common misunderstandings out there, and it's understandably difficult to sort through the combination of fact, half-truth and misinformation that is out there.

There's a lot of that on both sides, and I try to get people to look at things with an open mind. I imagine we can agree there

[Pseudonym]

No, it's not - that was only PART of what you said - you also said that it was "not a separate natural phenomenon." The article (and pretty much every reference I've come across) refers to it both ways.

That's interesting, because I've never heard a biologist use the word "macroevolution" to refer to a separate natural phenomenon.

The problem here is that words like "microevolution" and "macroevolution" are just words. When the word "planet" was redefined, Pluto's composition or orbit didn't change, we just put it in a different human-created category. The concepts that scientific words like this refer to do not exist as distinct parts of nature. You can define "macroevolution" as "evolution which takes place at the species level or higher", but you then run into the same problem one level up, since "species" is also a human-created category.

To be honest, I don't see what the big controversy is. It seems pretty simple to me to say that if a law of nature is correct, then it's correct over all scales. If gravity works at a human scale, then its effects should scale up as masses increase to satellites, planets, galaxies and so on. If evolution works on human timescales, then its effects should scale up as timelines increase to species, clades and so on.

I think that the onus is on those who don't believe in "macroevolution" (whatever that means) to define precisely what they mean by this in a way that can be tested (whether in the lab or using the genetic/geologic/etc record).

I'll let the next few points go, because I think we're closer than we appear, but could you please tell me how agriculture would be changed?

If natural selection doesn't work, then artificial selection shouldn't work either. We'd have to come up with an alternative explanation as to how it works.

They work in the present, not in the extrapolated past.

Nonetheless, the equations that explain nuclear fission are the same ones that explain radioactive decay. If radiometric dating of rocks doesn't work, then we need to come up with an alternative explanation as to how nuclear power plants work.

Balderdash. How do they do that?

Anti-viral medicines need to be carefully tailored to the specific combination of strains of virii that a patient is infected with. It's only by closely modelling viral mutations that we know what specific cocktail of anti-virals to put a specific patient on.

[Rian]

No, it's not - that was only PART of what you said - you also said that it was "not a separate natural phenomenon." The article (and pretty much every reference I've come across) refers to it both ways.

That's interesting, because I've never heard a biologist use the word "macroevolution" to refer to a separate natural phenomenon.

It's used that way at TalkOrigins, which every evolutionist I've ever come across loves to reference, as well as in university sites. I just don't get why you haven't seen it used that way - I see it used that way a lot. But whatever ... these things happen

The problem here is that words like "microevolution" and "macroevolution" are just words.

Which describe phenomenon, among other things.

When the word "planet" was redefined, Pluto's composition or orbit didn't change, we just put it in a different human-created category.

Agreed - and is my point about speciation.

The concepts that scientific words like this refer to do not exist as distinct parts of nature. You can define "macroevolution" as "evolution which takes place at the species level or higher", but you then run into the same problem one level up, since "species" is also a human-created category.

Correct, which I've pointed out.

To be honest, I don't see what the big controversy is.

The site I referenced does.

It seems pretty simple to me to say that if a law of nature is correct, then it's correct over all scales.

How can you believe this? There are a zillion examples against it. The one that pops into my head first is the old one about if a young boy lifts a young calf every day, then in a year he'll still be able to lift it. There are zillions of examples of things in nature that hit limits. If a bee can fly across a pond, can it fly across an ocean? If I can hear a whale call underwater half a mile away (which is waaaayyyy cool!!! lemme tell ya!! ) can I hear it 500 miles away? The list goes on and on.

If gravity works at a human scale, then its effects should scale up as masses increase to satellites, planets, galaxies and so on.

Doesn't it run into other things that affect it at these larger scales? Not that it matters, because I can still give a zillion other examples of things hitting limits.

If evolution works on human timescales, then its effects should scale up as timelines increase to species, clades and so on.

It's a possibility, but we sure don't see any actual evidence of this, a difficulty that that article (again, a non-religious university) points out.

I think that the onus is on those who don't believe in "macroevolution" (whatever that means) to define precisely what they mean by this in a way that can be tested (whether in the lab or using the genetic/geologic/etc record).

