Unscientific Theory?

[Agnostic1515]

Hey guys,

Just a quick question I was hoping some of you could clear up for me. One of the most common phrases I hear when reading about fundamentalist objections to Darwin's theory of natural selection is that it is unscientific.

I was just wondering what *would* classify as a "scientific theory?" What are the critieria that are required for a theory to be scientific, and why doesn't Darwin's theory meet them?

Thanks in advance for the clarification.

[NewGuy101]

Scientific- based on empirical evidence and not naturalist suppositions which macro-evolution fails to be.

[Project 86]

Hey guys,

Just a quick question I was hoping some of you could clear up for me. One of the most common phrases I hear when reading about fundamentalist objections to Darwin's theory of natural selection is that it is unscientific.

I was just wondering what *would* classify as a "scientific theory?" What are the critieria that are required for a theory to be scientific, and why doesn't Darwin's theory meet them?

Thanks in advance for the clarification.

Most creationists, including myself, have no problems with natural selection. We know it happens. What doesn't happen is natural selection + mutations + anything else creating new information that would turn goo into humans given enough steps and millions or billions of years. I have taken chemistry, biology and have read a lot of secular material on evolution and have yet to be shown any evidence for goo to man evolution. Instead I have been shown different types of horses, camels and beak sizes. Evolutionists often compare apples to oranges.

[Agnostic1515]

Most creationists, including myself, have no problems with natural selection. We know it happens. What doesn't happen is natural selection + mutations + anything else creating new information that would turn goo into humans given enough steps and millions or billions of years. I have taken chemistry, biology and have read a lot of secular material on evolution and have yet to be shown any evidence for goo to man evolution. Instead I have been shown different types of horses, camels and beak sizes. Evolutionists often compare apples to oranges.
Oh, ok...I see. That clears things up quite a bit. I was under the impression that for the most part, Creationists even denied microevolution.

So here is the creationist position, with regards to evolutionary theory (correct me on any of these points):

While creationists accept that changes to genetic material can happen within *kinds* (which I suppose we are to take as synonomous with species?), they argue that there is not enough evidence to suggest that evolution from common descent is probable.

If creationists accept that changes within a *kind* are possible, do they acknowledge that through evolutionary mechanisms, one species can eventually branch into two reproductively isolated populations?

[Project 86]

Oh, ok...I see. That clears things up quite a bit. I was under the impression that for the most part, Creationists even denied microevolution.

I glad I could help clear that up. Most of us don't like the term microevolution since it implies there is a macroevolution but sometimes it is not worth fighting over terms.

So here is the creationist position, with regards to evolutionary theory (correct me on any of these points):

While creationists accept that changes to genetic material can happen within *kinds* (which I suppose we are to take as synonomous with species?), they argue that there is not enough evidence to suggest that evolution from common descent is probable.

You are very close. Species and kinds would not always be synonymous. There are some doing work on trying to come up with a list of the original kinds but no one will be able to give you a perfect list. One example though I will give is the wolf, dog and coyote all being of the same kind. I'll direct you to this article for more information on what a kind is all about (http://creationwiki.org/Kind).

Also, yes, we don't believe there is enough evidence to suggest that evolution from a common descent on a grand scale is probable. We believe evolutionary research with things such as fruit flies (http://www.icr.org/article/2602/) and what we actually see happens when there is antibiotic resistance (http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v2/n3/antibiotic-resistance-of-bacteria) strengthens that view.

If creationists accept that changes within a *kind* are possible, do they acknowledge that through evolutionary mechanisms, one species can eventually branch into two reproductively isolated populations?

The creation tree and the evolutionary tree are common in that they do branch out and that you will sometimes see animals that were of the same kind lose the ability to reproduce. The biggest difference is that creationists don't have a single trunk like the evolutionists do. This chapter (http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/ee/classifying-life) from a book and that you read free online will show you the differences between the creationist "orchard" and the evolutionists "tree".

I do appreciate you taking the time to ask these questions to find out more about what we believe. Even if you don't agree with us it is good that you are searching for better understanding.

