" "the theory of evolution is just that - theory"
Lack of understanding of the meaning of the word.

"The distinction between theory and fact is that theory is one possible explanation..."
Not ture. That's a hypothesis.

"And yet, theories are supposed to be testable and falsifiable"
Evolution is.

"Similarly, the theory of common descent of major life groups is one possible explanation for the facts that different life groups exist and share common characteristics"
The other being what? Magic man?

"But the marco-evolution explanation can neither be observed nor tested by repeatable experiment"

But micro can be. And a lot of micro = macro. Nothing else is needed.

"But these facts equally suggest the possibility of common design."
Without outside help 1 out of 5 mothers would die of childbirth because the infants' head is too big. Some design.

"Neither is capable of definitive proof"
One is already proven. Some people just don't want to accept it. "

" Aaron C. wrote:

“Jack, I do love how you imply that my homeschooling is the lack of my "proper" debate techniques. Funny, I do remember the university testing center telling me that I had one of the highest entrance test scores they had ever seen. I also remember having the highest scores in my communication classes.”

Regardless how high your grades were or where you got your debating skills, you appear not to have taken a class in logical argumentation. Or, if you did, you seem to have forgotten some of the basic rules that would have been taught in such a class.

Your self-proclaimed superior intelligence simply demonstrates what has been long recognized - that higher intelligence does not necessarily prevent a person from adopting all manner of harebrained beliefs. Isaac Newton passionately practiced alchemy, desperately trying to change lead into gold; Ted Kaczynski, the “Unabomber” was a mathematical genius with an IQ of 170; Johannes Kepler, the discoverer of the laws of planetary motion, believed in astrology; and Nikola Telsa, the brilliant father of alternating current, was terrified of women’ pearls. And you are afraid of going to hell if you accept the theory of evolution. High intelligence is no guarantee of perfect rationality. In fact, there appears to be somewhat of a direct correlation between being a genius and holding weird beliefs. (See the book “Strange Brains and Genius” by Clifford Pickover for more examples.)

Aaron C. wrote:

“But let's get to the real point. I will just say it as I said to Bob in a longer format: EVOLUTION AND GOD ARE INCOMPATIBLE BECAUSE IF EVOLUTION EXISTS THEN GOD IS A LIAR AND NOT REALLY A GOD IN THE FIRST PLACE!!! ….. So evolution versus creationism IS a debate over God or no God. They CANNOT go hand in hand and only people who blind themselves for their OWN purposes can believe so.”

My response:

Just a suggestion, shouting does not make your arguments any more cogent. Instead, it makes you appear rather impulsive and immature.

Why is God a liar if evolution is true? Evolution is a perfectly reasonable method for a god to use to produce biological diversification. All he had to do was establish conditions so that the first spark of life would emerge and then sit back and let natural processes take care of the rest. It seems like a divinely clever plan to me.

The only reason to conclude that God is a liar if evolution is true, is to assume that the Genesis creation and flood stories represent factual narratives that were communicated directly by Him and accurately retold by the recipients of the information. What proof do you have that any of this actually happened? (Remember, using the Bible to prove itself is circular reasoning.) In the light of modern scientific findings which show that those stories were not factually accurate, many Christians now interpret them in terms of religious narratives created by pre-scientific people who were trying to explain the world around them as best they could with their limited knowledge, in keeping with their religious traditions. Historians are aware that ancient story tellers commonly used hyperbole and frequently played fast and loose with the facts. With this in mind, many Christians no longer take the Genesis stories literally, and instead view them as allegory and not as historical fact. With such an enlightened attitude, they can accept evolution the same way they accept the fact that the Earth is not the center of the universe. (You remember, do you not, that Galileo was put under house arrest and Giordano Bruno was burnt alive at the stake by religious authorities for daring to promote the “heretical” notion that the Earth was not the center of the universe at a time when the church insisted that it defied the teachings of the Bible? If you are as perceptive as you claims to be, you should see the parallels between the Galileo and Bruno affairs and the fundamentalists’ current attack on evolution.)

I agree that some people blind themselves for their own purposes. If you want to get a good look at such a person, stop and take a good look in the mirror.

