Evolution
Peggy
Aimee Yermish <ayermish@...>
Wrote this post in response to a question about Creationism/Evolution on a
different list. She gave me permission to repost it here on unschooling-dotcom
in it's entirety including her name and email address. Please do not repost
this on another forum without getting her permission. She told me she has an
article out on the net about called "Barney" that sort of grew and had a life
of its own. You can google her name and "Barney" if you'ed like to read it.
Peggy
Amiee Yermish wrote:
I hope that you will take this with the respect with which it is intended.
I'm a fairly religious Jew, and I'm also a molecular biologist by training.
I was on a curriculum development project a few summers ago writing the
segment on the origin of life, and read more of the primary scientific
literature than anyone probably really needs to.
Scientifically, I'm sorry to have to inform you, there really is no gray
area. We use the word "theory" differently in science than we do in general
parlance. Gravity, in science, is also a theory, but we don't hear people
arguing that alternate views should be taught (well, okay, if you want to
include general relativity, then fine, but that's not an alternate view,
just an expanded one). The word "theory" in general parlance is more like
the scientific word "hypothesis," which means educated guess, reasonable
possibility according to the data still present. For something to be a
scientific theory, it generally means that the data present overwhelming
support for it, to the point where there really aren't any other reasonable
and testable hypotheses. Evolution is about as close to a fact as we
scientists are willing to call anything that we cannot directly observe
because we don't have a time machine handy. We do certainly observe change
in species over time happening in real time right now. We also certainly
observe evolution occurring in test-tube situations, and it is beginning to
be used as a technique for "designing" useful things. The people who
propose alternate hypotheses don't have data to back them up, and are
basically just creationists trying to use scientific-sounding language in
the hopes of being taken seriously by scientists and sneaking the Christian
version of creation into biology texts. Just because something is phrased
like a hypothesis doesn't mean that it is testable (which is a requirement
in the scientific world), nor does it mean that it has any data to support
it. Not all hypotheses are worthy of equal time, because they're not all
equally likely to be true. There are a variety of different hypotheses
within the basic evolutionary hypotheses (steady state vs. punctuated
equilibrium, etc), but none of them require the presence of a conscious
Creator.
(1) Natural selection is *not* actually a biological process. It is a
mathematical and thermodynamic one, and *no one* (not even the
fundamentalists) is disputing the mathematical and thermodynamic laws (they
are so certain as to be actually called "laws") which give rise to it.
Here's how it works:
(a) Any time there is an object which can replicate itself, it is using
energy to resist entropy (disorder). Things are naturally disordered;
making a copy of yourself is creating order and hence costs energy to do.
The Second Law of Thermodynamics says, "The amount of useful energy
available in any system always goes down -- some useful energy is always
lost. In short, not only can't you win (the First Law), you can't even
break even." To make a perfect copy every time would require spending
infinite energy, which is not available. Therefore, it is a thermodynamic
*certainty* that some copies will be imperfect in random ways (the random
mutations of Darwinian evolution).
(b) Any time there is an object which can replicate itself, the number of
objects of this type will grow (or shrink) exponentially (faster and faster,
y = pe^(rt), the number of individuals at any time is the number you started
with times the number e=2.71828... to the power of the intrinsic rate of
growth over time, times the time that has passed). That's the mathematical
law of exponential growth, which is derived easily in any Algebra II class.
You take advantage of this law every time you put money in the bank -- in
finance, it's called "the law (or the miracle) of compound interest." Even
for very small intrinsic rates of growth (I won't go into it here, but
suffice it to say that the Second Law of Thermodynamics and the mathematical
principle of trichotomy make it impossible to have a growth rate of exactly
zero), any population of self-replicating objects will eventually produce
more and more individuals (or die out completely, if the growth rate is
negative). Eventually, *any* self-replicating population will grow to the
point where there is not enough of *some* resource (typically food, which
contains the energy the critters need to continue resisting entropy) to go
around. This was Malthus's big insight. No one is disputing it.