[Agnostic1515]

That’s quite interesting actually – the bacteria resistance article in particular.
The authors sum up the article by stating: “Mutation and natural selection, thought to be the driving forces of evolution, only lead to a loss of functional systems.” Although I only have one creationist friend, I often read on creationist websites that “mutation cannot add information to the genome, only take it away.” However, I recently read an article about how researchers found bacteria capable of digesting nylon in a pond near a nylon plant. I also found an article about it on Wikipedia (although I don't have enough posts yet to link to it...sorry!)
Although that doesn’t exactly touch on what you said, I think it’s a pretty interesting case. It at least points to the fact that mutation can and does add genetic information; how much credence that lends to the evolutionist position is still the question.
If what you mentioned about kinds is true, then I suppose that the fact that mutation can add genetic information doesn’t really blow any huge holes through the creationist position. It just means that the original kinds were able to diversify after their creation, no?

[Project 86]

That’s quite interesting actually – the bacteria resistance article in particular.
The authors sum up the article by stating: “Mutation and natural selection, thought to be the driving forces of evolution, only lead to a loss of functional systems.” Although I only have one creationist friend, I often read on creationist websites that “mutation cannot add information to the genome, only take it away.” However, I recently read an article about how researchers found bacteria capable of digesting nylon in a pond near a nylon plant. I also found an article about it on Wikipedia (although I don't have enough posts yet to link to it...sorry!)

This is probably the best argument, outside the Bible, that creationists should use. Reason being is because unless you see information being added in natural environments you'll never get macroevolution. Because for macroevolution to take place you'll need almost a countless amount of information added. By the way I did read about the bacteria digesting nylon a couple years ago and that same website I linked to about the bacteria resistance has an article (http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v17/i3/bacteria.asp) on it.

[Herod]

Hey guys,

Just a quick question I was hoping some of you could clear up for me. One of the most common phrases I hear when reading about fundamentalist objections to Darwin's theory of natural selection is that it is unscientific.

I was just wondering what *would* classify as a "scientific theory?" What are the critieria that are required for a theory to be scientific, and why doesn't Darwin's theory meet them?

Thanks in advance for the clarification.
It's not science, it's evil, pure evil.

[DarwinsChainsaw]

Well, heres my definition.

A scientific theory is one which is based upon observable, impersonal, reproducible data.

In other words, the evidence for is can be observed by anyone, and can be repeated in experiments. The evidence for a fundamentalist christian view of "creationism" is the bible, nothing else. The bible is not scientific evidence.

I personally think that creationism should be taught in schools IN A PHILOSOPHY CLASS. Its an important issue of our time so it certainly should be taught, but NOT AS SCIENCE. THis is not because its necessarily wrong, just that it isnt scientific but it is in a way philosophical.

Your next point might be that evolution is just a theory. My reply would be that all of science is "just a theory". Science has no certainties, it changes and develops as our understanding of the world develops. Contrary to what some people think, there is no such thing as accepted scientific fact.

EDIT

Genetic information can be added to the genome, for example by "insertion" during mitosis. This is a rare process, and rarer still for it to produce a useful mutation, but nobody's saying that evolution proceeds quickly.

[BigNorsk]

A theory is just an idea to try and explain something. The scientific part is the investigation of that theory and the critical examination of it.

That is the biggest thing that makes the theory of evolution really unscientific today. Questioning of it is really not permitted, examination of what we know is not permitted in many schools.

It has really become a religion in which one is required to believe despite the evidence it is incorrect.

There certainly does seem to be genetic changes that occur over time. But evidence isn't that species evolve so much as the evidence is they devolve.

And when we get down to the molecular level, there is just lots that evolution, little incremental steps cannot explain, they actually contradict it.

Let's take one that is used quite a bit now, the bacterial flagellum. It's a mode of transportation, really quite amazing.

Reduced to it's simplist form, it takes about 40 structures and over 100 steps that must be done in order in order to function properly.

Small incremental steps don't produce something like that. The resources are too much. A bacteria that would spend most of the resources to have a flagellum wouldn't survive to pass the incomplete flagellum on to it's offspring. Survival of the fittest would mean a bacteria with an inoperative flagellum would die. That's exactly what happens when a problem develops, the deficient bacteria die, they don't reproduce.

So that conflicts with the very idea of evolution. And that's just one.

Take how people want to say proteins were made, they are creating soups of amino acids and then theorizing they spontaneously make proteins.

