Is evolution an atheist doctrine or useful science?

[jonperry]

Working with Emory University and Scientists around the world, I'm happy to announce that a new Stated Clearly animation "Does the Theory of Evolution Really Matter?" has been published!

Check it out here: http://youtu.be/V6zaRW5dL5w

In this video we show several of the many discoveries made as a result of Evolutionary Theory. You may be surprised how applicable the science has become. We use Evolutionary theory to maintain healthy food supplies, control the spread of disease, and reverse environmental damage.

My hope is that this video will help people understand the utility of Darwin's discovery before deciding to reject, accept, or partially accept the theory of evolution.

What do you think, is evolution just an atheist doctrine or is it useful science? Maybe something in between? I look forward to discussing the contents of the video with you.

Jon

[TheEditor]

Succinctly; Both.

Regards, Brenden.

[dizerner]

[user account removed]

[jonperry]

Pairing out already replicating things and how they interact isn't the rise of those replicating mechanisms to begin with

I agree with you on this. We don't yet have a fully functional model of how the first replicating creatures could have come into existence. We talk about this in our origin of life video: http://youtu.be/fgQLyqWaCbA

This is an important problem yet to be solved.

Evolution has massive circumstantial evidence behind it but I don't think the real building processes are understood yet

There are still many mysteries about how things evolve (what all the building processes are, we discover new ones frequently) but many of the building processes are well understood. We have a detailed understanding of point mutations, gene duplications, recombination events, and horizontal gene transfer which can all add new information into genomes. This new information then produces new phenotypes (physical traits). http://www.statedclearly.com/upcoming-v ... on-evolve/

From comparative anatomy and the fossil record we are able to create models of how eyes and other irreducibly complex features may have evolved.

I hesitate to post Richard Dawkins here because he is so anti-Christian but here he gives a good example of the eye evolution model: http://youtu.be/Nwew5gHoh3E

[dizerner]

[user account removed]

[jonperry]

Correct me if I'm wrong but all of those need already functioning genes, right

Yes you are correct, nobody has yet worked out the origin of the first gene but we do know of several ways in which knew genes are born now.

I do feel concerned about some paths genetic engineering might take... Most scientists tend to shy away from belief in a soul or spirit...Without moral bearings I think any science can lead to harm as well as good, because with knowledge comes the responsibility to use it wisely.

While I don't think religion helps make people more or less moral, I strongly agree that we need to be very concerned with how science is being used. Knowledge is power. It can be used to humanity's benefit or demise.

For this reason it is very important that the public understands science, even that Christians understand evolution. This is one of the reasons I enjoy reaching out to forums like this one.

If you go to the StatedClearly website you will see that our motto is "Science is for everyone"

[jriccitelli]

Jon, to what extent do you reject that self-adjusting, self-aligning, and self-correcting mechanisms could 'not' have been 'planned and built into' chemical designs?

I understand you interpret the advancements (hopefully positive advancements) as chemically produced, even necessitated by the chemical structures, but evolution without reason or purpose are still blind chemical advancements (having no reason in themselves).

Even our phones computers and cars sense our needs and wants. They can change the fuel mixture, organize our bank accounts, plan our day, set our weather, plan our dinner, know what music genres we like, when we want to hear, and where we will most likely buy our next meal. Are you going to argue this all originated from a chemically self-manufactured code?

What happens when we create fully android humans and animals with synthetic biology or organic material? Are you going to argue they came about without a designer, and go forth and create videos arguing that they self-produced themselves?

I also see the atom as a design of a genius. A building block with almost unlimited versatility and nearly unlimited energy. I see fantastic design in the atom, simple additions of electrons create other atoms, yet with intensely amazing variety, did that come about by blind chance? And what keeps it from imploding and exploding is still a unbelievable 'balance' of speed matter and space.

[jonperry]

Jon, to what extent do you reject that self-adjusting, self-aligning, and self-correcting mechanisms could 'not' have been 'planned and built into' chemical designs?

Are you are asking me if I reject the idea that a designer may have at least gotten things started at the chemical level? No I do not reject that possibility. I would be happy to follow the evidence to that conclusion if the evidence was presented and the logic was sound.

What happens when we create fully android humans and animals with synthetic biology or organic material? Are you going to argue they came about without a designer

No, I am a science educator. I present the facts which have been observed and the deductively sound conclusions which have been derived from those facts.

As presented in the video of my opening post, the theory of evolution consists of 2 major conclusions:

1. Living things naturally evolve to better survived and reproduce within their environments
2. All living things are related

These two concepts have lead to thousands of new discoveries, some of which have major applications in medicine (as shown in the HIV example), food security (as shown in the fisheries example), and in environmental protection (as shown in the desertification example).

The "argument" the video makes is that the theory of biological evolution is powerful and worth understanding.

[Candlepower]

Is evolution an atheist doctrine or useful science?

Jon, your question is flawed.

First, it makes the implied assertion that the Theory of Evolution is science. Darwin's Theory is substantially religion, not science. It has little to do with fact and mostly to do with faith.

Leaving all speculative theory aside, the genuine facts that evolutionists hold to are held to by creationists as well. Facts are facts. The difference between the two views lies in Who is credited with being the Father of those facts, and that’s a matter of faith, not science. Creationism credits God with creating facts; evolution credits……ummm…..evolution!

Second, your question sets up a false alternative. You leave us with this option:

1) If we say evolution is an atheist doctrine, then we must conclude it is not useful science.
2) If we say evolution is not atheistic doctrine, then we are left to conclude it is useful science.

That is a false alternative, Jon. Calling evolution a useful science is misleading, because evolution is not science at all. It is a theological way of explaining scientific facts. Creationism is a different theological way of explaining scientific facts. Those facts are shared by both parties. Where the two camps part ways is in their faith, which is not a matter of science. Creationism is a God-based interpretation of scientific facts. Evolution is a not-God-based view of interpreting scientific facts. Both systems of interpretation are religious in nature.

My position is that 1) evolution rejects Special Creation, therefore it is atheistic, and 2) evolution isn’t science, therefore it is not useful science.

[jriccitelli]

Are you are asking me if I reject the idea that a designer may have at least gotten things started at the chemical level? (Jon)

If you design something that can start to have its own free thoughts you have created a monster (I will leave that one to ponder)

If you design biological systems to develop their own biological structures then you have designed them to create monsters, and I suppose: monsters that are biological engineers (I will leave that one to ponder)

The forgoing is true, except that biological structures cannot do anything other than ‘hope’ to get better - unless they themselves are biological engineers. And they must ‘also’ be capable of mentally manipulating their own tissues and atoms to form structures and improve their own inward design This is akin to bending spoons and moving chairs with our mind.

We Creationists believe biological systems are made to self replicate, survive and fix themselves. But nothing in the Universe can explain how a ‘non-thinking’ atomic structure can ‘conceive, design and reason’ this process unless that structure is of itself conscious and ‘thinking’.

A computer can think, but it’s thinking was designed into it. Computer designers do not design computers to start thinking about the computers own survival and needs. Otherwise the computer might decide it wants to become a paperweight or a bomb. True there are people who develop things that cause a computer to have free thought though. They are trying to develop computers to use free thought using guidelines they have designed; and there are the computer hacks that develop free thought viruses; that result in destructive behavior.

I believe biological systems ‘appear’ to have a slight ability to engineer for themselves productive improvements, but it makes no sense to think that they are ‘thoughtfully producing a thought’ that says “I must do something within my atomic structure in order to survive”. Or, “I must develop and produce something of ‘my own’ biological composition that improves or allows my survival”

What do you think, is evolution just an atheist doctrine or is it useful science? Maybe something in between? (Jon)

It is close to atheism in the sense of denying the ‘necessity’ of Creations creator (not necessarily the ‘existence’ of a Creator), but it definitely is a religion in the sense that it is a ‘belief’ that matter can arrange itself into complex structures.

Darwin's Theory is substantially religion, not science. (Candle)

Amen, there is no proof, or sense, or logic that ‘non-thinking’ can lead to develop and design. Let alone the intensely complex structures we observe and are. Evolution is the belief that ‘thinking and design can happen without the use of a mind’. This is exactly what eastern religions and specifically Universal mind religions believe, yet the ‘logical’ argument against ‘Universal Mind’ is that if you attach mind to mindless energy you have a contradiction. If anything has a mind, such as saying the Universe has a mind (or is a mind) then you have made that ‘thing’ have reason like a person. And if a mind has reason then it is no longer simply ‘energy’ or a chemical thing, it must therefore be a ‘who’ (you have to draw the line somewhere or else electricity is a person too). So Evolution is akin to energy having a mind without a name.

Darwin’s ‘theory’ of Natural Selection and survival of the fittest is in itself acceptable to reason, but the idea that the mechanisms involved came about without a designer is illogical. Neither of these two ideas are the property of evolution they are just as much agreeable with Creation. And with Creation you have logic and thinking choosing the improvements and development, where evolution you have a spinning bottle doing the choosing.

Darwin’s common ancestor is not at all verifiable, it is assumed because things 'look alike' and have similar design they came ‘from’ each other. All common design proves is that they have a common design, designer, or common purpose of design (a Ford has four wheels, like a Chevy, both have the same purpose but one did not evolve from the other. A Volkswagon looks like a Porsche because they had the same designer).

Darwin’s slow gradual process defeats itself, because slow processes allow for dysfunction, virus and natural deterioration of previous process' and destruction from outside forces. All of these are more likely to happen than un-thought, un-designed advances, and chance positive mutations being successful enough to overcome the likelihood of disaster and death. Again it takes a will, motive, reason, plan and a goal to live. Non-thinking structures have no-inward reason to live in the first place.