(c) Any time where there are more individuals wanting a resource than there
is resource to go around, they will compete for it. This is known in
economics as the law of supply and demand. Those who have more of whatever
skills or other resources they need to get the limited resource, well,
they're the ones who will get it. It's just like when there aren't enough
Tickle Me Elmo dolls to go around: people with more money and more quickness
and more shrewdness about where dolls might be located are the ones who get
the dolls. When there's not enough food, the critters who are better able
to locate, move to, and utilize the energy sources in the environment are
the ones who will be more likely get the energy they need to survive and
reproduce. Because there is variation in the population (part (a) of this
argument), whatever biological or behavioral variations make their owners
lucky enough to get more bananas than the guy next door, well, those are the
ones you'll see more of in the next generation, because the guy next door
*died*. There isn't room for everyone to win. Again, no one disputes this
mathematical law.
This is the basic cycle of natural selection. Two mathematical laws and a
thermodynamic law, none of which are in dispute in any even remotely
scientific circles. Repeat the cycle a few million times, and the
population gradually refines to be better able to take advantage of whatever
resources are available. All sorts of weird things show up (both complex
structures and complex behaviors), but it didn't take either a God or a
Watchmaker or an inscrutable space alien to make them show up.
So why don't we get watches and Mount Rushmores appearing out of nowhere?
Because metal bits and rocks don't have self-replicating machinery. Those
critters that *do* have self-replicating machinery *do* in fact have watches
(as you know when you feel jet-lagged flying across time zones), not to
mention calendars (as you know when you see geese flying south for the
winter), and funny faces (like the Japanese crabs with angry samurai faces
on their shells (which Carl Sagan showed in the classic Cosmos videos) as
well as countless species of fish and butterflies). Indeed, those watches,
calendars, and funny faces could *easily* have arisen through the process of
natural selection. Once you have the ability to self-replicate, the whole
rest of the game follows without your being able to stop it.
(2) Proponents of creationism, er, intelligent design theory often say that
we have no experimental evidence to show this process occurring. When
pressed with evidence of real-time observable evolution such as the obvious
changes in bacterial antibiotic resistance in recent decades, the change in
frequency of dark and light morphs of the peppered moth during the
Industrial Revolution, and cute examples like the samurai crabs, they
backtrack. They choose some complex structure, such as the flagellum
mentioned by your guest today, and state without proof that it is too
complex to have arisen without an intelligent designer, and further state
without reference to the scientific literature that there is no scientific
evidence to support any possibility of its having arisen by chance.
(a) Actually, cytoskeletal structures like flagella are tremendously simple;
much of their apparently complex structure and behavior arises through very
simple mathematical laws (which I will be happy to explain if you are
interested). In fact, most biological structures are surprisingly simple
and inevitable when you look at them with a mathematical eye. The classic
book in this area is "On Growth and Form" by d'Arcy Wentworth Thompson.
Even the abridged version is rather thick reading, but you might try reading
"Life's Devices" or the even easier "Cat's Paws and Catapults," both by
Steven Vogel.
(b) In computer science, self-replicating computer programs with initially
random code have been shown to evolve through natural selection. Not only
do we see increased efficiency in their use of system resources, but we also
see complex behaviors such as predation, parasitism, cooperation, betrayal,
sexual reproduction (one of the best ways nature has found to increase the
variability in the population and hence speed a population's evolution!),
and so forth, all arising by chance. It's wild. If you want to learn more
about this, do a search on the topic "artificial life" on the web, or read
the book, "Artificial Life" by Steven Levy or the many other books on the
topic. They're quite readable.
(c) In the test tube, biochemists are doing experiments to answer the
question of whether living critters could evolve from nonliving Campbell's
Primordial Soup purely by the mathematical process of natural selection.
