Do You Believe in Evolution?

_{Granville Sewell

April 15, 2016

Design inference, Evolution, Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

When someone asks “Do you believe in evolution?” they probably want a short answer, and don’t have the patience to listen to a 15-minute lecture on the different meanings of “evolution” and how you stand on each. So how do you answer this trick question?

Here’s a very short answer that works for me:

Yes, I believe in the evolution of life, and I believe in the evolution of automobiles.

Optionally, to make sure they get the point, you could add “but I don’t believe either could have happened without design.”

It is actually a pretty good analogy, see my April 2,2015 post at ENV, In Biology as in Technology, Similarities Do Not Prove Absence of Intelligent Design

Comments

bFast @25
You seem to be implying that first life was the product of an external designer, but that the resulting life can do its own “self-improving”. While life does have a wee bit of power to self-improve, the kind of improvements that we see in the real world are far beyond what life’ self-improvement ability justifies.
I agree with you. Darwin proposed that the "wee bit of power" creatures have to adapt to changing environments -- micro evolution -- justified the belief that a species could adjust itself into an entirely different species over a long period of time, or belief in macro evolution. Dog breeders had already demonstrated two things. First, that there can be a wild variety of a given kind. Second, that a given kind, even if there are many different expressions of it, stubbornly remains that kind. The first explained why Darwin noticed what he did about the beaks of finches; the second protested against the conclusion Darwin drew from that adaptability. We now know that the reason dogs remain dogs, and can't be bred into cats or anything else other than a dog, is because the information to build something else just isn't present in the canine genome. Darwin's proposal was one of those ideas that might sound good until one gets a close look at the facts. We now know that new biological functionality, like an optical system or an auditory system, requires massive quantities of new digital information in the creature's DNA; this would also be required for dogs to evolve into something other than a dog. To believe that the massive quantities of extremely precise, functionally complex, tokenized, digitally stored information required for such things to happen can be arrived at mindlessly and accidentally is simply irrational. Anybody who does the math finds out that the Universe simply doesn't provide the probabilistic resources required for such a lengthy and precise composition to be arrived at by chance. Those who refuse to take a close look at the facts could be convinced that self-replicating robots actually came about mindlessly and accidentally, or they are willfully ignorant, or their intent is to deceive others.harry_{April 16, 2016
April
04
Apr
16
16
2016
05:04 AM
5
05
04
AM
PDT}

A huge statue should be made in remembrance of Darwin’s whale-bear with twelve stars around its head to symbolise celestial evolutionism from gaseous materials out of nothing, and placed on top of Mount Improbable. Darwin constructed a whale-bear from his imagination. Indeed, every seat of common descent learning should have a whale-bear in the hall, fed on shredded scripture, as the answer to the universe and everything: the beast whale-bear, number 42, as indicated by Deep Thought, http://hitchhikers.wikia.com/wiki/42 Nevertheless, Darwin’s publisher removed any such reference to the whale-bear from the later editions of Origin, as it was too much; an embarrassment. Still, it is believed, God sent a worldwide flood, in order to start again, as more or less, human imagination/thoughts had gone rotten (Gen 6:5). Strongly suggested by worldwide and coincidental flood evidence, reduced to fossilised stone. In relation to believed evolution theory, copying errors, mutations, chance and such like, are better controlled by natural selection. The question still must be raised; we surely must by now have some form of a corrupted informational disc in us, even by evolutionary standards. Are our thoughts reliable, and when based theoretically on lesser intelligence; for once an animal, always an animal, in whole or part. Yes, I believe in evolution, that is evolution within the limits of archetypal images or forms. Set to be fit for always within the limits of kinds, brought about by an intelligent powerful being, who wrote the matter in stone created in a day, and that miraculous act of intelligent communication, witnessed by humans in recorded history. Still, human imagination prefers to tell and hear a different tale. There is no higher intelligence than humans. Well, for a theory based on imperceptible steps when it suits, then immediate steps when it doesn’t suit such as Punctured Equilibrium, the total fitness advantage between a simian and a human is godlike. Such a common sense observation and statistic need no seat of learning to spell out the theory is badly flawed in its final application. Even Wallace pointed that out to Darwin, the difference between a so-called savage and a civilised person is negligible; that is in relation to their relative potential or capabilities. Evolutionism believes perceptions of the human imagination and watered down dead animal fossil bones points to the origin of human life, not by listening to the recorded words of a powerful higher intelligence. Evolutionary theory has created a god in our own image worshiping ourselves, and be afraid of no other. The answer to evolutionism, life and the multiverse, is, of course; 42 non-intelligent cosmic whale-bears.mw_{April 16, 2016
April
04
Apr
16
16
2016
04:05 AM
4
04
05
AM
PDT}