Aaron C. wrote:

“I also read over your articles brought up by the google search. If those are your claim to the justification of evolution, than you might want to reread them. As far as my "hoom-skoold" mind could tell, hybridization with some occuring mutations was the extent of the "speciation". Even when this occured, the species most often could not reproduce. A horse and a donkey got together once and we got a mule; does that mean that this new "species" called mules evolved from horses or donkeys? Notice that mules cannot reproduce on their own, so "evolution" in their species would be cut short by their extinction.”

My response:

It seems your “’hoom-skool’ mind” has once again led you astray, if you are referring to the article, “Observed Instances of Speciation.” While hybridization is often involved in plant speciation, it is rare in the case of the higher animals and is not proposed as an evolutionary mechanism for these species. Hybridization, polyploidization (increase in the number of chromosomes), and physical isolation do appear to be important mechanisms for the evolution of plants. And, as the article shows, fertile variants are sometimes the result.

The examples given in the article for speciation in animals, involve such things as reproductive isolation. behavioral isolation, parasitic infection, and differential environmental exposure. In animals, these conditions can result in assortive mating and postmating isolation which lead to the formation of new fertile variants. Your claim that hybridization is a problem for the evolution of higher animals is specious. The failure of hybridization to produce new species in higher animals is not a meaningful argument against evolution because there are other mechanisms that have been shown to be quite adequate to the job, i.e., those listed above working in conjunction with genetic variation, natural selection, sexual selection, genetic drift, founder effect, etc.

Aaron wrote:

“Even in these articles it was admitted that many of the new "species" were weaker than the originals and many died within the projects term. Whats more interesting is how several of the tests were unrepeatable.”

My response:

While the new species may have been “weaker” in a few instances, in most cases the researchers did not report this to be the case. What they found was that, in the lab, conditions could be established such that new variants were produced which could not mate successfully with the parent stock. This inability to interbreed is the essence of speciation. Similar results were also obtained from experiments in the field.

Fruit flies, the species used for most of the animal studies, usually live less than two months under normal laboratory conditions. Is it really that surprising to you that they died within the term of the project, particularly when one considers that many of them were prematurely killed for analytical purposes?

I only identified one study that the article specifically indicated could not be reproduced. Certainly there can be variable results in difficult-to-control biological studies such as these. However, I maintain that your use of the phrase “several of the tests were unrepeatable” is an exaggeration. (For examples of more recent discoveries in this area of study, search for “Breakthrough of the Year: Evolution in Action. “)

Aaron C. wrote:

“……then while I enjoy what the Bible taken literally calls heaven, you will be trying to use your "wonderful" debate techniques to explain God your "theory".”

My response:

Why should I ever have to explain anything to God? Isn’t He supposed to be omniscient and know everything – including any thoughts I might have about the theory of evolution and exactly how I would explain it? Even more to the point, why would I have to explain the process of evolution to God when, according to many knowledgeable Christians, He is the one who devised it and put it into operation? If anyone would be expected to be an expert on the subject, it would be God.

The Bible also literally calls the mustard seed the smallest seed in existence and says it produces a tree in which birds can roost (Matt. 13:31-32), literally says that the Earth is covered by the solid dome of the sky (Gen. 1:6-8), literally claims that certain insects have only four legs (Lev. 11:22-23), and literally asserts that striped goats can be produced by exposing the parents to striped sticks (Gen. 30: 37-36). None of these claims are true. Why do you think the biblical claims about heaven should be accepted as the truth? If you think any of these claims should not be taken literally, then why do you think the claims about heaven should be?

Incidentally, you may have missed my request for you to provide your scientific credentials. Many of the details of evolutionary theory are quite complex and require a fairly strong background in the biological sciences to fully understand them. In the interest of determining your qualifications for discussing the scientific aspects of the theory, could you please state your relevant education in this area of study?