You think that scientists are satisfied with only studying life as it
exists, without caring about how it got started? Don't be silly. The field
is currently called "astrobiology," because many of the scientists are
trying to figure out how likely it might be that intelligent life has
evolved on other planets as well as trying to figure out how it might have
started here. Take a look at www.astrobiology.com or
www.astrobiology.arc.nasa.gov to get the basics and to meet some of the key
players. Here are some of the kicker experiments. Jack Szostak started
with random short RNA molecules (which could plausibly have existed in the
soup), and showed that natural selection alone produced a population which
could draw energy from nucleotide triphosphates (the universal energy
currency for life today) and which could use that energy to join together
oligonucleotides into longer chains. In 2001, scientists at MIT used
test-tube evolution to produce a form of RNA that can reproduce itself with
95% accuracy. Other scientists have had plenty of success using test-tube
evolution to select for various resource usage and other important
behaviors. And folks are homing on on how those nucleotides could have
arisen in the first place through random chemical reactions that could
reasonably have occurred on the early Earth. In other words, science *has*
a plausible answer to the question, one that we are actively testing and
refining.
The more we learn about life, the more it looks like it's a mathematical
certainty for life to occur, even in the harshest environments. We don't
need to imagine a God or a friendly space alien or a soul of the universe
(where did *they* come from, anyway?) to have plausible and testable
scientific hypotheses about how life could have evolved from nonlife. We
certainly don't need to give equal classroom time to so-called "theories"
that have no more scientific status than the "theory" that there's a little
man hiding in the Coke machine dispensing soda.
All living critters are caught up in a mathematical cycle: they replicate,
the replications have variations, the variations make them more or less able
to compete for resources, which affects how likely the different varieties
are to be able to replicate in the next cycle. It's not really something
that you can escape from unless you start positing an all-powerful Supreme
Being who tampers with things and tries to trick you into believing in
evolution when it's actually false. However, God is not a testable
hypothesis.
I think one of the reasons people have a hard time accepting evolution is
because of the amazing variety of structures and functions which are present
in the many varied ecosystems of this planet. It *is* truly amazing, and
sometimes it's hard to imagine that sort of variety and excellence of design
without imagining a watchmaker. It's hard to imagine because our everyday
experience doesn't lead us to much understanding of large numbers (read the
excellent book _Innumeracy_ by John Allen Paulos), but when you're more
comfortable with the large numbers involved, it becomes a lot easier to see
how things that look intelligently designed could in fact have come about
through a very long process of chance. (To refute one of the more common
arguments, more and more, scientists are demonstrating how partially-formed
versions of things (for instance, an insect wing that wasn't strong enough
to permit actual flight) could still confer a selective advantage (for
instance, by allowing the bug to skitter very fast across the surface of the
water)).
That said, how does that fit in with the Biblical version of creation? It
doesn't. I've heard lots of people suggest that if you simply redefine the
length of a "day," then everything's fine. But it's not. Things get
created in completely the wrong order. It's a nice idea, but it doesn't
really match with what science is pretty darned sure of. Sorry.
Okay, hard-nosed scientist hat off, spiritual hat on. When I learn of a new
scientific discovery which shows me more of the incredible beauty and
diversity that has created itself according to the incredibly simple
mathematical laws of the cosmos, I am moved to say a blessing to God who set
such a wondrous self-creating system in motion. Frankly, I am *more*
impressed by a God who built a self-creating system than I am by the image
of someone with a whole lot of Tinker Toys.
Did things come about the way the Bible says? Of course not. Is it true?
Absolutely. There's a big difference. Mythological stories are the way we
tell ourselves about our world and ourselves, and they can have deep truth
to them without needing to have even a shred of literal truth. Figure out
what you can learn about the world and your place within it from this text
and from what other people have said about it over the centuries -- that's
what's important about the story, not whether creation started on a Thursday
or a Sunday.
-- Aimee Yermish
ayermish@...
Wrote this post in response to a question about Creationism/Evolution on a
different list. She gave me permission to repost it here on unschooling-dotcom
in it's entirety including her name and email address. Please do not repost
this on another forum without getting her permission. She told me she has an
article out on the net about called "Barney" that sort of grew and had a life
of its own. You can google her name and "Barney" if you'ed like to read it.
Peggy
Amiee Yermish wrote:
I hope that you will take this with the respect with which it is intended.
