What are the empirical data to which evolutionary religions submit?
Discussion Actions
Thank God For Evolution, Facts Are God’s Native Tongue: “Evolutionary religion’s alternative to reliance on ancient scriptures is empirical data. In a way, the data are our scriptures— and to these we submit”.
71 Responses
-
-
Charles, where did you find 1473 BCE as the date for the book of Job? That’s conjecture, not fact. According to reliable references, “ the present form of Job was fixed in the postexilic period ”../wiki/6th_century_BCE" title=“6th century BCE”>6th century BCE – 5th century BCE" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_job). You are then off by a millennium!
According to Isaiah, the earth is a circle – NOT a sphere. Those are two different things. The Hebrews believed in a flat, round earth covered with a metallic, semi-spherical firmament as described in Genesis. As the Bible speaks in many voices, you can also find texts claiming that the earth rests on pillars. (Job 9:6; Also, according to Isaiah (11:12) and Revelation (7:1) the earth has corners – so it must be square or rectangular.
Also, modern evolutionary does not at all deal with “(w)hat happened between the Big Bang and up to the formation of a lifeless earth” or “(w)hat happened to make life appear”
-
a fine article on the Biologos attempting to reconcile this very issue HERE regarding much of science’s new and exciting discoveries this past year…well worth the read.
-
Josh, Thank you for sharing the article: http://biologos.org/blog/footprints-in-the-sand/
Very soon, I will have more to say on the subject. I hope that we can agree that there should not be a “winner” nor “loser” in this debate. I hope that each of us can do our research to learn how the present condition of earth came to be. I hope that we can document what we have learned and share it with others.
How about focusing our attention on the emperical data surrounding Tiktaalik? It was recently reported on NOVA on PBS.
-
Radek, Thank you for your ideas. The “challenge” is to find the most reasonable explanations for the present conditin of planet earth. I hope that you agree that there will not be a “winner” and a “loser” to this debate. I hope that you agree that each and every one of us can research information and succinctly document our research for all to see.
If evolution is a “fact”, why is it not so obvious to me? TGFE is not a science book, so I have read and studied “Why Evolution is True” by Jerry A Coyne.
I liked his explanation about speciation on page 179. “Speciation is a splitting event, in which each ancestral branch splits into two twigs, which themselves split late, and so on as the tree of life ramifies. This means that the number of species build up exponentially, although some branches are pruned through extinction. How fast would speciation need to be to explain the present diversity of life? It’s been estimated that there are 10 million species on earth today. Let’s raise that to 100 million to take into account undiscovered species. It turns out that if you started with a sincle species 3.5 billion years ago, you would get 100 million species living today even if each ancestral species split into two descendants only once every 200 million years. As we’ve seen, real speciation happens a lot faster than that, so even if we account for the many species that evolved but went extinct, time is simply not a problem.”
Radek, 1. Maybe we can agree that we would have to wait an average of 200 million years to “observe” evolution. Gravity, however, can be observed quickly.
To define what empirical data I am seeking, the article
http://biologos.org/blog/footprints-in-the-sand/
talks about the age of Tiktaalik, for example. I would like to see the actual data that shows how the age of Tiktaalik was determined. I know that fossils are too old for carbon dating. What method was used? How many milligrams of each isotope was found? How many milligrams of helium was found? What equation was used to calculate the age of Tiktaalik?
The empirical data for the age of Tiktaalik is important to me because I want to know if dating a fossil is really reliable.
Assume that I have “overlooked” the “old earth” theory. I do not have faith in an “old earth” until the Carbon 14 in coal and diamonds has been explained and the large amount of helium in zircon has been explained.
Assume that the date of the book of Job is incorrect and assume that we know the names and addresses of every Hebrew who believed in a flat earth. Young earth creationism is still a possibility if the age of the earth is unknown.
I agree with you that the evolution we are discussing deals with the time period from the inicial appearance of life on earth until the present. However, TGFE does not.
-
“Why Evolution is True”, Jerry A Coyne, page 179: Assume a beginning date for life at 3.5 billion years ago. Assume life started with only one specie. After a “period of time” a mutation occurred and then there were two species. Assume that, after a constant “period of time”, that those two species became four. Time went by and the four species became eight species, etc.
Again, from page 179, “It has been estimated that there are 10 million species on earth today”. Can this speciation model show us how long that “period of time” is between speciations? This model is to illustrate why evolution cannot be observed during our lifetime. It does not take into account extinctions or the fact that some species seem to have changed very little over time while others seem to have evolved more quickly.
I used a spreadsheet and created this table: Column 1 = Speciation number, column 2 = How many species would be found on earth, column 3 = years between speciations, column 4 = years ago.
1 1 0 3,500,000,000
2 2 129,629,630 3,370,370,370
3 4 129,629,630 3,240,740,741
4 8 129,629,630 3,111,111,111
5 16 (To save space here, please do a similar table at home)
27 67,108,864 129,629,630 129,629,630
28 134,217,728 129,629,630 0
Conclusions: Starting 3.5 million years ago with one organism, a mutation would only have to occur every 129,629,630 years for us to have accumulated on earth more than 134 million species!!!
That is why we cannot observe evolution during our lifetime. And one of the requirments of speciation is that there be enough time for organisms to evolve. Approximately 130 million years between speciations seems reasonable.
However, before we can celebrate, please use the same spreadsheet and the following assumptions.
Assume that speciation began 10 thousand years ago… yes, thousands and not millions. Let 370 years be the time between speciations. There would still be 134 million species on earth!!! And when the last speciation occurred 370 years ago in 1640, no one knew how many species there were… not even Darwin’s grandfather.
Don’t take my word for it. Make your own spreadsheet.
-
Charles,
You are correct – this website is not the right forum for discussing evolution in scientific term, just like it is not the right forum for going into details of creationism or ID. It deals, instead, with a spiritual interpretation of evolution. Have you considered moving your discussion to a different forum? Don’t get me wrong, I believe there is room for everyone here, it’s just that we are dealing with something else here.
Having said that, I am glad that you only look for the “most reasonable” explanation of our planet’s history. We must accept that we will never be able to move back in time to observe absolutely everything anyway. We therefore read and analyse the book of nature for clues. There is little doubt that evolution has happened, though as to why or how – that’s a different story.
However, we can observe evolution without moving int time. We have fossils. We have genetics. New disciplines of science come to life and they independently confirm that evolution has happened. But we also have experimental evolution, which gives us the same results: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experimental_evolution.
Are you having an issue with dating Tiktaalik in particular, or with radiometric dating in general?
Your 370-year speciation rate makes you a more enthusiastic evolutionist that Darwin himself!
-
Radek, Thank you for the “Experimental evolution” link. I learned from “”mw">Lenski’s long-term evolution experiment with Escherichia coli" that after 40,000 generations E. Coli did not EVOLVE into a Tiktaalik or some other creature.
The “issue” that I have with Tiktaalik and other fossils is that the fossil itself is not dated by radiometric calculations. It was found at what was “assumed” to be old layers of strata. I cannot find any empirical data to show how the calculations were done for Tiktaakik. All I can find is theory about how radiometric data works.
Where else can I go with my research? Evolution sites do not believe in creation and creation sites do not believe in evolution. I was hoping to find someone like yourself who would have an open mind.
-
Charles,
If you want to have first-hand knowledge of the issues that interest you, then how about going to uni to study biology, geology, nuclear physics or whatever it is that appeals to you the most?
Might sound radical, but I am serious! Thing is, whether you accept evolution, YEC or believe in aliens, there is only so much you can check yourself. Whether you like it ot not, you have to trust someone about something. I have no problem with that. Science has an in-built self-correcting mechanism called peer review. Plus it is competitive, so many scientists want to make a name for themselves. So if there is anything to be disproven it will be, sooner or later (the story of Piltdown Man is a good example how it works). I read once a story of an atheist scientist who confided to his YEC friend that he would love to find evidence that the earth is 6,000 years old, as it would make him famous. Sadly, there isn’t any.
As for dating Tiktaalik, I have no doubt that the radiocarbon method would not be suitable to date it, therefore as long as it was not planted in a particular geological stratum later, dating that stratum would be sufficient. I do not see a problem with that. Please remember that the geological column was developed before Darwin and not by evolutionist, and that radiometric dating was not developed by evolutionists either.
Having been a creationist myself, I have discovered that they can be divided into 3 groups.
1. Those who know the evidence but deliberately spread untruths (or “Lying for Jesus” camp);
2. Those who trust those in 1. above, as they are often church leaders, and do not bother to check the evidence for themselves (or the “Faithful Ignorant” camp);
3. Those who know the evidence but decide to believe in YEC (or OEC) despite it, knowing that the observable facts are against them and being open about it (the “Intellectually Honest” camp).
To illustrate this, I’ll mention the Seventh-day Adventist church. It is quite conservative in its theology and biblical literalism. It had important contributions to the early “biblical creationism” and “flood geology”. It still officialy holds to YEC views. Yet it’s not so easy, because it decided to educate some of its people in order to become scientists and question the scientific consensus. Once acquainted with the facts, those people largely had no choice but to counter the official church view and in the end accept some kind of theistic evolution. Please consider the following links:
http://www.atoday.com/content/evolution-and-adventist-dilemma-part-i
http://www.atoday.com/content/evolution-and-adventist-dilemma-part-2
http://www.atoday.com/content/evolution-and-adventist-dilemma-part-3
http://www.atoday.com/content/evolution-and-adventist-dilemma-part-4
http://www.atoday.com/content/evolution-and-adventist-dilemma-part-5
http://www.atoday.com/content/evolution-and-adventist-dilemma-part-6
http://www.atoday.com/content/evolution-and-adventist-dilemma-part-7
http://www.atoday.com/content/evolution-and-adventist-dilemma-part-8
-
Radek, Thank you for responding. I assume from your response that you are not very knowlegeable about physics, mathematics, chemistry, biochemistry, biology, geology, paleontology and evo-devo http://evolution-101.blogspot.com/2006/03/what-is-evo-devo.html . It was not my intention to make you feel uncomfortable about your faith in evolution. I cannot expect that you, nor anyone else, would be willing to question that faith unless you were as prepared as I am to discuss the empirical data that is so lacking in this faith. I apologize for making you feel uncomfortable. Please read the following scientific information: http://www.icr.org/science/ .
-
In 2009, a study published in “Science” sequenced collagen protein and detected other proteins of an 80-million year-old hadrosaur that were still intact, shocking specialists who have observed that these same proteins decay within mere weeks in laboratories. http://www.icr.org/article/5138/
-
charles,
i think that it’s fair to assume that NOBODY here is “right” or “wrong”, therefor leaving us only at gentle debate and dialog. i can also only imagine that you’ll find that nobody here is apposed to evolution having a legit opponent, however, YEC has not proven in any way that it can even stand in the same arena.
that said, i call BS on your empirical data argument by the simple fact that you’re using icr.org as evidence opposing evolution. i agree with Radek that you’ll need to do more work than “google” to find the empirical data…and then you’ll probably need a degree to decipher all of the info that you find. it would essentially be like doing a geniology report…lots of libraries, lots of books and tireless dot connecting. i’m comfortable assuming that you’ll not find the “evidence” you seek via the internet and should probably leave all YEC defenses from the internet out of the argument. you’ll not find ONE YEC article that defends its stand with scientific data, but rather finding some of the anomalies in science and using those as proof for a young earth.
i apologize if some of that comes across harsh, but i’m passionate and feel that YEC ideas and attitudes are dangerous and outdated.
-
Josh, Thank you for your comments. I suspected that your faith in evolution would automatically reject anything written by icr.org. Remember that this discussion began because TGFE made the statement: Facts are God’s native tongue. Evolutionary religion’s alternative to reliance on ancient scriptures is empirical data. In a way these data are our scriptures— and to these we submit". We are all capable of understanding science. I do not have sufficient faith in evolution to accept some of the claims without some sort of empirical data to back it up. I assume that you are accepting what evolutionists have stated because you trust them and therefore it is not necessary to question their claims. Why can’t someone tell me how the age of Tiktaalik was calculated? Please don’t push me aside by saying, go to school or go read a book or you’ll never find it on the Internet. I know that you do not know the answer. What amazes me is that anyone would simply accept 375 million years old without wondering if that is reasonable or not. If it is reasonable, then please show us how that date was calculated. Also, why do you believe that Tiktaalik evolved into another life form? For decades the coelacanth was the ancestor of land animals until that prehistoric fish was found to be living and not extinct. If evolutionists hide their empirical data, then we have no alternative but to trust their conclusions without the opportunity to verify. I would like to become a believer in evolution. However, creationist and evolutionists waste valuble resources trying to prove to the public that their information is better than the opponent’s information. TGFE seems to want us to quit arguing and accept that God created evolution. Some of us would want the facts behind that conclusion, too.
-
When we were little, we knew that Santa Claus brought us gifts if we were good. We knew that we came from our mother’s belly. We knew that some of our family and friends had died and gone to heaven. We knew that our favorite pet would be there, too. We knew that God punished bad people with hurricanes and earthquakes. We knew that Negroes were supposed to sit at the back of the bus. Mexicans were supposed to sit toward the middle. We knew that God is a mysterious Trinity. Bad people go to hell.
Our life began to change. How did Santa Claus deliver our gifts if we had no chimney? Why would my parents do something nasty like sex just to have me? OK. They probably only did it once. Some people did not believe in God and told us that there is no heaven. Even our favorite pet was gone forever. God must be bad because he does bad things to good people. All people have the same rights and can sit wherever they wish on the bus. Unitarians taught us that God is NOT a Trinity and Universalists taught us that everyone has a chance to live forever after death.
School taught us that we do not need to believe in God. The present condition of the earth is the result of random mutations that started 3.5 billion years ago and has evolved into the millions of species we see today. Belief in God or belief in anything else is optional and for entertainment purposes only. There are many paths to the Holy. We can accept the theory of evolution without being confused with empirical data. Let the scientists figure it out. Thank God for evolution. Thank God for Martin Luther King, Jr. He was inspired by the teachings of Thoreau and Unitarianism.
-
The Boise Unitarian Universalist Fellowship will have a talk by Loren Bergeson on Sunday, January 24, 2010. Loren will be talking about Michael Dowd’s book, “Thank God for Evolution”. My wife and I will be there to listen respectfully to Loren’s inspiring message.
-
Charles, thank you very much for being so active and passionate on this forum. I apologize again for being a bit harsh in my last statement, and in hindsight, see that not much of it was useful in regards to the topic at hand.
Without much investigation it appears that scientific research data is not currently public domain, and therefore is subject to the original “founder’s” interpretation and disputable only through speculation and opinion, OR via an independent study resulting again in another scientists’ data being subject only to his own interpretation. I personally am capable of having “faith” in scientific findings that have long been tested and are not widely disputed. I don’t find creation defenses reason for disbelief. Something else to keep in mind is that much of the evolutionary community draws on a WIDE variety of sciences, therefore looking at the big picture and connecting many dots to draw much of its conclusions. Scientific materialism is also a big issue for many. It’s a pompous and bully attitude that is equally extreme in one direction as creation is the other. I believe that “Integral” is the only approach to these issues, and Connie and Michael are doing a great job of drawing on many disciplines across the board and presenting a “Big Picture” view of history and our place in it.
I agree and submit to you Charles that Evolution shouldn’t be taken for granted, as NOTHING should, and that the “empirical” data must be trusted as presented by popular science. Questioning and critical thinking are important to healthy minds and democratic processes and keeps potentially bad info from mistakenly (or intentionally) becoming fact. However, YEC makes no compelling argument and offers no good evidence for myself to consider it a viable option, AND gives no real inspiring reason to live a life of integrity.
If you don’t mind me asking, I assume that you believe in something…so to what do you submit yourself to at this point and why?
-
Charles,
Actually, I’m going to end up doing a bait-and-switch on Sunday, January 24. I had intended to do a presentation on TGFE, but the concepts from the following book are more important to me right now, and I feel moved to instead talk about it:
The Death of the Mythic God; The Rise of Evolutionary Spirituality; by Jim Marion
http://www.amazon.com/Death-Mythic-God-Evolutionary-Spirituality/dp/1571744061
I hope you and your wife won’t be too disappointed.
-
Josh, Thank you. Many thank yous. I hope that we can explore this matter together. My mind is not made up. I am a Bible student and a member of BUUF where Loren will give his talk on January 24, 2010. As you may know, Unitarians do not have a dogma. We include every body in our congregation… from atheists to Jews to Christians to Muslims to pagans, etc. We all realize that it is wise to respect everyone’s beliefs. I have never heard of any one being criticized for their religious beliefs.
Not so with creationists and evolutionists. Surely you must have seen or know about the movie “Expelled”. Remember “Judgement Day” on PBS. Each side presents their ideas but never fail to try to discredit the other side.
It’s OK with me if someone believes in creation and it’s OK with me if someone believes in evolution. The Bible is not a science book. If all we study is Intelligent Design, all we get is: “God did it and that’s the way it is”. TGFE is not a science book either. I never expected to find the answers to science questions here. I was hoping to find scientists who would explore the science with me.
Why can’t evolution be like the Atomic Theory? It’s still a theory and no one feels threatened and no one demands that we must accept it as a fact. No one has ever seen a helium atom. However, there are many reasons to believe that it is a very small particle with 2 electrons in orbit around 2 protons and 2 neutrons. We can visualize it as if it were a miniature solar system. But I know that this is only convenient for explaining some of helium’s properties. To explain the electromagnetic spectrum of the sun, we must understand quantum mechanics. It is still OK to use the simpler model for most purposes.
“Why Evolution is True” by Jerry A Coyne gives a wonderful explanation of what scientist have been studying ever since Darwin published his research. But he never misses a chance to make fun of creationists. And he writes as if he and other evolutionists possess the TRUTH. There is no room for doubt. We must accept evolution. Evolution is a fact. And anyone believing in God is ignorant.
Well, I still have my doubts.
-
Josh, thanks for bringing up Scientific materialism. Whether or not Scientific materialism is true is much more important to me than whether or not evolution is true. I’m glad that John Kotre is going to be tackling this issue head-on, at least if I understand correctly what he’s promoting:
http://thankgodforevolution.net/discussions/1923
If Scientific materialism (a.k.a. functionalism) is true, then it seems like I should expend a lot of my time and effort supporting groups like this:
http://www.acceleratingfuture.com/michael/blog/2009/01/the-big-freeze/
If it’s not true, then it seems like I should expend a lot of my time and effort supporting groups like this:
http://isc.integralinstitute.org/Public/static/about.aspx
These are two quite different paths. I wonder which one I should choose?
-
Charles, i agree 100%. i’m currently getting a good chuckle out of my previous “hot head”!
Loren, i’m currently listening to Ken’s Kosmic Conciousness, and he’s a brilliant man!! i’d say that going Integral is a win win situation. his ideas embrace all past, present and possible scenarios since each did, does and will have it’s place in the Big picture. after all, Evolution “transcends and includes”, doesn’t it?
Empirical data is something that the majority of people have found to be true through both private and public revelation.
An understanding of the definition of “empirical data” might be the issue at stake here. It appears to me that you Charles are looking for the kind of data that can only be known by being in the presence of or able to decipher the data accumulated in many of the studies that are being referred to as “empirical”. In which case, obviously, you would have to either be there as it’s being done, OR, be a scientist and track down the data from any number of studies and draw your own conclusions. If you’re defining empirical as “absolute truth”, then good luck with that. Absolute truth is still private revelation…it just so happens that 100% of people who experience it agree to call it the same thing or interoperate it the same way.
There’s no doubt that if we were all sitting together at a table that we would agree that the object we were sitting around is a table…seems pretty empirical to me. Now inset a participant that’s never seen a table before. Majority vote would no doubt still consider it a table, but now there’s one who might climb under it and consider it shelter…and now we’re in a situation where although the majority agrees, there’s still one that has found another truth. So is the data empirical anymore? Or just subject to interpretation?
Now we’re getting into simple issues of interpretation…or SERIOUS Quantum Pysics!!!