Problem with that? It doesn't occur that way in cells. You start with DNA, then that is unzipped part way, and RNA is made, which then separates and goes outside the nucleus, and then the amino acids are actively brought to it, and the protein is formed linearly, and then it goes to another structure where the protein is bent into it's proper shape to be biologically active.

So many steps, so many structures, so complicated. And if you lose one step the whole thing doesn't work at all.

If you think evolution made that process you aren't a very good scientist in my opinion. It's contrary to the evidence. You might be in a religion, but it's not science.

Marv

[DarwinsChainsaw]

A few points I would like to discuss there.

1. Philosophical theories are investigated and examined. The science part is based on the type of evidence.

2. Schools are there to teach, but IMO you should be permitted to question anything and everything including religions and scientific theories.

3. If you acknowledge genetic changes over time, you acknowledge that evolution does exist, at least to an extent?

4. The flagellum does not display irreducible complexity. Archeal flagellae are much simpler, and both can be explained by the symbiosis model - the theory that the flagellum was originally a seperate organism, a symbiont, attached to the bacteria/archea. The mitochondrion is also theorised to have originally been a symbiont (and may still be, based on the fact that it has its own DNA).

5. Amino acids HAVE been observed to spontaneously form in water containing the compounds thought to be present in the early earth. Proteins are formed from amino acids.

6. The current theory on the origin of life is that it didnt start with DNA, very simple organisms existed (possibly for a very long time) without a genetic code. A primitive metabolism came first, with a cell membrane of sorts (phospholipids can occur naturally and naturally form a bilayer) and the means for reproduction followed later.

There are a huge ammount of steps required to get us to where we are today. If we started again, its unlikely that things would turn out as they did this time, but thats exactly the nature of evoltuion - some organisms benefit, but the vast majority become extinct. Based on the fossil record, well over 99% of species that have ever existed are now extinct. Many millions of organisms didnt get the precise mutations at the right time, so its not as unlikely that some did.

Evolution is suported by the fossil record and the diversity and similarities between species we can observe today. We can even observe evolution in bacterial and insect resistance to pesticides. At the moment, based on evidence, it is the best theory available to account for the diversity of life on earth. Its not perfect yet, I agree* but it is the best theory currently available.


*I for one would like to know how genes can code for behavior.

[BigNorsk]

Wow, your number 6 is basically a statement that evolution would occur in the absence of reproduction. Reproduction can't come along later. Without reproduction there is no passing on of anything.

And the flagellum really doesn't fit a symbiotic type of situation. No real way to explain the genetics ending up in the nucleus with the bacteria doing all the building of the flagellum that would have had to have been done by the flagellum itself before.

The mitochondria would be a better potential symbiotic relationship.

And I for one would indeed agree that evolution of a kind exists, but evidence would seem to me to support devolution much more strongly than evolution. Take most species, it is as if their genetics originally appears in a pure form, and then over time mutations are accumulated. That doesn't really fit if the organism evolved from and earlier one. If that was the case there'd be lots of mutations from the start.

As for irreducable complexity, I think you mistake that to mean there isn't any other way to do something. I don't believe that is correct. What it is you cannot make the shall we say product simpler. There can be a completely different way of doing it and that might be simpler. I'm not even sure though that we understand archeael flagellum well enough to conclude they are simpler, just that they are much different while appearing superficially similar.

And so amino acids form, big deal. That's a huge leap to assume you can make proteins that can reproduce themselves. To make that leap is similar to saying the presence of petroleum oil proves the existance of the automobile.

Marv

[DarwinsChainsaw]

1. Evolution would not occur in any meaningful sense before DNA. Remember we're talking about a very basic metabolism, probably chemoautotrophic. All "life" is at this stage is a simple recurring reaction, breaking down chemicals to produce its energy. DNA comes later and with it the possibility of sexual reproduction and hence evolution.

2. If you acknowledge that the mitochondrion is probably derived from symbiosis you'll acknowledge that this is possible, because many of the proteins essential to the mitochondrion are now coded for in the nucleus. I am a chemist, not a biologist so I cant tell you a whole lot about how this happens but it HAS happened at least to an extent in mitochondria.