I'm a fairly religious Jew, and I'm also a molecular biologist by training.
I was on a curriculum development project a few summers ago writing the
segment on the origin of life, and read more of the primary scientific
literature than anyone probably really needs to.
Scientifically, I'm sorry to have to inform you, there really is no gray
area. We use the word "theory" differently in science than we do in general
parlance. Gravity, in science, is also a theory, but we don't hear people
arguing that alternate views should be taught (well, okay, if you want to
include general relativity, then fine, but that's not an alternate view,
just an expanded one). The word "theory" in general parlance is more like
the scientific word "hypothesis," which means educated guess, reasonable
possibility according to the data still present. For something to be a
scientific theory, it generally means that the data present overwhelming
support for it, to the point where there really aren't any other reasonable
and testable hypotheses. Evolution is about as close to a fact as we
scientists are willing to call anything that we cannot directly observe
because we don't have a time machine handy. We do certainly observe change
in species over time happening in real time right now. We also certainly
observe evolution occurring in test-tube situations, and it is beginning to
be used as a technique for "designing" useful things. The people who
propose alternate hypotheses don't have data to back them up, and are
basically just creationists trying to use scientific-sounding language in
the hopes of being taken seriously by scientists and sneaking the Christian
version of creation into biology texts. Just because something is phrased
like a hypothesis doesn't mean that it is testable (which is a requirement
in the scientific world), nor does it mean that it has any data to support
it. Not all hypotheses are worthy of equal time, because they're not all
equally likely to be true. There are a variety of different hypotheses
within the basic evolutionary hypotheses (steady state vs. punctuated
equilibrium, etc), but none of them require the presence of a conscious
Creator.
(1) Natural selection is *not* actually a biological process. It is a
mathematical and thermodynamic one, and *no one* (not even the
fundamentalists) is disputing the mathematical and thermodynamic laws (they
are so certain as to be actually called "laws") which give rise to it.
Here's how it works:
(a) Any time there is an object which can replicate itself, it is using
energy to resist entropy (disorder). Things are naturally disordered;
making a copy of yourself is creating order and hence costs energy to do.
The Second Law of Thermodynamics says, "The amount of useful energy
available in any system always goes down -- some useful energy is always
lost. In short, not only can't you win (the First Law), you can't even
break even." To make a perfect copy every time would require spending
infinite energy, which is not available. Therefore, it is a thermodynamic
*certainty* that some copies will be imperfect in random ways (the random
mutations of Darwinian evolution).
(b) Any time there is an object which can replicate itself, the number of
objects of this type will grow (or shrink) exponentially (faster and faster,
y = pe^(rt), the number of individuals at any time is the number you started
with times the number e=2.71828... to the power of the intrinsic rate of
growth over time, times the time that has passed). That's the mathematical
law of exponential growth, which is derived easily in any Algebra II class.
You take advantage of this law every time you put money in the bank -- in
finance, it's called "the law (or the miracle) of compound interest." Even
for very small intrinsic rates of growth (I won't go into it here, but
suffice it to say that the Second Law of Thermodynamics and the mathematical
principle of trichotomy make it impossible to have a growth rate of exactly
zero), any population of self-replicating objects will eventually produce
more and more individuals (or die out completely, if the growth rate is
negative). Eventually, *any* self-replicating population will grow to the
point where there is not enough of *some* resource (typically food, which
contains the energy the critters need to continue resisting entropy) to go
around. This was Malthus's big insight. No one is disputing it.
(c) Any time where there are more individuals wanting a resource than there
is resource to go around, they will compete for it. This is known in
economics as the law of supply and demand. Those who have more of whatever
skills or other resources they need to get the limited resource, well,
they're the ones who will get it. It's just like when there aren't enough
Tickle Me Elmo dolls to go around: people with more money and more quickness
and more shrewdness about where dolls might be located are the ones who get
the dolls. When there's not enough food, the critters who are better able
to locate, move to, and utilize the energy sources in the environment are
the ones who will be more likely get the energy they need to survive and
reproduce. Because there is variation in the population (part (a) of this
argument), whatever biological or behavioral variations make their owners
lucky enough to get more bananas than the guy next door, well, those are the
ones you'll see more of in the next generation, because the guy next door
*died*. There isn't room for everyone to win. Again, no one disputes this
mathematical law.
