The sun is rising on the east and setting down on west, day is coming after night and vice versa, and babies coming out of their mother wombs are mostly similar to their mothers. These are common scenery we observe in this world. It seems everything is controlled. According to chemistry theory, a meaningful new thing can only be generated when a controlled proportion elements are mixed together. The evolution of cells in human body creates uncontrolled cell called tumor. A man, who is migrating from Africa to Canada is still living without changing their shapes. Certainly, there is a change of biological process inside the body that makes the body suitable to the new environment. If Darwinism is a continuous process, where is the different level animals between Ape and human? Why do we need to wait million of years to see the change? Who will verify this time limit? Noted, a fossil sometimes misleads people. How this evolution theory contributing to make this world better to live?
Hello Mr. Islam; You present various anecdotes that Creationists often develop in their opposition to evolutionary biology. I would like to frame the underlying argument in scientific terms. Best regards, Jim Des Lauriers
First, allow me to offer my own characterization of evolution. Species arise, they change over time and they are extinguished. The science is about evaluating the proposed mechanisms that would account for such a set of observations.
Discussions in this forum between scientists and creationists ought to be framed in sound scientific theory. I CANNOT EMPHASIZE THIS POINT ENOUGH. Be sure that the participants recognize that a new claim can overturn a current theory but to do so it must:
a. have more explanatory power than all competing theories,
b. have more predictive power than competing theories,
c. be able to account for more observations than any competing theory.
d. require fewer ad hoc assumptions to make it work.
e. provide a program for further research.
So far as I am aware no standing theory in any field accounts for all the data. It must only account for more of the data than any competing theory. Precisely this logic belongs at the very beginning of every response to a creationist claim. It will be the predicate for any developing discussion.
It is worth noting that finding flaws in a standing theory will not cause the science to discard the theory unless there is a superior one to put in its place. I am not aware of any explicitly stated creationist assertion that meets even one of the minimum requirements mentioned above. Discussions like this one typically devolve into a forensic debate. Since the rules of forensic debate are a poor tool for resolving scientific disputes, getting the conversation out of that mode quickly is more informative and better science. In this open environment it is particularly important to get out of a debate mode because of its adversarial tone and the bad effects that has on what I hope is a collegial environment.
I’d like to add one philosophical point about scientific objectivity. Objectivity is an emergent property of the methods of science. Darwin’s “hunches” of the mid-19th Century were subjective speculations based on very limited evidence (Matthews, 2000). Subsequently, as the evidence accumulated two things happened. We learned how to measure the subjects of his hunches and, at the same time, his hunches became less consequential in our thinking about evolutionary processes. That is, modern evolutionary theory can trace some if its ancestry to Darwin’s hunches but the field has grown so much in the intervening 160 years that the credibility of the theory today depends not at all on those hunches or even on the results of his own research. That fact is a source of great surprise to nearly every creationist that I have ever corresponded with.
The methodological materialism that is the hallmark of modern science requires that scientific explanations of natural phenomena are valid only when they resort to natural processes. This methodological requirement is neutral to religion. It simply excludes any explanations that are not testable. Materialistic evolutionism goes further than that. Philosophical materialists maintain that natural processes are all there is and that the supernatural does not exist (Scott, 1999). That claim cannot be defended scientifically. Many creationists object to evolutionary theory because they do not distinguish between methodological materialism and philosophical materialism. Practicing scientists are all methodological materialists because that is how one does science but probably most of them are not philosophical materialists.
The Institute for Creation Research (Biblical literalists) and Phillip Johnson and colleagues associated with the Discovery Institute in Seattle, USA (Intelligent Design) particularly, have made a fine art of structuring the Creationists' dispute with science as if it contains only two alternative views and that if they can mount a negative argument to show that “evolution is false”, then, therefore, creation is right. The logic is flawed. It is a contrived dualism. Johnson was a professional lawyer and so it isn’t surprising that he prefers this legalistic framework, inappropriate as it is for a scientific arena. As a lawyer he also knows the nature of the logical flaw, yet he exploits it nevertheless.
The dispute is framed by most creationists as a “contradictory”. That is, if evolution is false then creation must be true. That logical structure would be correct if there were only two possible explanations. In fact, there is quite a wide range of possible explanations. Therefore the dispute should be framed as “contraries” (Ruse, 1996, p35, note 24). That being the case, even if creationists were able to show that evolution is a false explanation they would NOT have proven their claims. However, were the dispute framed as “contraries” a panoply of other, non-Scriptural explanations would have to be admitted. Broadening the number of possible explanations is certainly not part of the creationists' intent.