Hey, get the evolutionists that use the term to agree on a definition first! But I'm happy with the generally-used definition that most people that I've come across know. And how can you prove a negative? You can just show that it doesn't seem to happen in a way that we can see with tests. Surely you'd agree with that? And since when has science made a claim and then said it's true unless proven negative? Shouldn't the people that claim it happens be able to show it? Yet most evolutionists that I've come across say (as does that article) that the time-scale factor prohibits showing the larger-scale macroevolution events.

I'll let the next few points go, because I think we're closer than we appear, but could you please tell me how agriculture would be changed?

If natural selection doesn't work, then artificial selection shouldn't work either. We'd have to come up with an alternative explanation as to how it works.

This is a great example - for me. Artificial selection works - whether or not evolution is true - right? If someone discovered that evolution wasn't true today, wouldn't artificial selection still work tomorrow? Of COURSE it would! Do you really think it wouldn't?

Nonetheless, the equations that explain nuclear fission are the same ones that explain radioactive decay. If radiometric dating of rocks doesn't work, then we need to come up with an alternative explanation as to how nuclear power plants work.

You seem to be talking as if we suddenly lost an explanation for a phenomenon, then the phenomenon would stop until we have another explanation If something works, it works. Something that explains it can be right ... or wrong - the old "bears go into hibernation during football season - hmm, maybe they don't like football?" thing. It always works - but their hibernation patterns have nothing to really do with football season - if football was suddenly moved up a few months, their hibernation wouldn't change along with it.

Balderdash. How do they do that?

Anti-viral medicines need to be carefully tailored to the specific combination of strains of virii that a patient is infected with. It's only by closely modelling viral mutations that we know what specific cocktail of anti-virals to put a specific patient on.

And this has nothing to do with evolution itself - it has to do with mutation theory, which would remain the same if evolution were proven wrong. Do you agree?

[mitchellmckain]

Creationism as a pseudo-science is

Scientists define species. It's no big deal. They see small-scale changes and define a species, then say that speciation occurs, and then claim that since macroevolution is just lots of speciation, therefore macroevolution occurs. Very disingenuous.

That like saying a mathematical proof by induction is disingenuous, which is incredibly ignorant. The truth is that the speciation process is quite complex and quite different depending on what kind of organisms you are talking about. A large number of incidents have been observed in the laboratory in which we see the changes that we would expect in that type of organism if they are evolving towards separate species. In sexually repoducing species we see the changes in seperated populations towards being non-reproductive between them. And this is not just in the laboratory but all around us in the natural world. If the non-scientist chooses to see complexities as efforts at deception its because they see what they want to see. The point is that the scientists see all that they would expect to see according to what the theory predicts and that is all that the methodology of science demands for its conclusions.

The real problem here is that the creationists don't want there to be a scientific theory for the existence of life and the species and that is where all the disingenousness is to be found.

[Rian]

That like saying a mathematical proof by induction is disingenuous, which is incredibly ignorant.

If you can use that analogy, then you're not getting what I'm saying. I've done plenty of mathematical proofs (they're such fun! kind of like a safari ... hunt around, find the hint of a trail, and GO for it!), and that is NOT by any means an apt comparison to what I was trying to get across. I've found that I'm not as good a writer as I once thought I was, so I'll try again.

But before I do that, I'd like to say this: overall, I tend to think some sort of creationism happened, but I see flaws on BOTH sides, and I see good points on BOTH sides. Yes, I think the rabid creationists have done some harm, but I think that rabid evolutionists are also doing harm. What I like to do is to evaluate claims from both sides, that CAN be evaluated by a non-scientist (and there are plenty of these), in an open-minded, logical way, without bias, and then give them their appropriate weight. And I find that many people don't tend to do this - they just decide what side they're on and then go with everything that side says. I don't think that's right - I think people should think for themselves as far as possible. You do NOT have to be a scientist to evaluate many of the claims that are made by both sides in the field of origins.

I think that because of how some of the rabid creationists have acted, there can be a knee-jerk reaction against ANYTHING that at ALL even has the smallest whiff of creationism, and Mitch, I think that might have been what happened with you, especially coupled with my unclear explanation. As a fellow Christian, I'd like to ask you the favor of stopping for prayer before going on with the rest of the post.