Indiana Effigy @ 13,
How convenient. But when it was called scientific creationism, it certainly did.
Wrong. Apparently you haven't a clue how and when ID was formulated. Conflating it with creationism is like conflating Darwinism with spontaneous generation.
And evolution doesn’t either.
Of course it does. Go read Susumu Ohno's 1972 paper where he assumes that what later became called non-coding DNA is labeled evolutionary "junk."
Please point me to all of the research papers published about junk DNA authored by ID proponents.
No, do your own homework. The ID paradigm assumes that an unknown function or structure has a function that's undiscovered. Darwinism assumes that an unknown function or structure has no function, and is a vestige of evolution. So, in the 1925 Scopes trial, Robert Wiedersheim presented a list of 86 vestigial organs in humans. How many on that list are left? Previously, ductless glands such as the thyroid were also considered to have no function. As anyone with an open mind can see, evolutionary presuppositions have slowed scientific progress. If so called "junk" DNA has no function, what institution in their right mind would fund research into it? They generally don't. I'll give you other examples. - How much funding is going into finding DNA in the blood cells and tissue samples found in unfossilized dinosaur bones? - Is anyone bothering to carbon date these samples? I'll give you the answer. No, researchers aren't carbon dating these samples for the reason that since these samples are assumed to be at least 60 million years old, it would be pointless to test them so since we *know* that there couldn't possibly be any carbon 14 left, and we don't bother looking. And that's the problem. -QQuerius_{April 16, 2016
April
04
Apr
16
16
2016
12:43 AM
12
12
43
AM
PDT}

Andre, Apparently, IE is arguing that
Nylonase, aerobic citrate use in E. coli, AIDS, every new strain of flue, and thousands of other examples found in nature and in the lab.
indeed simply popped into existence. I wouldn't know how to argue against this version of creationism. That mutations occur in organisms is amply demonstrated. That such mutations can create anything useful from multiple mutations is exactly what Mike Behe's book, The Edge of Evolution, is all about. -QQuerius_{April 16, 2016
April
04
Apr
16
16
2016
12:03 AM
12
12
03
AM
PDT}

harry (2) "would you just assume these self-replicating, self-improving robots came about ..." You seem to be implying that first life was the product of an external designer, but that the resulting life can do its own "self-improving". While life does have a wee bit of power to self-improve, the kind of improvements that we see in the real world are far beyond what life' self-improvement ability justifies.bFast_{April 15, 2016
April
04
Apr
15
15
2016
08:51 PM
8
08
51
PM
PDT}

Evolution from WHAT? The unknowable equation for which there isn't a single viable explanation. How did life occur? This Universe isn't big enough or old enough to create a living cell no matter how old or even eternal you may think it is. The Evolution argument is moot unless and until the materialists can come up with a scientific answer for LIFE. "I am the Truth and the LIFE," Jesus said. I spent a lot of time on the Gospel of John. Why was he writing so differently? The Gnostics had something to do with it, but I think John wanted to go past that. Jesus said some outstanding things, especially in John and Matthew.jimmontg_{April 15, 2016
April
04
Apr
15
15
2016
08:36 PM
8
08
36
PM
PDT}

I believe Designer created everything, just that He forgot He had immense powers to create everything in a jiffy - He created Big Bang and then waited and waited and waited and waited idly billions of years, then decided to create Earth 4.6 billion years ago then waited and waited and waited idly, then decided to create life 3.8 billion years ago and waited and waited idly to create Eukaryotes 2.1 billion years ago, then waited and waited and waited to create First sexually reproducing organism 1.1 billion years ago, then waited and waited and waited idly till 570 million years ago to create arthropods.... now he intervenes in complex processes using magic mechanism and magic interface to guide temporal processes in cells.Me_Think_{April 15, 2016
April
04
Apr
15
15
2016
08:24 PM
8
08
24
PM
PDT}