This is the basic cycle of natural selection. Two mathematical laws and a
thermodynamic law, none of which are in dispute in any even remotely
scientific circles. Repeat the cycle a few million times, and the
population gradually refines to be better able to take advantage of whatever
resources are available. All sorts of weird things show up (both complex
structures and complex behaviors), but it didn't take either a God or a
Watchmaker or an inscrutable space alien to make them show up.
So why don't we get watches and Mount Rushmores appearing out of nowhere?
Because metal bits and rocks don't have self-replicating machinery. Those
critters that *do* have self-replicating machinery *do* in fact have watches
(as you know when you feel jet-lagged flying across time zones), not to
mention calendars (as you know when you see geese flying south for the
winter), and funny faces (like the Japanese crabs with angry samurai faces
on their shells (which Carl Sagan showed in the classic Cosmos videos) as
well as countless species of fish and butterflies). Indeed, those watches,
calendars, and funny faces could *easily* have arisen through the process of
natural selection. Once you have the ability to self-replicate, the whole
rest of the game follows without your being able to stop it.
(2) Proponents of creationism, er, intelligent design theory often say that
we have no experimental evidence to show this process occurring. When
pressed with evidence of real-time observable evolution such as the obvious
changes in bacterial antibiotic resistance in recent decades, the change in
frequency of dark and light morphs of the peppered moth during the
Industrial Revolution, and cute examples like the samurai crabs, they
backtrack. They choose some complex structure, such as the flagellum
mentioned by your guest today, and state without proof that it is too
complex to have arisen without an intelligent designer, and further state
without reference to the scientific literature that there is no scientific
evidence to support any possibility of its having arisen by chance.
(a) Actually, cytoskeletal structures like flagella are tremendously simple;
much of their apparently complex structure and behavior arises through very
simple mathematical laws (which I will be happy to explain if you are
interested). In fact, most biological structures are surprisingly simple
and inevitable when you look at them with a mathematical eye. The classic
book in this area is "On Growth and Form" by d'Arcy Wentworth Thompson.
Even the abridged version is rather thick reading, but you might try reading
"Life's Devices" or the even easier "Cat's Paws and Catapults," both by
Steven Vogel.
(b) In computer science, self-replicating computer programs with initially
random code have been shown to evolve through natural selection. Not only
do we see increased efficiency in their use of system resources, but we also
see complex behaviors such as predation, parasitism, cooperation, betrayal,
sexual reproduction (one of the best ways nature has found to increase the
variability in the population and hence speed a population's evolution!),
and so forth, all arising by chance. It's wild. If you want to learn more
about this, do a search on the topic "artificial life" on the web, or read
the book, "Artificial Life" by Steven Levy or the many other books on the
topic. They're quite readable.
(c) In the test tube, biochemists are doing experiments to answer the
question of whether living critters could evolve from nonliving Campbell's
Primordial Soup purely by the mathematical process of natural selection.
You think that scientists are satisfied with only studying life as it
exists, without caring about how it got started? Don't be silly. The field
is currently called "astrobiology," because many of the scientists are
trying to figure out how likely it might be that intelligent life has
evolved on other planets as well as trying to figure out how it might have
started here. Take a look at www.astrobiology.com or
www.astrobiology.arc.nasa.gov to get the basics and to meet some of the key
players. Here are some of the kicker experiments. Jack Szostak started
with random short RNA molecules (which could plausibly have existed in the
soup), and showed that natural selection alone produced a population which
could draw energy from nucleotide triphosphates (the universal energy
currency for life today) and which could use that energy to join together
oligonucleotides into longer chains. In 2001, scientists at MIT used
test-tube evolution to produce a form of RNA that can reproduce itself with
95% accuracy. Other scientists have had plenty of success using test-tube
evolution to select for various resource usage and other important
behaviors. And folks are homing on on how those nucleotides could have
arisen in the first place through random chemical reactions that could
reasonably have occurred on the early Earth. In other words, science *has*
a plausible answer to the question, one that we are actively testing and
refining.
