I just saw a sign reading just that on the side of a truck while driving home today. Wow, how much would it suck to be driving that truck? I mean, not only do you suffer the embarrassment of proclaiming to anyone you drive passed that, yes, you scoop up dog shit for a living, but you also look like an idiot because two out of the three words on the sign are mispelled. Kindergartners make spelling mistakes like that. Yes, I know these people are trying to be clever and make their business stick out. But, really, they're sticking out as being morons, rather than appearing to be a quality service.
I hereby vow to never work for or do busniess with any company that has words mispelled on purpose. Because that's just really stupid.
So I read in the paper the other day that some guy is going to give a public lecture on the "scientific evidence" for Creationism. It was all I could do not to burst out laughing.
I'm kind of wondering where this guy got all his advanced degrees.
Anyway, I mentioned my incredulity to Eric, who responded by looking at me blankly and said, "but there IS evidence for creationism."
o.0
Well, Eric described how the intricacy and perfection of how nature works and fits together is evidence because if it wasn't put together by God, then it wouldn't exist. Humans wouldn't exist.
I really think an Evolution course ought to be required in college today. Seriously, there are so many people who have NO IDEA what evolution really is! If people actually understood the concept, we wouldn't be having this huge debate.
Evolution just makes SENSE. It drives me nuts when people blindly close their eyes and spout off what they were told by so-and-so.
No, not that Eric did that. Let me back up.
The Theory of Evolution describes the mechanism by which all life on this planet has developed, grown, changed, develops, grows, and changes, and will continue to develop, grow, and change in the future.
Creationism is the belief that God created all life on earth exactly as it is today. Creationism deals specifically with origin, and very little to do with mechanism. You might even go as far to say that Creationism implies that there IS no mechanism, because it states that organisms on earth now have always been the way they currently appear.
The single biggest misconception that I hear ALL OVER THE PLACE is that Evolution is opposed to religion; that there is no room for God if Evolution is, in fact, true.
FALSE! Evolution never describes, or neccesitates the absence of a divine creator. Ok, I'll admit that Evolution does negate the story of Adam & Eve, and other religious accounts of creation. People think that because Evolution debunks these stories, that it is an attack on ALL of religion.
Evolution is not an attack. It's merely describing how the natural world works. Who made the natural world, you ask? Well, that's up to you to decide. Personally, I believe that God created the natural world. I don't see any problem with believing that God, in creating everything, created certain principles by which the universe would function. Evolution is merely one of those. Saying that evolution attacks religion is like saying mathematics, physics, and chemistry all attack religion. They don't. They're just exploring and explaining how God's grand miracle of creation works.
Anyway, back to my point: there is no scientific evidence of Creationism. There is no evidence that the life on this planet was created, exactly as it is now, when God created the rest of the universe.
There is, however, overwhelming evidence in support of Evolution, cataloguing how life on this planet has developed and grown considerably since the dawn of time.
Now, I could go on and on and on and on about various pieces of evidence in support of evolution, but what I was mainly trying to get at here is that most people misunderstand what Evolution really means.
The fact that everything in nature fits together so perfectly doesn't neccesarily point to a higher power. In fact, NOT everything in nature fits together perfectly. When something doesn't fit in, it dies out. Fundamentally, that's what it means when species die out: they were not perfectly balanced in the environment. Stuff was out of whack.
Yeah, according to Evolution, the billions and billions of events that must have happened to lead up to the development of humanity were INCREDIBLY RARE! The odds of those same steps happening again are astronomically low! Does that mean that since it was astronomically low that those steps were not there at all; that since the probability was so low, that it should be discounted as impossible; that since saying "God made everything this way" is simpler, that it's true?
Or, does it mean that we should feel even MORE special; that since the probability of us existing at all was so low, that we've won the biggest lottery of all just by existing; that maybe all those events fell into place precisely because of a higher power orchestrating events WANTED us to exist?
Once again, that's up to you to believe. But, please, educate yourself before making a decision.
Eric 8/22/2006 03:43:00 PM
Awww, that's it? I post two heart-felt and deep (in my opinion) posts, and all you have to comment on is a mispelling? :(
Yay for Dr. Kaufman! You know, Jo, I wish there was some way to actually make a living with evolution. But, really, it's just a concept. Unless I was able to join some research place where they looked for fossils or something, I dunno what I would actually DO with it. *shrug*
You said other people misspelled something on a van, or something and I was just making the observation of your mispelling. It was actually supposed to be funny, I apologize.
I believe in both. One could not happen without the other. It’s a complex theory I could not even begin to explain.
But I do believe that we won some sort of lottery. Everything is just too perfect. Just think of the last extinction... Dinosaurs. An asteroid... not entirely... there were after effects that caused the extinction. However, too many chemicals and such... that the possibilities are very very low for such life as ours to come out. However, whatever needed to exist did and here we are.
I don't sit on the fence here. I do believe in both, and both can be combined. However, it is beyond my power and mind to understand and comprehend all components necessary.
I'm one of those nuts that think if you are going to teach people one theory, then you should teach them all the other related theories no matter how ludicrous they may seem. In the spirit of scientific inquiry and openness, it is only fair to do so until one theory is proven law or fact, or at least the evidence for one theory far outweighs the other.
Such is not the case with evolution vs. creation. Yes, I do know that microevolution is proven and can be repeatedly demonstrated, but Creationism tends to correlate to Macroevolution, neither of which could ever be proven by the strictures of the Scientific Method.
Furthermore, they are hardly corollary, so I whole-heartedly agree that they are not mutually exclusive. Creationism deals with the origin of life, whereas Evolutionism deals with the origin of species. It has only been extrapolated by later followers of Darwin that this process goes all the way back to haphazard amino acids in primordial pools.
But I digress; I only wanted to say that I see no issue with presenting both if you are going to present one. At least until one slam-dunks the other out of the race, much like Big Bang trumped Infinite Universe. However, with more recent discoveries, (namely lab-created sub-atomic matter from energy alone) it looks as though Big Bang and Infinite Universe are no longer mutually exclusive. Just goes to show, don't bunk your theories before they've hatched.
Ooooh, lots of good points, Todd. As far as I'm aware, though, there is no evidence supporting creationism. I can't think of a single thing off the top of my head. The evidence supporting evolution already far outweighs Creationism.
And, actually, Macroevolution HAS been proven. I had no idea until I took my evolution course at Dana. Basically, what it amounts to is the discovery that all organisms have "master control genes"- genes that can control large groupings of other genes. If one of these "master control genes" mutates, then it can affect the expression of all the genes that it controls. In the lab, through manipulating these "Master" genes, scientists have already been able to reproduce flies with extra limbs, and even limbs in completely wrong places. So Macroevolution was probably sparked by mutations in these "Master" genes that caused a whole slew of new effects at one time.
Anyway, backing up, there are so many versions of the creation theory that I think actually teaching them all would take forever. Or, if only one version was taught, then which religion's creation should it be?
I honestly can't think of any evidence for the Big Bang theory either, but it's secular, so it doesn't run the problem of highlighting one religion over another. Actually, I also distinctly remember than when the Big Bang was ever discussed in my classes, it was always prefaced by, "Actually, we have no idea how everything began, but this is our best guess". They also briefly discussed Creationism, but only by saying that it's an alternate theory that they can't discuss in schools because of the religious nature.
Meh, my biology is out of date, but at least you get my gist. As far as scientific evidence FOR creation goes, I have to agree, I can't think of anything from the top of my head. Most of what I'm familiar with involves where evolutionary theory is lacking, for example, the lack of transitional forms in the fossil record. I don't personally think the "master gene" approach sufficiently solves that. A quick online search didn't provide anything that was strictly FOR creation, only AGAINST evolution.
Leaving the debate aside, I think that if the Divine created all of this existence, then the Divine also created the Laws that govern it. I see all of it as analogous to a very complex computer program. The Laws of Physics, etc. form the engine that renders all the activity within the program possible. I know that sounds rather Matrix-y. Eventually, Science will answer all the other questions and the only Question left will be, "Who wrote the program?"
Ooooooh, I completely agree with your computer analogy. I was trying to explain that to someone, but I could put it into words. Thanks for that. ^^
As far as evidence for or against goes, I'll admit that a lack of transitional fossils doesn't exactly look GOOD for evolution. But at the same time, you could only use it as evidence AGAINST evolution if A) all the earth's crust had been dug up and sorted through and there STILL were no fossils, and B) EVERY organism that ever lived ALWAYS left behind a fossil.
As it is, neither of those are true, so usig this as evidence against isn't logical or scientific. It's like saying that the lack of a video recording of Eve eating the apple proves that she never ate it.
The fossilization process is a complicated chemical process that requires VERY specific conditions to be met at VERY specific times. The organism has to die at JUST the right time, in JUST the right place, with JUST the right environment and climate, with NO other organisms disturbing the remains, then JUST the right weather patterns . . . and all that is BEFORE it's buried, and BEFORE the fossilization process can even begin to take place. Then you get into pressure and temperature, and hugely long periods of time, and you start to get the picture of how rare fossils are. There could be millions of species that we'll never know about because none of those organisms happened to die under the correct circumstances to fossilize.
Then there's the fact that the Earth's crust is phenominally huge. We've barely scratched the surface of it when it comes to searching for fossils. As it is, the only fossils we know of are the ones that were brought to the surface through earthquakes, or other geological means that shift the crust around- the ones that don't destroy fossils in the first place.
Sorry, I'll get off my soapbox now. Once you get me goin;, I just take off.
No, I like your soapbox. I like a vigorous discussion with someone who doesn't think I'm attempting to 'convert' them. The true art of conversation, the art of give and take, of exchange of knowledge and ideas, is sadly lost on most people. Furthermore, it inspires me to further my own research. (I had no idea what polonium halos were until yesterday. An odd and highly selective theory to say the least.)
Oooh, I've never heard of polonium halos either until now. It is an interesting theory, and I'm surprised that since the guy first published it in the 80's that it's not more common knowledge.
Not having much of a background in either physics or, more importantly, geology, I really don't know much more on the subject that what I just skimmed through. From what I see, though, the main issue with the theory is the fact that the guy hasn't satisfactorily explain why he's sure that it's polonium that caused the halos, or whether it was some other decaying element.
I also found some thing describing how brachiopod fossils were found in the same rock where these halos were found, indicating that either this rock formed long after the creation of the world, or life was created well before there was a world to live on.
But yeah, I think it's something that really ought to be looked into by the scientific community. After 20-some years, I'm surprised that it hasn't been pushed.
It just occured to me, all this time spent debating creationsim vs. evolutionism would be better spent educating people on the principle of Ockham's Razor. The principle alone discourages addressing the two largely unrelated topics in the same debate. I think if people understood Ockham's Razor, it would nicely clean up the environmental debate as well.