There's no place like a warm little pond.Mung_{April 15, 2016
April
04
Apr
15
15
2016
08:11 PM
8
08
11
PM
PDT}

Just close your eyes and believe It also helps to tap your shoes togethermike1962_{April 15, 2016
April
04
Apr
15
15
2016
05:40 PM
5
05
40
PM
PDT}

Only two things cannot happen by chance, automobiles and life, and I'm not sure about the former.Origenes_{April 15, 2016
April
04
Apr
15
15
2016
04:09 PM
4
04
09
PM
PDT}

I believe in the kind of evolution that can do anything, the kind that can write a Shakespeare sonnet. The more extraordinary the better. After all, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, doncha know. Unless you're a DarwinDrone.Mung_{April 15, 2016
April
04
Apr
15
15
2016
03:12 PM
3
03
12
PM
PDT}

This would be a fun game for everyone: Define scientifically the Evolution *you* believe in. It's rock lyrics until then. ;) Andrewasauber_{April 15, 2016
April
04
Apr
15
15
2016
02:41 PM
2
02
41
PM
PDT}

IE These things poofed into existence? You really believe that? Guess I'm not the feeble mind superstitious one...Andre_{April 15, 2016
April
04
Apr
15
15
2016
02:36 PM
2
02
36
PM
PDT}

BA: The NPC is a fascinating structure, perhaps the largest protein complex in the cell. Another fascinating macro complex could be the eukaryotic proteasome. Are we exaggerating when we say that believing that such structures were generated by RV + NS must truly be some form of insanity? I don't think so. I really don't think so.gpuccio_{April 15, 2016
April
04
Apr
15
15
2016
02:11 PM
2
02
11
PM
PDT}

BA @ 14
The NPC (nuclear pore complex) is one of the largest and most complex structures inside the cells of eukaryotes, the group of organisms that includes humans and other mammals, and it is vital for the survival of cells.
Boy, thank evolution for NPC's. Sounds like we are very lucky this glob of protein made it through the natural selection process!awstar_{April 15, 2016
April
04
Apr
15
15
2016
01:52 PM
1
01
52
PM
PDT}

OT: Biochemists solve the structure of cell's DNA gatekeeper - April 15, 2016 Excerpt: The NPC (nuclear pore complex) is one of the largest and most complex structures inside the cells of eukaryotes, the group of organisms that includes humans and other mammals, and it is vital for the survival of cells. It is composed of approximately 10 million atoms that together form the symmetric core as well as surrounding asymmetric structures that attach to other cellular machineries. The NPC has about 50 times the number of atoms as the ribosome,,, http://phys.org/news/2016-04-biochemists-cell-dna-gatekeeper.htmlbornagain77_{April 15, 2016
April
04
Apr
15
15
2016
01:15 PM
1
01
15
PM
PDT}

Querius: "Roy, you’re misunderstanding ID. ID takes no position on God." How convenient. But when it was called scientific creationism, it certainly did. "With “junk DNA,” it seems that Darwinism has slowed scientific progress by assuming that non-coding DNA has no function. ID makes no such assumption." And evolution doesn't either. Please point me to all of the research papers published about junk DNA authored by ID proponents. It seems to me that all of the research into junk DNA (and there is a lot of it) is being done by the same scientists that you claim are hampered by their biases.Indiana Effigy_{April 15, 2016
April
04
Apr
15
15
2016
12:26 PM
12
12
26
PM
PDT}

Andre: "It’s a matter of fact. You can prove me wrong very easily…. Can you give a single example where time and chance made anything?" Nylonase, aerobic citrate use in E. coli, AIDS, every new strain of flue, and thousands of other examples found in nature and in the lab.Indiana Effigy_{April 15, 2016
April
04
Apr
15
15
2016
12:22 PM
12
12
22
PM
PDT}

Good point Q - as usual. Although I'm cutting Ray some slack for linking the awesomeness of ID to the Awesomeness of God. He could have gone the "Universe is a Simulation" route. Many Scientists have taken that angle on ID. Good on you Ray:)ppolish_{April 15, 2016
April
04
Apr
15
15
2016
12:11 PM
12
12
11
PM
PDT}

