#(Part 1/2)# Hey laforte2007. I'm not sure where you are going with your "there are those who believe that there is no such thing as absolutes or absolute law", though I'm guessing that you balking at us explaining the nature of scientific laws. If that is the case, then you need to know that science can make no claim to absolute certainty, nor to absolute laws, as there i...more

#(Part 1/2)#
Hey laforte2007. I'm not sure where you are going with your "there are those who believe that there is no such thing as absolutes or absolute law", though I'm guessing that you balking at us explaining the nature of scientific laws.

If that is the case, then you need to know that science can make no claim to absolute certainty, nor to absolute laws, as there is no epistemological foundation upon which to base such claims. Scientists may _postulate_ absolute laws, and there are laws that are considered to be pretty damn solid, such as the laws of thermodynamics, but there is no way in which they can be validated as being absolute.

Consider for instance the fact that Newtons famous Law of Gravitation was shown to be wrong in the case of high speeds and/or a huge mass, and you'll understand why scientists are much more careful about postulating "laws" as absolutes these days.


In case you are interested, here are a few definitions of "scientific law" from the same sources as before:

"Law: A descriptive generalization about how some aspect of the natural world behaves under stated circumstances." ("Teaching About Evolution and the Nature of Science" by the National Academy of Sciences)

"A scientific law is a concise verbal statement or a mathematical equation that summarize a broad variety of observations and experiences." ("Chemistry, the Central Science", 9th edition, by Brown, LeMay and Bursten)less

#(Part 2/2)# Secondly, with regards to your claim that "survival of the fittest" was mirrored in German laws/teachings/etc., then I first off need to ask you to specify what exactly you are talking about, as vague insinuations really doesn't cut it. Secondly, I need to point out that the term "survival of the fittest" was a term coined not by Charles Darwin, but by Her...more

#(Part 2/2)#
Secondly, with regards to your claim that "survival of the fittest" was mirrored in German laws/teachings/etc., then I first off need to ask you to specify what exactly you are talking about, as vague insinuations really doesn't cut it.

Secondly, I need to point out that the term "survival of the fittest" was a term coined not by Charles Darwin, but by Herbert Spencer in his book "Principles of Biology" (1962), and which mirrored the pre-Darwinian view of natural selection as a purely negative force, that simply weeded out the "less fit".

In terms of the theory proposed by Charles Darwin, this is not even correct, as Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection operated under what can be described as differential reproductive success, or to rephrase, that some animals are better at producing offspring than others.

In the long run, survival is of little importante to evolution, which is why you see animals such as the Salmon, that die after having reproduced.


Thirdly, with regards to the so-called "missing link", which is really a misnomer anyway, I'd like to know on what grounds you discount the large number of hominid fossils that are presently known? I've already linked to a set of articles* that go over these in detail, so perhaps you can give a more cogent explanation for your rejection of the evidence?

Moreover, even without the fossil evidence, a very strong case for common descent can be made via the molecular evidence, as I've pointed out before. Simply discounting the fossil evidence does little to strengthen your case for special creation.


Fourthly, I have to ask why you felt the need to copy and paste large chunks of other website**, without attributing it to the authors? Need I point out that this is not only plagiarism, it's also a violation of copyrights? And I'm especially curious, given that the terms as defined on those websites doesn't conflict with how we used them ...


* See for instance this article: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/specimen.html
** Copied from http://www.whatislife.com/education/fact/fact_home.html and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Factless

#(Part 1/2)# Hey laforte2007, I'll have to ask that you make it more clear what you are quoting, and what is your reply, as I am having a hard time extracting your writings from my own. Also, I have to ask why you felt the need to add brackets to the paragraph you've quoted? In any case, with regards to the nature of scientific theories, no, I'm not trying to have it both ways...more

#(Part 1/2)#

Hey laforte2007, I'll have to ask that you make it more clear what you are quoting, and what is your reply, as I am having a hard time extracting your writings from my own. Also, I have to ask why you felt the need to add brackets to the paragraph you've quoted?

In any case, with regards to the nature of scientific theories, no, I'm not trying to have it both ways, I'm trying to explain the nature of scientific theory vs. fact, which is rather different from what you are proposing.

As I've pointed out before, a scientific theory is an explanatory model, which means that it is an explanation for a body of facts/phenomena. These facts are what I called the "fact of evolution", namely the evidences of common descent, the evidences of natural selection, and so on.


