Dear runner,

All scientists treat evolution as a theory, just as they treat gravity as a theory. Like gravity, evolution is both fact and theory.

The fossil record has helped validate evolution far better than Darwin could’ve ever dreamed. In fact, evolution was first vindicated when he was still alive with the discovery of the archaeopteryx.

The geologic column shows that the deeper we go, the more basic and primitive the life forms are. To claim that we are still waiting for fossils to validate Darwin’s theory displays a level of ignorance so astonishing it is beyond comprehension.

There are literally thousands of transitional fossils. That being said, you should be able to list for me thousands (or at least hundreds) of cases of fraud.

The only genuine case of fraud I can think of was Piltdown man. The rest of alleged frauds are actually creationist frauds.

Henry Osborne, the man who discovered the Nebraska man tooth, foolishly publicized it by submitting it to a popular magazine before submitting it to peer review. No other scientist believed it was the tooth of an early human and the ‘artist’s impression’ that featured in the magazine was not done by a scientist. No one could accurately draw a picture of an early human from a tooth and no scientist would attempt to.

Despite this, creationists like to claim that scientists were duped and that they drew an entire picture from this tooth.

I could rattle off a few other examples of the false allegations of fraud from creationists if you’d like? Claims about Peking man, Java man and Lucy are just a few that come to mind.

Well known Creationists will continue to lie and make claims they know are false so long as religious people like yourself continue to believe anything they say.

In regards to observing a creator, nothing you have said is objective and is therefore meaningless. The human body is so flawed and faulty that not even a human would consider it an acceptable design - let alone a god.

An epic fail all round, I’m afraid.

A few point I missed.

runner,

Abiogenesis and evolution are two different things. Evolution doesn’t attempt to explain how life began, it explains the diversity we see.

Dr. Robert Hazen says that he starts with the assumption that life emerged from basic raw materials because that’s only way science can work. Science deals with the natural world, not the supernatural.

One last point : Scientists have not been testing abiogenesis for hundreds of years. Abiogenesis is still a very new field of science. But yes, various stages of abiogenesis have been repeated and there is nothing yet to suggest that it is impossible.

But this all seems like such a waste of time (I didn’t actually expect a response to be honest). Anyone who could still reject such a solid and robust scientific theory in the 21st century is obviously not all there upstairs.

Runner,

Thanks for your ideas. I do have a few questions here: please don't take them as attacks, I'm just hoping for clarification.

A few other people have dealt with the "creating life" idea - did Darwin actually say anything about this? I'm pretty sure it's not in Origin or Descent, but perhaps it's in some minor work. It wouldn't surprise me - he was a pretty eclectic thinker who dabbled in a lot of topics.

My other question relates to "transitional fossils". Are they really necessary? As I understand it, they would be essential for Ussher or Lamarck's theories of evolution - in both, species constantly change to achieve purposes and reach perfection. Darwin's theory, though, deals more with mutations and favourable variations. This honeyeater has a longer beak than that one, so it survives and the other dies. That sort of thing. You wouldn't expect to see transitional "halfway" specimens because they either have it or they don't. Giraffes' necks don't gradually grow, in the Lamarckian way; rather, the longer-necked giraffes live while the shorter-necked ones die. Looking for the "missing link" between ape and man is more in tune with Ussher's "chain of being", as creatures get gradually more sophisticated as time goes by.

Darwin's theory is, like other scientific theories, impossible to prove. But the evidence supports its modern incarnations. I'd be interested in your views here - especially in terms of what transitional fossils we should be looking for.

Dear bushbasher,

Newtonian physics is wrong. However, for most applications with masses not sufficiently large to noticeably warp the space-time continuum and velocities not close to that of light the error terms are so small that they can safely be disregarded.

Dear George.

Mathematics and the sciences both use inductive and deductive reasoning. Mathematical deductive reasoning proceeds from a set of axioms by a series of logical steps to prove the hypothesis. When proven the hypothesis becomes a theorem.

In science deductive reasoning using other scientific information and theories sets up a hypothesis.

