Evidence for Evolution

[AndersonD]

It is interesting to me how certain parts of the Bible are deemed to be taken without question as literal while at the same time other parts are not. I'm thinking of the mode of water baptism as an example or what Peter said when they asked what they need to do to be saved. I guess we all do that with drawing our lines in the sand on what can be taken literal and what not.

The Bible is not one single text written by one single author with one single purpose at one point in time.

It is a compilation of a large number of different texts written by different authors at vastly different points in time for different purposes. Some of it is law which was meant to be taken literally. Some of it is poetry and written using poetic metaphor. Some of it is contemporary history written by authors who experienced those actual events and intend to be factual, or else portray events form a certain perspective. Some of it is sermons, often using parables or examples, that are intended to impart life lessons. And some of it is probably oral legends that were written down long centuries or millennia after the events described actually occurred.

I'm not sure where we got the notion that every word of the Bible from beginning to end is intended to be read literally. But it isn't Biblical and it also isn't historical. For most of the history of Christianity, most Christians actually didn't even have access to the written Bible. So one can be a Christian without ever reading a Bible.

I can say "Yeah and Amen" to most of what has been said.

However the problem with evolution remains. There is no empirical scientific data for evolution and I am not into conspiracy theory.

[Ken]

It is interesting to me how certain parts of the Bible are deemed to be taken without question as literal while at the same time other parts are not. I'm thinking of the mode of water baptism as an example or what Peter said when they asked what they need to do to be saved. I guess we all do that with drawing our lines in the sand on what can be taken literal and what not.

The Bible is not one single text written by one single author with one single purpose at one point in time.

It is a compilation of a large number of different texts written by different authors at vastly different points in time for different purposes. Some of it is law which was meant to be taken literally. Some of it is poetry and written using poetic metaphor. Some of it is contemporary history written by authors who experienced those actual events and intend to be factual, or else portray events form a certain perspective. Some of it is sermons, often using parables or examples, that are intended to impart life lessons. And some of it is probably oral legends that were written down long centuries or millennia after the events described actually occurred.

I'm not sure where we got the notion that every word of the Bible from beginning to end is intended to be read literally. But it isn't Biblical and it also isn't historical. For most of the history of Christianity, most Christians actually didn't even have access to the written Bible. So one can be a Christian without ever reading a Bible.

I can say "Yeah and Amen" to most of what has been said.

However the problem with evolution remains. There is no empirical scientific data for evolution and I am not into conspiracy theory.

Look, I'm not going to try to convince you of the volume of evidence supporting evolution, some of which is, indeed, empirical.

But if you are proposing an alternative theory to explain biological change. And for that matter, the origins of all life on earth. Then what is it? Creationism? If so then:

1. What is your concise description of your theory of creationism. Is it the literal 7-day creation that happened 6,000 or so years ago? And that all forms of life remain static and unchanging since their creation? Or something else? I have seen a lot of conflicting definitions of creationism. So it needs to be spelled out before it can be evaluated.

2. What observational scientific evidence do you have to support this theory? Direct or indirect. And if you are demanding EMPIRICAL evidence in support of evolution, what empirical evidence do you have in support of creationism?

3. All scientific theories are falsifiable and subject to modification. Which aspects of your theory of creationism are subject to modification if conflicting evidence is found? Because if it isn't falsifiable and subject to modification in light of new evidence then it is simply dogma and not science. And most certainly not something that should ever be taught in any science class.

[NedFlanders]

Creationists accept that it takes faith to believe in Creation, it’s simply that beautiful. That is not even worth challenging.

On the other hand the majority of evolutionists I know, if not all, don’t quite grasp that they are believing upon a bunch of theories and assumptions when they believe in evolution.

The idea is to get them opening their mind when questioning. A lot of explanation without proof is like the trick of adding millions of years to convince people. Eventually people believe the theory as fact and need something to break through that rut of not asking if it passes the laws of logic that they think they are holding to.

[Ken]

Creationists accept that it takes faith to believe in Creation, it’s simply that beautiful. That is not even worth challenging.

On the other hand the majority of evolutionists I know, if not all, don’t quite grasp that they are believing upon a bunch of theories and assumptions when they believe in evolution.

The idea is to get them opening their mind when questioning. A lot of explanation without proof is like the trick of adding millions of years to convince people. Eventually people believe the theory as fact and need something to break through that rut of not asking if it passes the laws of logic that they think they are holding to.

I don't think that is entirely accurate.

Yes, you are correct in your first statement. Creationism is pure religious dogma and is based on faith, just like any other religious dogma. Muslims for example believe that Mohammed ascended to heaven and traveled from Mecca to Jerusalem on a Buraq (winged donkey). There is exactly as much evidence for that having happened as there is for the Genesis creation story. Which is why it doesn't belong in science classes. It isn't science.

Regarding your second statement I would strongly disagree. Belief has nothing to do with science and scientists don't "believe" in any particular dogma whether it is evolution, relativity, cell theory, or anything else. No one constructs a belief structure around evolution based on assumptions and so forth. The only thing that scientists might actually admit to believing in is the scientific process itself. Not any particular result or conclusion that comes out of it.

Any legitimate scientist would simply say that the theory of evolution by natural selection (which is what we are really talking about here) is currently the best and most powerful theory to explain the change we see all around us. But like any other scientific theory it is always subject to modification or even replacement should other better and more powerful theories emerge. In fact, the surest way to make your name world famous as a biologist and guarantee your path to a senior tenured position at Harvard or Stanford or Oxford would be to upset the theory of evolution with new evidence and suggest some new and more powerful theory of biological change. Seriously. Every famous scientist in history made his or her name by overturning previous ideas and proposing new ones.