"

" Idea!!! wrote:

" Why don't you folks just email each other? In the future your sides will probably grabs sticks and try to beat your ideas into each others heads...so much of history shows that is what eventually happens when fanatics get frustrated with those who don't agree with them. That's why the middle east has been in turmoil for thousands of years. "

My response:

I am always puzzled by people who complain about the free exchange of ideas on a forum such as this. This type of venue allows people on both sides of an issue to engage in a more comprehensive discussion without running the risk of being beaten on one’s head. If anything, such open discourse makes the likelihood of future violence less probable. Here people can talk it out, and avoid slugging it out. My suggestion would be, if a person is not interested in a particular topic being discussed here, then he/she shouldn’t bother reading the comments.

Speaking of both sides of the issue, it should be understood that all concepts are not created equal. Some concepts are well-supported by the facts (the theory of evolution), and some are nothing but fervently-held beliefs that contradict the facts (creationism). Many people seem to think that the arguments for evolution and creation are equally valid from a scientific standpoint and should be given equal weight. They are not and they should not. Evolution is fact-based; creation is faith-based. Contrary to what creationists would have us believe, there is no meaningful controversy within the scientific community about whether or not evolution has occurred. The fact of evolution is unanimously accepted by all mainstream earth and life scientists and is endorsed by every reputable scientific organization worldwide. The miniscule percentage of scientists who doubt that evolution has occurred do so for purely religious reasons, not scientific ones. (Google “CA 111: Scientists reject evolution?”) In considering this matter, one should keep in mind that the current controversy surrounding evolution is a religious/political invention, not a real scientific disagreement.

I am not aware of any scientists ever going on a rampage and attempting to beat their ideas into anyone’s heads with sticks or any other implements. Are you? Religious fundamentalists on the other hand…. the Inquisitions, the Crusades, the 30-Years War, witch hunts, terrorist attacks, etc.
"

" On the contrary "Idea"... I find the various views very interesting and thought provoking. "

" So, Aaron, to whom did God say that the Bible was without error? I know that's the assumption of the fundamental view of the Bible. And if you are correct then the Genesis story about the generations of Isrealites that, when measured suggests that the earth is less than 7,000 years old is correct, not an error or an exaggeration. Yet science tells us, without absolute accuracy, the earth is considerably older than 7,000 years. The last "estimate" I heard was about 4.5 billion years. Now that's some spread. Yet, I'm inclined to accept the scientific position, give or take a billion years.

So, if we find one error, in book that it's proponents say is error free, then the whole thing has to be called into question.

Then there's that chapter in Exodus that says that he who works on the Sabbath should be put to death. Is that right? Do you do that in your church? Where do you bury the bodies? "

" Jack, I do love how you imply that my homeschooling is the lack of my "proper" debate techniques. Funny, I do remember the university testing center telling me that I had one of the highest entrance test scores they had ever seen. I also remember having the highest scores in my communication classes.

But let's get to the real point. I will just say it as I said to Bob in a longer format: EVOLUTION AND GOD ARE INCOMPATIBLE BECAUSE IF EVOLUTION EXISTS THEN GOD IS A LIAR AND NOT REALLY A GOD IN THE FIRST PLACE!!! I dont think anyone wants a God who is a politician. We dont want liars running our country, why should we believe in a God that acts like a liar? Secondly, why would God expect us to when we are "obviously" more intelligent than Him? So evolution versus creationism IS a debate over God or no God. They CANNOT go hand in hand and only people who blind themselves for their OWN purposes can believe so.

I also read over your articles brought up by the google search. If those are your claim to the justification of evolution, than you might want to reread them. As far as my "hoom-skoold" mind could tell, hybridization with some occuring mutations was the extent of the "speciation". Even when this occured, the species most often could not reproduce. A horse and a donkey got together once and we got a mule; does that mean that this new "species" called mules evolved from horses or donkeys? Notice that mules cannot reproduce on their own, so "evolution" in their species would be cut short by their extinction. Even in these articles it was admitted that many of the new "species" were weaker than the originals and many died within the projects term. Whats more interesting is how several of the tests were unrepeatable. The "scope of the phenomenon" appears rather weak. But I guess in another million years when all humans have evolved into something "better", all that work will make sense. But Im not too worried about it because we will probably both be dead by then. And if you're right then we will both be in the same place; but if I am right then while I enjoy what the Bible taken literally calls heaven, you will be trying to use your "wonderful" debate techniques to explain God your "theory". "

" Why don't you folks just email each other? In the future your sides will probably grabs sticks and try to beat your ideas into each others heads...so much of history shows that is what eventually happens when fanatics get frustrated with those who don't agree with them. That's why the middle east has been in turmoil for thousands of years. "

" Aaron C. wrote:

“Jack, in answer to your number "4" response: yes, the tests and incidents do have to be repeatable. It is one of the basic principles of science taught in Biology 100 classes in the majority of our colleges and universities.”