REFERENCES.
Matthews, R. 2000. Base Instincts. New Scientist. 165(2223): 44-45.
Ruse, M. 1996. But is it Science? The Philosophical Question in the Creation/Evolution
Controversy. Promethius Books. 406 p.
Scott, E. 1997. Antievolutionism and creationism in the United States. Annual Reviews of An- thropology 26:263-289.
______ 1999. The Creation/Evolution Continuum. Reports: National Center for Science Educa- tion. 19(4):16, 21-23.
"and babies coming out of their mother wombs are mostly similar to their mothers."
Keyword "mostly".
Every one of us carries about 200 mutations that neither of our parents had. Most of these have no effect (because if you exchange one base in DNA, in many cases it still results in the same amino acid), and most of the rest have no detectable effect (because the identity of most amino acids in a protein doesn't matter).
"The evolution of cells in human body creates uncontrolled cell called tumor."
Sometimes, yes.
"If Darwinism is a continuous process, where is the different level animals between Ape and human?"
What is a "level"?
"Why do we need to wait million of years to see the change?"
That depends on the change, on the strength of ("directional") selection for the change, and on the strength of ("stabilizing") selection against the change. Sometimes it goes quite quickly; see this https://www.nationalgeographic.com/animals/2008/04/lizard-evolution-island-darwin/ for example.
"How this evolution theory contributing to make this world better to live?"
Have you really never heard of the flu virus evolving, which is why there's a new vaccination every year, or of bacteria evolving resistance to antibiotics?
And that's just the tip of the iceberg.
James: Nice analysis and I of course fully agree. But one (minor but in my opinion important to avoid misinterpretation) comment is needed: you are right that "even if creationists were able to show that evolution is a false explanation they would NOT have proven their claims", but we should honestly admit that also even if evolutionists were able to show that evolution is true explanation they would not have proven that creation is false! E.g. I - like Darwin: "By nature, I mean the laws ordained by God to govern the Universe" - believe in both; indeed, it would be difficult for me to believe in God if I do not believe in evolution: the omnipotent God painstakingly modelling each animal or plant separately does not look convincing, while indeed “There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been and are being evolved" [Darwin 1859]. Certainly, the God's "powers are the workings of unbroken law rather than signs of miraculous intervention"!
"[Darwin 1859]"
He added the words "by the Creator" to the second edition to calm people down. In the first edition they were absent.
Hello folks; Well, we are down to the fundamental logical issue of proof. Proof, in the mathematical sense isn't possible in the empirical sciences. Disproof, on the other hand is. So, we are able to reject hypotheses that fail to withstand empirical tests. Hypotheses that are not disproven when rigorously tested are supported by the result but they ARE NOT proven. As a result, all of our theories are TENTATIVELY accepted but remain vulnerable to any subsequent test. That's why various well-established explanations are occasionally overthrown by new evidence. For instance, Mendelian genetics, in a single stroke, falsified all previous explanations for the inheritance of characteristics. Similarly, the "Modern Synthesis" sidelined a singular Natural Selection explanation for the mechanism of evolution.
Supernatural explanations of origins cannot be tested. Thus, though they may be true, they are not science. They can be evaluated using other "ways of knowing" but they aren't science. Good cheer, Jim Des Lauriers
It is a progressive adaptation of species to novel and changing environmental situations, more efficient mating strategies, better defence mechanisms against parasites and diseases and better abilities to defend natural resources for their survival.
James: Again, I generally agree but with one minor, not particularly essential in the context of present discussion but important "generally", exception: you write "Proof, in the mathematical sense isn't possible in the empirical sciences. Disproof, on the other hand is". This Popperian adage, however frequently adduced in scientific discussions, is a logical contradiction: we can disprove something only by proving the opposite (like the famous Popperian example: disproof of the hypothesis that all ravens are black is possible only by finding a non-black raven, i.e. by proving the hypothesis that some ravens are of different colour)! So, if proof would be impossible, disproof would also be!