Roy, you're misunderstanding ID. ID takes no position on God. ID is simply a paradigm for investigating phenomena that appear to be designed as if they were. Darwinism is a paradigm for investigating phenomena that appear designed as if they came about by chance. With "junk DNA," it seems that Darwinism has slowed scientific progress by assuming that non-coding DNA has no function. ID makes no such assumption. As to not seeing God create anything as being anything but a hilarious cop out, do you also disbelieve in subatomic particles because you've never seen one? Do you disbelieve in George Washington because you never met him? Do you disbelieve in justice because it cannot be measured in grams, candelas, or centimeters? -QQuerius_{April 15, 2016
April
04
Apr
15
15
2016
10:44 AM
10
10
44
AM
PDT}

You can prove me wrong very easily…. Can you give a single example where time and chance made anything? Has a horse or a universe ever popped into existence by any observation from anyone? Just one example and you win.
Can you give a single example where God was seen to make anything? Has a horse or a universe ever been seen created by God by anyone? Are you aware that non-ID evolution does not require horses or universes to "pop into existence"? Can you explain why you are using different standards of evidence for ID vs evolution? Is that honest?Roy_{April 15, 2016
April
04
Apr
15
15
2016
09:45 AM
9
09
45
AM
PDT}

IE It's a matter of fact. You can prove me wrong very easily.... Can you give a single example where time and chance made anything? Has a horse or a universe ever popped into existence by any observation from anyone? Just one example and you win. Good luckAndre_{April 15, 2016
April
04
Apr
15
15
2016
09:18 AM
9
09
18
AM
PDT}

Andre: "There is no such thing as non ID evolutuon. Time and chance can’t do Jack……" Your unsubstantiated opinion is duly noted.Indiana Effigy_{April 15, 2016
April
04
Apr
15
15
2016
08:54 AM
8
08
54
AM
PDT}

There is no such thing as non ID evolutuon. Time and chance can't do Jack...... Litrally.....Andre_{April 15, 2016
April
04
Apr
15
15
2016
08:45 AM
8
08
45
AM
PDT}

For the vast majority of people, this is not a trick question. Even for many who believe in ID, when evolution is talked about, they are talking about non-ID evolution.Indiana Effigy_{April 15, 2016
April
04
Apr
15
15
2016
07:38 AM
7
07
38
AM
PDT}

Taking for granted that they are referring to Darwinian evolution, I answer as follows: "No. I am not convinced that natural selection working on random mutations can account for the incredible complexity of life, including the chemical alphabet and information coding systems found in the DNA molecule." This usually gets the conversation going.Truth Will Set You Free_{April 15, 2016
April
04
Apr
15
15
2016
07:26 AM
7
07
26
AM
PDT}

Do I believe in Evolution? Who doesn't?Mung_{April 15, 2016
April
04
Apr
15
15
2016
07:24 AM
7
07
24
AM
PDT}

Do you believe in evolution?
If you discovered a factory run entirely by robots who were manufacturing more robots like themselves, and often added enhancements to the robots they produced, would you just assume these self-replicating, self-improving robots came about mindlessly and accidentally? Or would you assume some very intelligent engineering had taken place to get this process started? That people who would automatically assume that a mere transmission of a series of prime numbers received from deep space would prove the existence of alien intelligence, just assume that the digital information-based nanotechnology of life, the functional complexity of which is light years beyond that of an automated factory run by robotic equipment, came about mindlessly and accidentally, only proves the power of "fundamentalism" in the negative connotation of the word (we should all be fundamentalists when it comes to defending the fundamental truths of Christianity). Atheism rejects the simple fact that some phenomena can only come about via intelligent agency. Contemporary atheism, in its denial of reality for the sake of its faith-based belief system (the belief that God isn't there cannot be proved, it must be taken on faith), are the world's worse case of fundamentalism in the negative sense of the word.harry_{April 15, 2016
April
04
Apr
15
15
2016
06:28 AM
6
06
28
AM
PDT}

how do you answer this trick question?
As one labeled as a Biblical Creationist the short answer that works for me is: Yes and No. I believe in the evolution of automobiles and computers, but I only believe in the devolution of life.awstar_{April 15, 2016
April
04
Apr
15
15
2016
06:13 AM
6
06
13
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply