Rejecting evolution does not equal rejecting science

One of the most fascinating examples of plate tectonics in action with lots of supporting evidence, in the Dead Sea. Joel Duff’s series of articles do a great job of discussing it, and as it intersects with the Bible, is a interesting area of discussion for those of the book.

3 Likes

That does not mean it is incorrect. What would you like for proof? Just these two are more than a little compelling:

This refutes the YEC argument about the Kaibab uplift and the Grand Canyon in 11 seconds:

2 Likes

Science is not about proof. It is about what is reasonable to believe given all the objective evidence.

One can suppose that the world was created this morning as it is with all our memories as they are. And there is no way to prove this is not the case. It is unreasonable however to believe in something contrary to all the evidence of our senses and memories because it makes too much of our life meaningless. In the same way, it is unreasonable to believe in something contrary to all the objective evidence and the written procedures of science which give the same result no matter who follows them and what they want or believe.

Everything evolution claims is demonstrated over and over by things we can see and experiments we perform. It is far far far more reasonable than believing that a devilish supernatural being created the universe by magic and feeds us an unending pack of lies in all the information he sends us from the earth and sky. Why not believe all that God is telling us in this information coming to us from all things and simply admit the literal magical interpretation of the Bible (which isn’t even consistent with everything we read there let alone with what we experience in Christian life) is in error.

2 Likes

Yes, I should have put ‘proof’ in scare quotes.

I would say it comes pretty close. Evolution is the best scientific theory regarding the diversity of life, and rejecting it without demonstrating (scientifically) where it is in error or providing a more predictive and falsifiable scientific alternative is, IMO, tantamount to rejecting science and being anti-intellectual.

Which does not require you to affirm that it is perfect and without room for improvement or impossible to supplant.

In the same sense rejecting General Relativity (with the same caveat) is rejecting science, even though it is not necessary to learn, study or teach any of these:

Biology
Agriculture
Medicine
Mathematics
etc.

2 Likes

I agree that ecology is important. But I don’t know of anyone who teaches evolution that denies ecology. Everyone I meet who studies and are passionate about evolution also are equally passionate about ecology.

2 Likes

I study evolution, and I know and interact with many ecologists on a regular basis (since I’m in an “Ecology and Evolution” department). None of us would disagree that ecology and evolution are intimately related, but they certainly don’t completely overlap in the sense that you seem to be implying.

2 Likes

Coevolution is a major part of evolution. Its foundational to habitat development and is a major bulk of things like pollinators and host plants. I also see evidence that often a random mutation occurs that’s beneficial to a extreme environment that over many generations results in a ecological niche being filled but it was not what drove the initial mutation. The mutation fit into a niche by chance when the same mutation used to fit with a different niche. We often see this happening when a mainland species drifts or finds its way to a island and simply already had what fit good into the environment.

If you want to find a transitional fossil then you need to understand science in order to pick the correct geologic strata with the correct age. This is exactly how they found Tiktaalik roseae, the transitional tetrapod.

If you want to understand which parts of a genome have function then sequence conservation is an invaluable tool, and sequence conservation is a direct application of evolution.

Evolution is also invaluable in answering some of the most basic questions in biology, such as why complex eukaryotes fall into a nested hierarchy, or why we don’t find whales in Cambrian strata. Why is there more sequence conservation in exons than in introns? Evolution has the answer. Why do synonymous mutations outnumber non-synonymous mutations when comparing the chimp and human genome? Again, evolution has the answer. I don’t see how creationism can answer any of these questions.

4 Likes

Science doesn’t work in proofs. The theories we accept offer the best explanation of the facts. Do you have better explanations?

1 Like

Rejecting evolution does not equal rejecting science (?)

One more thing among many that YECs don’t recognize in their claiming that evolution is a conspiracy among biologists is that all of physics must be conspiratorial, too.

The so-called (by YECs) ‘secular’ hard sciences* all concur and attest to the antiquity of the universe. They share much of the mathematics, measuring tools and techniques and technologies, and these are the same sciences that put men on the moon. (They also brought us the atomic and hydrogen bombs. Feel free to argue with THEM. :grin:)

The physical and earth hard sciences and their subcategories that ALL attest to the antiquity of the earth and the universe would have all advanced to where they are today even if the concept of biological evolution had never been dreamt of, or even if the life sciences did not exist.
 


*Astronomy, cosmology, astrophysics, elementary/high energy particle physics, planetary science, geology, physical geography, oceanography, meteorology, hydrology, climatology, …and more.

3 Likes

That’s also not how science works. I can destroy one theory or question it without having one of my own. In this case, I’m just saying what the ‘experts’ say.

But this is myth.

So you don’t have a theory to explain anything? Except the Bible?

1 Like

So very true. The sciences are integrated. You can’t just break off parts you don’t like.

1 Like

The problem is that isn’t true. I believe in science, at least real science. How do you observe, test and repeat with past events like old-earth geology and evolution?

NOT SCIENCE
image

I have a theory to explain everything. God. I have the same facts to prove my theory as evolution does, but I also have an eyewitness. And rationality.

Are you referring to the link above or the image below, or both, since the image is contained in the linked article? And whichever, how do you know it is myth?

Lots of claims there, but no facts that I can see. Care to try specifics rather than straw men?

Not unlike how forensic and crime scene technicians and scientists do. Do you want to close crime labs and stop looking for murderers?
 

And then there are the dating methods that validate and calibrate each other.

1 Like

Might that be mostly because you don’t know enough about the sciences mentioned to recognize the legitimacy of the claim and are merely trying to deflect deflect by calling it a straw man argument?

1 Like