Hi Roman; Let me try phrasing it this way. An hypothysis that fails an observational test (not necessarily in the Popperian experimental sense) is false...and will, at least, need to be rephrased and submitted to additional tests. On the other hand, an hypothesis that doesn't fail can only be tentatively accepted and cannot be considered to be proven. How's that? Jim Des Lauriers
Jim: A hypothesis that fails experimental test is either not proven to be false (i.e. not disproven) or it is proven to be false (i.e. its opposite is proven) - anyway, we either can neither prove nor disprove a hypothesis, or we can disprove one hypothesis by proving the other! How could have ornithologists disproven the medieval hypothesis that European swallows spend winter buried in mud, without proving that they spend it elsewhere (in this case: migrating to Africa)? "Failure of observational test" - unsuccessful searching for them in mud - would have only decrease the probability of the "mud hypothesis", with no chance to really disproe it! Could you give an example to the contrary?
Roman
Thanks to all folks, particularly to James and Roman. I have learn a lot from your discussions. But, if there is no proof of something in term of mathematical or experimental, it does not mean there is no existence or validity of that thing. Consider, someone has got fever, he can't show it other until s/he touches it. If someone gets pain, s/he can feel or realize it due to sensory signals. As David has mentioned, Darwin mentioned the creator in the later edition indicates he didn't denied the God contribution. Now, if we believe in God, there is no way to create anything in nature by the selection of nature. Recent experiment on the God particle is also suggesting, there is another parallel life. In the following link , the presenter tried to say, the 80% of scientific sentences in the Quran have been proved which indicates the Quran is true according to James. If Quran is true, Bible, Tawrat, and Zabur are also true. Please share more fundamentals of Darwinism and it's implications.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XOD2KXXzsjM
Mr. Islam; You appear to be seeking a theological explanation for natural processes rather than mechanistic ones. Since such explanations cannot be tested using scientific methods you will need to consult with people who have the proper logical tools to study the supernatural. Philosophers and theologians have spent millenia engaged in the conversation you are seeking. Scientists will be of no help whatsoever. Best regards, Jim Des Lauriers
Mr. Islam: "if we believe in God, there is no way to create anything in nature by the selection of nature" - if I understand you properly, you wish to say that it is either God or nature that "acts". In fact, there is no contradiction "either/or": let's recall Darwin's "By nature, I mean the laws ordained by God to govern the Universe" - evolution is just such a law! A clock made by good watchmaker, once set in motion, need not to have its pointers pushed to and fro to show the correct time: it works exactly without special interventions; similarly, to use somebody's formulation, "God set the world in motion and went about other business": the mechanism works well, no need to further attend it.
But please note: I do not wish to "prove" the God's intervention, or even His existence: this is - and, as Jim justly said, will remain forever - a question of belief (i.e. religion) not proof (i.e. science); I only say that, despite the popular interpretation, one (e.g. evolution) does not falsify the other (creation): both may be true!
You are really generous James and Roman. I have learnt from you, how to present a thing nicely. Maybe, I will knock you guys again in future. Anyway, thanks to all of you for your nice presentation of theological and experimental stuffs. I will have to read quite a lot.
"Supernatural explanations of origins cannot be tested."
Oh, some of them can. Some make explicit predictions about reality that can be tested by observation.
But that's beside the point. The point is the pointy end of Ockham's Razor.
"Now, if we believe in God, there is no way to create anything in nature by the selection of nature."
What do you mean by "create"?
"Recent experiment on the God particle is also suggesting, there is another parallel life."
Please explain what you're talking about. Do you mean the Higgs boson? It doesn't suggest "another parallel life" at all...
"80% of scientific sentences in the Quran have been proved"
Oh, I've seen a few such "proofs". They use atrocious distortions of the Arabic language to make the Quran mean whatever they want it to mean, and then they misinterpret the results of science to make them fit what they want, too. It's disgusting.
Dear David, I asked and discussed my understanding to know more about the question things. Surely, no one can demand he is perfect with all knowledge. We should not blame to each other that will increase distance. I had no intention to take a side. Overall, we are human irrespective to religion or believe or understanding. I wish, everyone will respect each opinions and present their debates in a nice way so that other can think, understand, and accept their findings.
Md; Please ignore that attack. It was entirely uncalled for. Best regards, Jim Des Lauriers
...I'm not trying to attack anyone present. I'm attacking the mentioned "proofs". For such an attack by a Muslim, see here: http://lughat.blogspot.com/2011/04/atoms-weight-of-philology.html – this is what I have in mind.
Dear David don't get worried. Sometimes, we need to ignore something to beautify our short life and to ensure a better living place.