So actually, scientists do nothing but question. That is fundamental to the scientific process whether we are talking about evolution or any other field of science. It is all about asking questions. And creationists who want to propose alternative theories should do the actual science to support them. If they are right then they will go down in science history and hold places in every science textbook for generations. Unfortunately too many of them are complete frauds. Like Kent Hovind and Carl Baugh who claim their scientific credentials from fly-by-night diploma mills and not legitimate colleges.

[ken_sylvania]

It is interesting to me how certain parts of the Bible are deemed to be taken without question as literal while at the same time other parts are not. I'm thinking of the mode of water baptism as an example or what Peter said when they asked what they need to do to be saved. I guess we all do that with drawing our lines in the sand on what can be taken literal and what not.

I have heard that the Salvation Army people think the requirement to be baptized is to be taken figuratively, but I can't think of any Anabaptist people I know who wouldn't believe that he literally meant for people to be baptized. That's why we require baptism as a prerequesite for church membership.

[Neto]

It is interesting to me how certain parts of the Bible are deemed to be taken without question as literal while at the same time other parts are not. I'm thinking of the mode of water baptism as an example or what Peter said when they asked what they need to do to be saved. I guess we all do that with drawing our lines in the sand on what can be taken literal and what not.

I have heard that the Salvation Army people think the requirement to be baptized is to be taken figuratively, but I can't think of any Anabaptist people I know who wouldn't believe that he literally meant for people to be baptized. That's why we require baptism as a prerequesite for church membership.

No, not 'anabaptist', or anything-baptist, but Quakers are (or at least the ones I have met & knew best) non-resistant. (The Quaker I knew best was a young woman, and this was back not too many years after the Vietnam "conflict". One or more of her friends remarked that "the pacifists should all be lined up & shot". She was so upset she was crying. But the group of Quakers she was a part of regarded both communion and baptism as figurative things.)

[NedFlanders]

So actually, scientists do nothing but question. That is fundamental to the scientific process whether we are talking about evolution or any other field of science. It is all about asking questions.

I would agree with this in regard to honest scientists. But for those who belief and teach evolution as fact(like those I grew up under) your statement couldn’t be further from truth.

[Ken]

It is interesting to me how certain parts of the Bible are deemed to be taken without question as literal while at the same time other parts are not. I'm thinking of the mode of water baptism as an example or what Peter said when they asked what they need to do to be saved. I guess we all do that with drawing our lines in the sand on what can be taken literal and what not.

I would suggest that the New Testament verse that is most commonly NOT taken literally by Christians of all stripes including Mennonites is Matthew 19:24.

[Ken]

So actually, scientists do nothing but question. That is fundamental to the scientific process whether we are talking about evolution or any other field of science. It is all about asking questions.

I would agree with this in regard to honest scientists. But for those who belief and teach evolution as fact(like those I grew up under) your statement couldn’t be further from truth.

The vast majority of science teachers are NOT scientists and most have not ever worked in any sort of scientific capacity. I have taught HS at 6 different high schools over the past 15 years, all of them large, and I have never once encountered another science teacher who had actual experience working as a scientist before becoming a teacher. As such they teach a textbook version of science, not how it actually works in real life.

Likewise the vast majority of students in mainstream HS science classrooms will never work in science or even study it at the college level. Those few very bright HS kids with future careers in STEM fields rarely darken the doorway of mainstream science classes but are mostly in accelerated AP and honors type classes. Which is a whole different world.

My own experience is kind of unique. After grad school I worked for about 15 years as a marine fisheries biologist with NOAA in Seattle, Alaska, and Washington DC and worked up to kind of a mid/upper level job before my wife's career took us from Alaska to Texas. I spent a year doing long-distance consulting work for my old agency before wanting to do something more local and that is when I changed careers into teaching. I have never met another science teacher who has taken any sort of similar path. I'm sure they exist but it is not common.

There are probably good reasons for that. An entry-level teaching job is kind of big demotion or step down for anyone who has had any kind of working career in science. And teaching is an entirely different skill set than science. A lot of excellent scientists would make horrible teachers. And vice versa.

But what it means is that most HS science teachers really only have a textbook knowledge of science and don't really understand the process. And so teach it as a package of facts, vocabulary, concepts, formulas, etc. to be mastered, not an ongoing process. That is changing to some extent but change is slow in education just as everywhere else. And it is extremely difficult to teach with an inquiry based approach at the HS level in big public schools where you often have 30+ students per class. Or at least teach with an inquiry-based approach and still cover even half of the required curriculum because it is so my slower. Maybe at an elite private school where you only have 10-15 highly motivated and resourced students it is different. But I have never experienced that.

So, bottom line. It isn't just evolution that is presented as a series of facts. It is every single thing from ecology to cell biology to molecular genetics. HS science students are only getting a passing introduction to the very basics of chemistry, physics, and biology. Just enough so that they aren't starting for complete ground zero when they get to college, but that is about it. AP classes really aren't any better. They just cover much more material at breakneck speed and completely teach to the test.

[NedFlanders]

Appreciate your honesty in this Ken.

Your first paragraph probably sums up a good chunk of the population I rub shoulders with and is why maybe my experience is typically people dogmatic that evolution is fact and to think otherwise is illogical.