My response:

It is not clear what you mean by “tests and incidents.” If you mean observations related to the phenomenon under investigation, then you are correct. In science, observations must be available to all interested investigators and must be consistent (within the limits of statistical variation) among all investigators. It is the consistency of the observations and their openness to all investigators to which the term “repeatability” in science refers. There is no requirement that the entire scope of the phenomenon under study must be duplicated in order to develop valid scientific theories that explain the phenomenon. For a better understanding of how the scientific method operates, see http://www.freeinquiry.com/intro-to-sci.html .

Aaron C. wrote:

“Your example of the sun is mute because they dont rebuild the sun to test its history, no they make a hypothesis and watch other stars to see if they repeat the same action.”

My response:

That is the same thing scientists have done in the case of evolution. Charles Darwin developed a hypothesis (common descent/evolution) and scientists have spent the last 150 years or so, not only examining the residual evidence, but also observing evolution in action – everything from the evolution of a nylon-eating bug to the emergence of completely new species. (Google “Observed Instances of Speciation.”

Aaron, just for you information, I have advanced degrees in biochemistry and experimental oncology. What, if I may ask, are your scientific credentials?

Aaron C. wrote:

“Your responses in your original article and to this one show that your real motives are to discredit, not creationism, but the existence of a God. That is a personal belief that only you can justify for yourself. If you really want to be scientific and clear up creationism, try proving the null hypothesis that "God doesnt exist". You wouldnt be the first to try and many famous people before you have tried and failed. But I would wish you the best of luck and would love to hear your findings because creationism cannot really be disproved until the existence of God has. "

MY response:

Nonsense. Nowhere have I argued that an acceptance of evolutionary theory is incompatible with a belief in God. In fact, I have provided references to several sources that demonstrate just the opposite – the “Clergy Letter Project” just to name one. The theory of evolution is not incompatible with a belief in God. it is incompatible with a literal interpretation of the Genesis story of creation.

During your home schooling, you seem to have missed the basic lesson in logic that states the person who makes a positive assertion is the one who is obligated to offer evidence of proof. I am not asserting God does not exist. You are asserting He does. Therefore, it is your responsibility to provide the proof to back up your assertion. You also appear to have missed the lesson regarding the inability to logically disprove negative existential claims. I cannot prove God does not exist anymore than you can prove that an invisible pink unicorn who speaks to me telepathically does not live in my garage.

Ralph Mavity wrote:

" In my opinion neither party here is going to change the other's mind. This will probably continue, back and forth, for some time.”

My response:

I agree, Ralph. It is unlikely that anyone who is firmly entrenched in their beliefs will be swayed, one way or the other, by what is said in the Bee. Nonetheless, I am aware of formerly diehard creationists who, once they actually understood the evidence, do now accept evolutionary theory. I am writing primarily for the benefit of the fence sitters who may have not yet made a firm commitment.

We are living in an increasingly more scientifically oriented day and age. Unless the lay public becomes better informed about scientific matters, we risk losing our global prominence in science and technology. Creationism is anti-science. If creationists have their way, they will rewrite the rules for doing science and transform us into a back-water theocracy. People who do not understand the ulterior motives of the creationist movement and who lack a good scientific understanding of the issues involved will be considerably more likely to welcome the creationists into the public school science classroom. Science education in this country is already bad enough with further jeopardizing it by introducing creationist propaganda into the curriculum. It is this concern that motivates me to write in opposition to creationists whenever their letters appear in the paper. Google “America’s Failure in Science Education” for more information on the subject.
"

" Both views require faith. Either you have faith that the universe was created or you have faith that the universe just came into existence from nothing. And none of us were there to witness the event - so both require faith. Period. "

" To Bob: You are making the assumption that you are smarter than the God you supposedly believe in, and that even though he said His Word (the Bible) was inerrant, you are so vastly intelligent that you should be allowed to pick and choose what best fits YOUR lifestyle. That not how religion works, either follow it to the letter or dont claim yourself to that religion. Your format for religion is called hypocrisy: supposedly believing in one thing and doing another. So that means religion, because its based on faith, has to move from the allegorical to the literal. Dont like it? Then leave so as to not make the rest of us look to be a hypocrite as well. Another great principle about science that you missed is that there are no absolutes in science because even the greateast scientists admit that our minds are finite and cannot comprehend all there is to know. So we are constantly disproving ideas and "theories' that we thought were a certainty. So, in other words, creationism cannot be absolutely disproven and nor will it ever be. But you are right, this topic will never be resolved because we will never rid ourselves of our biases nor our finite minds.

To John: Faith and science can go together if it is proved without trying to shove evolution into the picture. Try being scientific and proving one at a time. If you base the world on a "design" factor, then 7000 years of progression into where we are now does make sense. It was only 100 years ago that animals were our primary mode of transportation; of couse apply carbon dating to that and you will get a lot of zeros added onto the end kind of like what happened when the evolutionists tested ash from the last Mount St. Helens eruption. Also I would love to have multiple ideas on how the universe came into being, be brought into our education system. You say it is wrong to force one belief on an education system yet many of my high school and college teachers would never let me even mention Creationism in class or on reports. Diversity brings thought and debate to the table, which is needed for critical decisions. "

" Several observations on Hohf's note:

(1) I assume he meant "macro" evolution, not "marco." No such thing. Macro means "large."

(2) Some sciences, chemistry and physics for example can "set up experiments" because they have an experimental nature. Paleobiology ("evolution") is scientifically approached by looking for evidence.

The way science works is NOT to propose a theory, then look for evidence to support it, but rather to propose a theory that fits the vast body of evidence. That's how scientists work.

In fact, non-science folks often use the term "mere theory" to denigrate the concept of evolution. The TOE is not "mere" and it is instead "robust."

Theory to the layman implies uncertainty - to the scientist it becomes uncertain only when there is observable evidence to suggest modifying the theory. Scientific theory is the best agreed upon explanation after scientific discourse and evidence gathering.

(3) We need to keep science in education separated from faith, because faith does not operate by the scientific method. It is a separate area of discussion.

(4) Many scientists find no problem in accepting both faith and science, and even the TOE plus faith in a creator. But trying to say that "intelligent design" is or can be scientific does not work by the principles of science. It should stay out of science.

It is wrong to say that faith has exactly one opinion, or that the only acceptable faith is precisely as dictated by some churches or styles of belief. At least it is wrong to try to force one belief on the education system.
"

" Are we spending too much time on an issue that will neither be resolved nor productive? What does this debate prove or resolve?

Much of the argument is really over the semantics of the word THEORY.

According to Wikipedia, in the world of science “a theory is a mathematical or logical explanation, or a testable model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena.” On the other hand, another common usage of the word is “an assumption based on limited information or knowledge,” often an act of faith, speculation or conjecture.

That is where the conflict sits with regard to evolution. On the one hand we have the world of science that has yet to fully answer the question but has strong evidence to support its “theory.” On the other hand we have religion that bases its position on the Bible, which, in the same book as the creation story, tells us of a world that began less than 7,000 years ago, a belief that is absolutely refuted by science.

So, what should we accept? A scientific theory with a few unanswered questions or an allegorical story that tells us things, some of which we know, without a shadow of a doubt, to be incorrect.

I have long believed that the two ideas were compatible if you believe that God was the prime mover, setting all creation in motion, through the big bang. (an idea that the early Israelites would have had more difficulty understanding than the Genesis creation story) That simply means that evolution is part of God’s plan. If you believe in God how hard is that to accept?
"

" Excellent article Randy. Jack, in answer to your number "4" response: yes, the tests and incidents do have to be repeatable. It is one of the basic principles of science taught in Biology 100 classes in the majority of our colleges and universities. Your example of the sun is mute because they dont rebuild the sun to test its history, no they make a hypothesis and watch other stars to see if they repeat the same action. Your responses in your original article and to this one show that your real motives are to discredit, not creationism, but the existence of a God. That is a personal belief that only you can justify for yourself. If you really want to be scientific and clear up creationism, try proving the null hypothesis that "God doesnt exist". You wouldnt be the first to try and many famous people before you have tried and failed. But I would wish you the best of luck and would love to hear your findings because creationism cannot really be disproved until the existence of God has. "

" Randy,

Me again. In my last comments, I forgot to ask you a rather important question.

11. Is what you refer to as "common design" a scientific theory? If so, what specifically, in scientific terms, constitutes the theory and what mechansisms are invovled in shaping design in biological organisms? "

" In my opinion neither party here is going to change the other's mind. This will probably continue, back and forth, for some time.

God doesn't say exactly how he made everything. Some things he spoke into existence and some he created. He does tell us how we were made. His word on this is good enough for me.

While I think there are many things more pressing than this issue, I have to admire Jack's dedication to his beliefs. "

" Greetings Randy,

As you probably have guessed, I will be submitting a rebuttal to your most recent letter in the near future. Until it is published, if it ever is, there are a few questions that I wonder if you would be kind enough to answer.

1. Are you still a young-earth creationist? Or are you now one of the proponents of Intelligent Design (ID), many of whom acknowledge that much of biological diversity is attributable to common descent?

2. A scientific theory is not just 'an idea', as some seem to think, in common parlance... it is an explanatory framework for a set of observed facts... a description, or model, of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same sort, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise falsified through empirical observation. The theory of evolution is strongly supported by multiple lines of evidence, and has proven to be an immensely fruitful guide to research in the biological sciences. It is a firmly established scientific theory that is endorsed by every reputable scientific organization in the world. Don't you think it is a bit disingenuous to describe the theory of evolution as just a theory?

3. You are aware, are you not, that the origin of the universe and the origin of life are not topics dealt with by the TOE?

4. You say, “The macro-evolution explanation can neither be observed nor tested by repeatable experiment.” Are you aware that, in science, the phenomenon under investigation does not actually have to be repeated or reproduced, on the spot, in order to arrive at valid scientific explanations pertaining to that phenomenon? For example, a cosmologist does not have to reconstruct the sun in order to develop valid scientific explanations about star formation, solar flares, sun spots, etc. Science is only concerned with the evaluation of verifiable evidence (circumstantial, after the fact, or otherwise) that is consistent among observers, regardless who examines it or when it was produced. Repeatability in science refers to the availability of pertinent evidence, not the ability to reproduce the overarching phenomenon being investigated. Your claims about the non-repeatability of tests and observations pertaining to the TOE are not only misleading, they are fallacious. Which leads to the next question…

5. Have you ever actually carefully and objectively examined the evidence in favor of the TOE that is presented at 29+Evidences for Macroevolution? If so, could you focus on any particular line of evidence discussed therein and explain, in some detail, why it is not supportive of the TOE.

6. You say that the facts “equally suggest the possibility of common design.” Please go to my website, “Evolution/Creation Dialogues,” click on “Take the Creationist Challenge,” and, with reference to the observations in categories 3, 4, 5, and 6, explain why, taken as a whole, these observations are suggestive of common design.

7. What testable hypotheses, derived from ID and resulting in predictions that would be different from the predictions of evolutionary theory, can you provide?

8. If there is such an entity, who/what do you honestly believe is the intelligent designer?

9. Assuming the intelligent designer is an omnipotent supernatural entity, how would one scientifically go about falsifying a claim about an action that might be attributed to it? You are aware that scientific theories must be capable of being falsified, are you not?

10. You insinuate that scientific theories “keep falling.” Please identify any well-established scientific theory that has fallen (i.e., lost all its explanatory power) in the last 50 years.

Looking forward to your comments…
"