In any case, please allow me to quote you the definition of a scientific theory from a few scientific sources. That should make it clear that a scientific theory is not just, as you suppose, a "fancy guess" ...

"Theory: In science, a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses." ("Teaching About Evolution and the Nature of Science" by the National Academy of Sciences)

"Theory: An explanation that is broad in scope, generates new hypotheses, and is supported by a large body of evidence." ("Biology", 7th edition, by Campbell and Reece)

"A theory is an explanation of the general principles of certain phenomena, with considerable evidence or facts to support it." ("Chemistry, the Central Science", 9th edition, by Brown, LeMay and Bursten)



I'm not sure what you mean by your comment that "this is only true in as far as math is concerned", but perhaps you can elaborate on that point?



With regards to Hitler "crediting" Darwin, I'd first off like to see a citation for that claim, as I've been unable to find that anywhere. Can you quote Hitler as crediting Darwin or the theory of evolution?

Secondly, as I've already pointed out, the theory of evolution does not provide any support to the notion of racial superiority, so I fail to see Hitler's poor understanding of evolution can be blamed upon the theory.

That makes no more sense than blaming his actions due to his idiosyncratic understanding of Christianity upon that religion**, or blaming the actions of people who read the bible as justifying slavery upon Christianity?


* See for instance these articles: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/
** Though I can easily blame the religion that carried on the torch of anti-Semitism, from its origin in the Roman Empire.less

#(Part 2/2)# Secondly, there is plenty of evidence that demonstrates that we share a common ancestor with apes (and everything else for the matter), including a large number of fossil hominids*, as fell as my favorite, namely the molecular evidence, which includes the fact that humans have a high degree of similarity in both coding and non-coding DNA (messured to be around +95%), as well as sha...more

#(Part 2/2)#

Secondly, there is plenty of evidence that demonstrates that we share a common ancestor with apes (and everything else for the matter), including a large number of fossil hominids*, as fell as my favorite, namely the molecular evidence, which includes the fact that humans have a high degree of similarity in both coding and non-coding DNA (messured to be around +95%), as well as shared pseudo-genes, and transposons and retro-virii, etc.

To give a brief description, pseudo-genes are genes that are broken, and thus have no effect on the phenotype of the organism. A good example of this is the gene that is responsible for the production of Vitamin C, which is broken in the same way in humans and other primates, thus causing Scurvy if our diet doesn't contain enough Vitamin C. This fits what we would expect if all primates shared a common ancestor, as the gene is broken in the same way in all primates.

Transposons are gene-sequences that can duplicate themselves in the genome when a cell replicates, with the result that a large part of our DNA consists of such "junk". When compared to other primates, these form a pattern that fits what we would expect, if we shared a common ancestor with these.

Retro-virii, such as HIV, are viruses that write themselves into the genome of the host, and hence can be transmitted when the host reproduced, if the virii inserted itself into the genome of a sex-cell. As with transposons, these make out a large part of our genome. And as with pseudo-genes and transposons, these form a pattern that matches what we would expect to find if humans shared a common ancestor with the other primates.

It should be clear that common descent is the only sensible explanation, as the alternative requires that a large number of species experienced the exact same deleterious mutation (and that these were fixed in the population), as well as the exact same transposon replications ending in the exact same places and retro-viral insertions in the exact same places in the genome.



With regards to to the "chemical signatures and chemical make-up", of humans being the same as is found in dirt, I have to ask you to provide specifics, as your claims are to vague for me to actually look up the information.

Moreover, as I've pointed out, given that all living organisms derive nutrients from dirt (directly or indirectly), this would hardly be suprising, depending on the specifics of the claim.less

Hey laforte2007, I was not referring to the first book of the bible, but rather the Young Earth Creationist organization known as "Answers in Genesis". Sorry for the confusion. In any case, while I agree that we can't know the exact age of the earth, we can approximate it to a great degree, for which there are quite a number of solid methods. The fact that "[we] weren't...more

Hey laforte2007, I was not referring to the first book of the bible, but rather the Young Earth Creationist organization known as "Answers in Genesis". Sorry for the confusion.

In any case, while I agree that we can't know the exact age of the earth, we can approximate it to a great degree, for which there are quite a number of solid methods. The fact that "[we] weren't there" doesn't do much to stop us from learning about the past, which should be obvious given the widespread use of forensic science in courts of law. Indirect evidence is almost always more trustworthy than the account of one or more witnesses.