The truth is that the speciation process is quite complex and quite different depending on what kind of organisms you are talking about. A large number of incidents have been observed in the laboratory in which we see the changes that we would expect in that type of organism if they are evolving towards separate species. In sexually repoducing species we see the changes in seperated populations towards being non-reproductive between them. And this is not just in the laboratory but all around us in the natural world.

I agree with every single thing you said here. Did you think I would?

And I'm going to stop there, because we're heading next door for our neighbor's bday party - he's one of the funnest guys in the world! I just love the whole family! And hopefully by the time I return, I'll do a better job of explaining.

[mitchellmckain]

The truth is that the speciation process is quite complex and quite different depending on what kind of organisms you are talking about. A large number of incidents have been observed in the laboratory in which we see the changes that we would expect in that type of organism if they are evolving towards separate species. In sexually repoducing species we see the changes in seperated populations towards being non-reproductive between them. And this is not just in the laboratory but all around us in the natural world.

I agree with every single thing you said here. Did you think I would?

You said yourself that you are not a rabid anti-science creationist. Nor did I see in you, the behavior I was ascribing to creationists. I had every hope that you would see that what I was saying was reasonable. I ususally do. I am not really into preaching AT people.

I think that because of how some of the rabid creationists have acted, there can be a knee-jerk reaction against ANYTHING that at ALL even has the smallest whiff of creationism, and Mitch, I think that might have been what happened with you, especially coupled with my unclear explanation. As a fellow Christian, I'd like to ask you the favor of stopping for prayer before going on with the rest of the post.

Dear Rian, I believe that God created the universe and all the living things in it and not according to some Deistic dodge either. So I don't think my reaction is against any "whiff of creationism". However I am also a scientist - I love the study of both theology and science and will rush to the defense of both of them - but what some people do not seem to understand is that their survival depends on understanding the difference between them and not confusing one for the other. My reaction is against anti-science rhetoric. I am a vocal opponent of Thomas Kuhn for the same reason. I was objecting to your use of the word "disingenous" to describe scientists. It is my opinion that scientists are a tremendous example of both honesty, humility and faith that Christians really ought to learn from, if they are capable of the required humility to do so.

What I like to do is to evaluate claims from both sides, that CAN be evaluated by a non-scientist (and there are plenty of these), in an open-minded, logical way, without bias, and then give them their appropriate weight. And I find that many people don't tend to do this - they just decide what side they're on and then go with everything that side says. I don't think that's right - I think people should think for themselves as far as possible. You do NOT have to be a scientist to evaluate many of the claims that are made by both sides in the field of origins.

Yes but the problem with this is that the non-scientists who do so tend to confuse science with the realm of rhetoric that they used to dealing in, usually because they mistake the philosophical rhetoric of scientists dabling in philophy and popular writing for science itself. Science has its own standards for the evaluation of its clams and the evaluation of the claims of popular writings is quite irrelevant to science. Ultra-Darwinism is more rhetoric of personal philosophy than the legitimate work of science. Dawkins certainly dabbles in both, "The Selfish Gene" being far more of the former than the latter and the "The God Delusion" being an excellent example of why scientists should not think their work in science really makes them significantly qualified to contribute to fields outside their own field of study and expertise.

But before I do that, I'd like to say this: overall, I tend to think some sort of creationism happened, but I see flaws on BOTH sides, and I see good points on BOTH sides. Yes, I think the rabid creationists have done some harm, but I think that rabid evolutionists are also doing harm.

Good, because so do I. In fact I like to describe the following metaphor. The "atheist-evolutionist" and the "fundie-creationist" see the tomatoes in the grocery store. The creationist says, "see how perfectly round and ripe they all are, these were obviously designed by the very best engineers." The evolutionist says, "I see no evidence of any engineers anywhere around these tomatoes, so these must be the product of chance and natural law." The truth shows how foolish they both are, for the tomatoes were not designed by any engineers. They grew on tomato plants but they would not exist but for the care and work of the farmer(s) who grew them, whether you can see them in the grocery store or not.