3. What's your evidence for species' genetics originally being "pure" and degrading over time?

4. Are you trying to say that the simplest possible solution is always the right one?

5. Amino acids are almost* the sole components of protiens. To correct your analogy, it would be as if all the components of a car (20 components**) formed naturally and floated around, and could join together spontaneously in the right places. It would only be a matter of time before a car then formed.

*The non-amino acid parts, eg Fe and other metals, were present anyway.
**There are 22 naturally occuring amino acids, but two of these only occur in a select few archeans.

[BigNorsk]

If evolution doesn't occur before DNA, then there is no way to get DNA.

We can just stop now.

Marv

[DarwinsChainsaw]

You can stop now if you want.

We didnt go straight from nothing to DNA. There are 2 competeing hypotheses here, and I tend to favour the iron/sulphur theory (in other words, that a metabolism came before DNA/RNA). When I say this is life, at the start its really just a self perpetuating reaction in hydrothermal vents. The "organisms" have access to a constant flow of minerals from the vent, so a complete membrane wouldnt necessarily be present from the start.

The theory is that as soon as a 'metabolism' develops, the products it creates will accumulate to an extent and gradually take part in reactions to produce more and more complicated products. This isnt really evolution, because the changes occur within one orgainsm (only possible because this orgainism is not controlled by a genetic code). Remember that the real point of RNA is to code for proteins, the early forms of life quite possibly used it solely for that purpose without using it to pass on traits to offspring.

[cubanito]

While tempting to engage in a discussion re the evidence for/against a particular theory, I rather like ur original question.

Like most philosophical arguments, it begins with definitions. As usual for common words like "science" there's a plethora of definitions. Since ur primary stated objective is to find out what some fundys think, I will answer as clearly as I can.

My definition of a scientific theory is one that can be subjected to the experimental method. As such, no set of observations, no surveys, no body of "expert opinions" nor much else that is usually considered "science" meets my admittedly strict criteria.

Given that, NO idea on origins can be scientific.

For the Darwinian to convince me that it merits the name "science", an experiment would have to be set up, with an appropiate control, whereby life would arise from simple molecules without ANY outside interference. Such experiments were run by Louis Pasteur, who faced the evolutionary experts of his day, who claimed that maggots spontaneously arose from rotting meat and so on. When subjected to actual experimentation, the idea that life arose from even a rich and complicated non-living material, such as beef broth or the beef itself, fell completely dead (pardon the pun).

Granted, modern evolutionists would scoff at such experiments claiming that a few sterile bottles in a Paris museum for a few hundred years can adequately represent an entire planet churning for billiomns of years is, indeed, ludicrous. But that is why I say that ANY idea of origins, in and of itself, is not strictly "scientific". While some might enjoy "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Universe" (I didn't), the capacity to manufacture a planet and then stand back for a billion+ years to see what happens is quite beyond us. Short of that, all other attempts to form life from non-life are woefully short of an actual life form. A racemic mixture of the simplest amino acids, carefully shielded from the very processes that created it in a carefully contrived machine which did NOT replicate the earth's atmosphere as it is currently postulated to have been is not convincing when faced with the enormous complexity of the chirally pure interlocked chemistry of the simplest liveing cell. It is ironic that Pasteur, who debunked evolutionists in his day, earned his doctorate in chemistry by establishing the concept of chirality by manually separating out tartaric acid. Almost all biochemical molecules are chiral, and all natural ones occur in only one form, whereas all synthetic ones, are racemic mixtures. To date there is not even a discussion, let alone a credible idea, on how racemic mixtures can self-organize into naturally occuring biochemicals, let alone the increasing complexity of enantiomers.

but I digress,,,

The point is, none of us can re create creation, let alone set up an experiment with a control. Thus, neither the creationist nor the evolutionist can fit my definition of scientific.

That does not mean one can't examine the evidence to see if one or the other is more or less plausible. But that would be another thread.

Now, there is one thing thar the Christian creationist can do towards making a scientific claim. He can say the Bible is True. That is a falsifiable statement, one which can be subjected to a scientific methodology.

For example, the fundy can claim that the OT has come down to us with almost no error. That for a time was widely ridiculed byt the "scientific" efforts of higher criticism, witho it's supposed "proof" that the OT was not finished until circa 900AD. Specifically that Isaiah 53 HAD to be written long after the death of Jesus Christ because it's portrayal of the "suffering Messiah" was too accurate a representation of a Cruicifixion. Well, then came the Dead Sea Scrolls, and just like Pasteur's experiments re abiotic genesis, the well-reasoned "proofs" of the "experts" fell also. The passages in the OT that were deemed to be written AFTER the death of JC BECAUSE they were so specific that it had to be a fraud (for otherwise it would be true prophecy, and we can't admit a wiff of the supernatural), well, those passages were proven to have in fact been in wide distribution, and with an accuracy of 1 word in a thousand, long before JC was born.

So, you see, while creationism is not strictly scientific, the Bible is. There is a long, long history of Bible skeptics making long lists of Bible errors, later to be shown that the Bible was right about specific details of history, biology, and other testable fields.

I stopped believing in the theory of macroevolution as an agnostic. I spent some time having no plausible explanation for any origin question, as macroevolution was clearly ludicrous, and yet thinking of creationists as cavemen (my general term for the uniformed, stupid fundys I thought I knew.)

Well, now I'm the caveman. But, considering the avg brain capacity of a neanderthal was bigger than that of "modern man", I'm content.

JR

[WannaWitness]

There is nothing wrong with science as a whole, as there have been a lot of new discoveries that have helped many. Pretty much the only things I disagree with is their view of how everything began, like evolution, "big bang", and so forth.

My stand will always be creationist, straight from Genesis 1:1. "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."

[BigNorsk]

I personally don't see a problem with science, it's the editorial.

For instance a recent issue of Science News focuses on making life from "scratch".

What I see when I read the research is that with intelligence guiding it, scientists have been able to make many of the structures and such necessary for life. Though no one yet has made life.

The editorial that comes in is when so many take experiements that are completely intelligent design based and jump to trying to say they show that life could have spontaneously happened on it's own.

If some scientist does succeed in creating life, I assume of course that will be used editorially to try to prove God didn't exist and life just happened.

That's what I don't like. Using intelligence to work towards creating life does not prove that life just happened, you would think it would be used to show that intelligent design actually makes a lot of sense. Saying that showing you can do something through intelligent design disproves intelligent design is an abuse of science. And any decent editorial board would require people to excise their mistaken conclusions that contradict their experiments before publication, but that doesn't seem to always happen. Matter of fact, while a statement on the origen of life being through evolution in an intelligent design experiment seems perfectly acceptable while a conclusion that your work supports intelligent design would likely make it hard to get published in many journals.

Marv

[DarwinsChainsaw]

cubanito

A theory on origins can be scientific. Its a very difficult and expensive thing to test and we cant be exactly sure how it happened, but it could be proven that life can arise from non life in certain circumstances (not in peanut butter, unfortunately :] ). Further theories could then be made as to the optimum conditions etc. for the origin of life, which could in turn be examined.

BigNorsk

Proof that life can arise through natural means does not and cannot prove God's non existence. Even if we could prove that life did arise spontaneously, how am I to say that God did not create evolution?

WannaWitness

How can you test the bible? Whats in there is largely due to the catholic church's editing at the nicean council, and in any case is the word of man. Much of the bible is disregarded by many christians, and I dont think you're of the kind who would take deutronomy literally or take literally the bible's word that pi = 3. Proof of the big bang doesnt disprove God, just as evolution doesnt disprove God. If He exists, He could have created the big bang and evolution.

[anonymous1515]

BigNorsk, you mentioned that the theory of evolution is a religion. While I disagree that the theory itself is a religion, many scientists treat "evolution" with dogmatic reverence. So, I thank you creationists for addressing this, because alot of people use evolution as a way to campaign for a certain political agenda (i.e. social darwinism), which is far from being scientific.

The theory of evolution is not some gigantic conspiracy that the scientific community is trying to use to destroy the fundamentalist church. It is our best hypothesis to explain the diversity of life, and it has NOT been falsified by the scientific method yet.

As with any theory, it is not a perfect description of the natural universe. But it's the best we have right now. Luckily, creation science is one of our best ways to improve our theories. You guys are doing all the work of trying to falsify it for us!