As I said before, you have to disregard quite a bit of modern science if you are going to claim that we cannot know the age of the earth or universe.


I also agree that we didn't come from monkeys, though you won't like it either way, since we share a common ancestor with monkeys, and what we did "come from" would be something ape-like (remember, monkeys have tails, apes don't). In any case, I'm afraid that I'm not up to date with the modern research in abiogenesis, so I cannot give any specific suggestions as to what life itself came from, or how it came about.

Though I will ask you to elaborate on your claim that we have the same "components" as dirt, which is as far as I can see only true in the most trivial sense: Namely that you can find the same atoms in dirt as in biological organisms. But that is not very suprising given the limited number of atoms to choose from, and the fact that all living (terrestrial) organisms derive nutrients from the "dirt", either directly or indirectly.

However, if we go above the atomic level, you'll find that dirt consists of different molecules compared to a biological organism, given that most biological molecules are rapidly decomposed upon death.


By the way, you are right that evolution is a theory. Or to be more exact, evolution by natural selection is a theory, evolution itself is a fact which is explained by the theory. In science, a theory is as high as you go, and contrary to common belief a "law" is not better than a theory. A scientific "law" is simply a mathematical description of a relationship in nature, whereas a theory is an explanatory model which may include several laws.

Other theories include the germ theory of disease (which had to be amended recently due to the discovery of prions), atomic theory, the theory of gravitation, quantum mechanics, continental drift, and so on. Theories are what science does, and evolution by natural selection is no different in this regard.less

Hey voodoo54. I'm well aware of Answers in Genesis, though I am afraid that I have nothing positive to say with regards to their argumentation or "evidences". Though I must admit that I'm impressed by how much of modern science they are willing to disregard in order to avoid the fact that the universe is very old, and rather than being just 6.000-10.000 years old.

#(Part 3/3)# 11) With regards to the quote by Charles Darwin, I ask you to read his book The Voyage of the Beagle, and tell me that this is not a melancholic statement, made by someone who has witnessed the overpowering encroachment of western civilization on the rest of the world. Consider for instance this quote: "I was crossing a ferry with a negro, who was uncommonly stupid. In end...more

#(Part 3/3)#

11) With regards to the quote by Charles Darwin, I ask you to read his book The Voyage of the Beagle, and tell me that this is not a melancholic statement, made by someone who has witnessed the overpowering encroachment of western civilization on the rest of the world.

Consider for instance this quote:
"I was crossing a ferry with a negro, who was uncommonly stupid. In endeavouring to make him understand, I talked loud, and made signs, in doing which I passed my hand near his face. He, I suppose, thought I was in a passion, and was going to strike him; for instantly, with a frightened look and half-shut eyes, he dropped his hands. I shall never forget my feelings of surprise, disgust, and shame, at seeing a great powerful man afraid even to ward off a blow, directed, as he thought, at his face. This man had been trained to a degradation lower than the slavery of the most helpless animal." (Chapter 2, VotB)


12) You claim that Adolph Hitler is a "devout evolutionist", though I fail to see what that even means. Moreover, it was also the case that he was a devout believer, who thought that he was doing the will of the creator in waging war against the Jews, and his troops carried into battle a belt-buckle with the inscription "Gott mit uns" (God with us). To quote Mein Kampf: "Therefore, I am convinced that I am acting as the agent of our Creator. By fighting off the Jews, I am doing the Lord's Work."

13) You claim that Darwin provided the idea that "some groups are more advanced along the evolutionary scale than others", though this is false on two counts: First off, this idea was much older than Darwin, in the form of the "Chain of being", where incidentally, blacks and other colored people were placed somewhere between whites and animals. Secondly, in terms of evolution by natural selection, the notion of "more evolved" doesn't even make any sense, in that evolution does not have an ultimate goal, but simply fits creatures to their environment. If this was what Margaret Sanger based her ideas on, then she was on shaky ground to begin with, in that the theory does not support such claims.

14) With regards to evolution "[robbing] man of his significance", I can only say that I am sorry that you feel that way. Personally, I feel only joy when my understanding of the universe increases, even if it means that I have to reject such egocentric notions as geocentricism, or special creation.

15) You claim that the theory of evolution claims that "the amazing complexity of living cells could come about by chance", which should rightfully be mocked. However, it's not a claim of the theory of evolution. If it was, then no scientist would touch the theory with a 10 foot pole.

I hope that remedies some of the many misunderstandings found in this article.less

#(Part 2/3)# 6) You claim that "[b]efore Darwin, an atheist was as scarce as a hen’s tooth", and in this you make two rather large mistakes. First off, as I've pointed out, atheism was already on the rise (see for instance Doubt: A History, by JM Hecht), and included well known people such as Thomas Paine. Secondly, a "hen's tooth" is not really that unus...more

#(Part 2/3)#

6) You claim that "[b]efore Darwin, an atheist was as scarce as a hen’s tooth", and in this you make two rather large mistakes. First off, as I've pointed out, atheism was already on the rise (see for instance Doubt: A History, by JM Hecht), and included well known people such as Thomas Paine. Secondly, a "hen's tooth" is not really that unusual, is a known vestigial organ in some wild population of chickens (see http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000E9965-99A6-13FB-99A683414B7F0000). Unsurprisingly, given the current evolutionary theories, these teeth were lizard like.

7) With regards to Dawkins' quote, it has never seemed to me that ignorance is a valid reason to posit the existence of supernatural beings, but your milage may vary. It should also be pointed out that Darwin himself was not an atheist, though he became an agnostic later in life, due to the death of his favorite daughter at a very young age.

8) I fail to see how you came to the conclusion that evolution is a worldview, but even more so with regards to your claim that it is exclusive of gods. You surely are not ignorant of the large number of theists who accept the theory of evolution?

9) You are in a very strict sense right that the "evolutionary worldview has long held sway in the law", namely in the sense that laws have always been "evolving", including those of your bible, which were not written all at once, nor were they set down in the present form until a number of centuries after the supposed birth of your messiah. Consider for the example of the rejection of Spectral evidence as valid during witch-trails, which is just one of the many changes that has, and continue to happen, in the laws of various contries.

10) You mention the that "the idea that only the fit survive has led to both eugenics and genocide", though funny enough, that notion is based on a misunderstanding of evolution by natural selection. It doesn't matter if you survive, as long as you reproduce (consider for instance salmon, which is just one of many animals that die after reproducing).less

#(Part 1/3)# First off, due to the length of this reply, I've had to split this reply into several parts. In any case I'm afraid that your article suffers from some rather large problems, due to being based on claims that simply are not true, as well as largescale misunderstandings. 1) Evolution as an idea is much older than Charles Darwin. What Darwin introduced was a mechanism fo...more

#(Part 1/3)#

First off, due to the length of this reply, I've had to split this reply into several parts. In any case I'm afraid that your article suffers from some rather large problems, due to being based on claims that simply are not true, as well as largescale misunderstandings.

1) Evolution as an idea is much older than Charles Darwin. What Darwin introduced was a mechanism for evolution, namely natural selection. But consider for instance so-called Lamarckian evolution (1744-1829), which supposed that traits accused during a creature's life could be inherited by that creature's offspring.

2) It is incorrect to state that evolution is random, since the process of natural selection is entirely contingent upon the physical and biological parameters of a given creature's environment. What is random is the source of new variation, namely mutations, which are random with regards to the actual needs of the creatures.

3) You claim that "Evolution rests on the claim that the universe is made up of nothing but matter", which is to say philosophical materialism. However, that is entirely false, as can be seen by the fact that many religious people see no problem at all with evolution. Moreover, if we assumed that there was such a thing as non-material entities, then the theory of evolution would apply to these as well, provided that they a) reproduce and b) do so without perfect fidelity. Moreover, the existence of such beings would do nothing do disprove the theory of evolution.

4) The theory of evolution makes no claim as to the origin of "all things", it only makes claims as to the origins of biodiversity. Secondly, even if evolution did make such claims, it's trivially clear that your version would not be the one given, as you strawman presupposes something existing (which would count as part of "all things") as an explanation of the existence "all things", thereby making it circular.

5) No scientific theory has need for a creator, which is simply a product of the way science works, due to among other things, the need for falsifiability. Moreover, I'm not sure where you got the idea that evolution was the "midwife" of atheism, as this philosophical viewpoint was already on the rise long before Darwin proposed his theory in the 1850s.less