In the sciences there are only inductive proofs. In mathematics if the hypothesis holds in the first case and one can show that if it is true for the nth case for any n then it is true for the n+1 case it is true for all cases. However, in the sciences, we can only examine a finite number of cases. We cannot assume proof from a finite number of cases. Proof in every instance tried leads to the assumption that it is true in all cases. However, it must remain an assumption because there may exist a case in which the hypothesis is disproved. In science there is neither proofs nor theorems – only hypotheses that have not been disproved.

Evolution is a fact as shown by the fossil record of the disappearance of species and the appearance of new species. Darwinian theory provides a mechanism for the fact of evolution. This mechanism is natural selection. There can be and are other mechanisms. One is symbiosis. However, if there were an instance where natural selection could be shown not to work Darwinian theory would be disproved. Such an example might be found either in nature or by experiment. I cannot imagine how a researcher could set up such an experiment, but I can’t deny the possibility of a researcher setting up such an experiment. I regard the possibility as slightly less than convincing runner that he is wrong.

George, our disagreements are minor.

Miranda, thanks for your response. I’m not sure that Genesis is trying to “explain” human experience, at least not in the way a psychologist might. I agree that religion at its shallowest and most dogmatic can be a barrier to self-understanding and a sop to fears. But it has also provided a pathway to deeper exploration of self and of ethics, reflection on social values and wellbeing, and regard for others. Throughout history, most moral philosophers have had religious faith, and today a disproportionate number of charities were founded or are staffed by people with religious motivation. This does not prove that religion makes you moral, but it suggests that religion is not barrier to altruism and moral development.

I wonder if your argument is not somewhat circular – you presume that an ethics founded on faith is false because there is no God. A mirror argument, that ethics founded on God must be good because God is good, would equally assume its conclusion.

Pericles, I agree that our culture is continuously exploring the question of human values and existence, though I suspect that Neighbours and Home and Away will prove less enduring and influential than the Bible in this regard!

I also agree that evolutionary theory is not a symbol, parable or repository of moral instruction. But there are people who treat it as if it is, for example “social Darwinists” who see humanity as the pinnacle of evolution, and “survival of the fittest” as an analogy and justification for the benefits of collective and individual competition.

In answer to your final question, science can explain WHY we feel grief, pleasure, fear, love, hostility, affiliation etc. But religion explores HOW these are encountered subjectively, and how to live – socially, subjectively, ethically, spiritually, economically – in the world as we find it. I don’t claim that only religion can do this. Dostoevsky, and TV shows and cartoons, and economics, sociology, psychiatry etc also have much to contribute. But I don’t see religion as a rival of science or culture.

Bennie

'"contrary to Darwin's theory that life can not come from non living chemicals."

Did Darwin really say this? Yes check 'Life and Letters of Charles Darwin (New York: Appelton, 1901), 2:202-203 note.'
http://www.asa3.org/asa/PSCF/1995/PSCF9-95Newman.html

AdamD
The fossil record has helped validate evolution far better than Darwin could’ve ever dreamed. In fact, evolution was first vindicated when he was still alive with the discovery of the archaeopteryx.

You really must get up to date with the many scientist that know reject archaeopteryx as any proof of evolution. Evolutionist Dr George Gaylord Simpson was honest enough to say "The uniform continuous transformation of Hyracotherium into Equus, so dear to the hearts of the text book writers, never happened in nature.' This 'evidence' has been long discredited. Obviously you have not got up to date with the latest dogma. Many honest scientist know that their is a complete lack of evidence linking the various 'horse family' together.

You write

'he human body is so flawed and faulty that not even a human would consider it an acceptable design - let alone a god.'

Looking at anything man has made compared to God's creation makes your statement look nothing short of pitiful.

Otokonoko

'My other question relates to "transitional fossils". Are they really necessary?'

You seem honest in your enquiry. You would need to ask the evolutionist this one, I am sure you will get different answers especially by those honest enough to admit after turning up millions of fossils not one supports the evolution theory. Darwin himself hoped one day that fossils might validate his theory.

What makes me think it is so important to evolutionist is their continual dishonesty to produce transitional creatures to fill in the 'missing link. NewScientist and many other Science magazines would make our local rags look truthful if examined for continual deceit. If it was not so important to those desperate to deny the obvious I don't know why they keep making up lies.