The more we learn about life, the more it looks like it's a mathematical
certainty for life to occur, even in the harshest environments. We don't
need to imagine a God or a friendly space alien or a soul of the universe
(where did *they* come from, anyway?) to have plausible and testable
scientific hypotheses about how life could have evolved from nonlife. We
certainly don't need to give equal classroom time to so-called "theories"
that have no more scientific status than the "theory" that there's a little
man hiding in the Coke machine dispensing soda.
All living critters are caught up in a mathematical cycle: they replicate,
the replications have variations, the variations make them more or less able
to compete for resources, which affects how likely the different varieties
are to be able to replicate in the next cycle. It's not really something
that you can escape from unless you start positing an all-powerful Supreme
Being who tampers with things and tries to trick you into believing in
evolution when it's actually false. However, God is not a testable
hypothesis.
I think one of the reasons people have a hard time accepting evolution is
because of the amazing variety of structures and functions which are present
in the many varied ecosystems of this planet. It *is* truly amazing, and
sometimes it's hard to imagine that sort of variety and excellence of design
without imagining a watchmaker. It's hard to imagine because our everyday
experience doesn't lead us to much understanding of large numbers (read the
excellent book _Innumeracy_ by John Allen Paulos), but when you're more
comfortable with the large numbers involved, it becomes a lot easier to see
how things that look intelligently designed could in fact have come about
through a very long process of chance. (To refute one of the more common
arguments, more and more, scientists are demonstrating how partially-formed
versions of things (for instance, an insect wing that wasn't strong enough
to permit actual flight) could still confer a selective advantage (for
instance, by allowing the bug to skitter very fast across the surface of the
water)).
That said, how does that fit in with the Biblical version of creation? It
doesn't. I've heard lots of people suggest that if you simply redefine the
length of a "day," then everything's fine. But it's not. Things get
created in completely the wrong order. It's a nice idea, but it doesn't
really match with what science is pretty darned sure of. Sorry.
Okay, hard-nosed scientist hat off, spiritual hat on. When I learn of a new
scientific discovery which shows me more of the incredible beauty and
diversity that has created itself according to the incredibly simple
mathematical laws of the cosmos, I am moved to say a blessing to God who set
such a wondrous self-creating system in motion. Frankly, I am *more*
impressed by a God who built a self-creating system than I am by the image
of someone with a whole lot of Tinker Toys.
Did things come about the way the Bible says? Of course not. Is it true?
Absolutely. There's a big difference. Mythological stories are the way we
tell ourselves about our world and ourselves, and they can have deep truth
to them without needing to have even a shred of literal truth. Figure out
what you can learn about the world and your place within it from this text
and from what other people have said about it over the centuries -- that's
what's important about the story, not whether creation started on a Thursday
or a Sunday.
-- Aimee Yermish
ayermish@...
Deborah Lewis
I really enjoyed that Peggy, thank you.
Deb L
**Aimee Yermish <ayermish@...>
Wrote this post in response to a question about Creationism/Evolution on
a
different list. She gave me permission to repost it here on
unschooling-dotcom
in it's entirety including her name and email address. Please do not
repost
this on another forum without getting her permission. She told me she has
an
article out on the net about called "Barney" that sort of grew and had a
life
of its own. You can google her name and "Barney" if you'ed like to read
it.
Peggy ***
Deb L
**Aimee Yermish <ayermish@...>
Wrote this post in response to a question about Creationism/Evolution on
a
different list. She gave me permission to repost it here on
unschooling-dotcom
in it's entirety including her name and email address. Please do not
repost
this on another forum without getting her permission. She told me she has
an
article out on the net about called "Barney" that sort of grew and had a
life
of its own. You can google her name and "Barney" if you'ed like to read
it.
Peggy ***
Mike Ebbers
--- In Unschooling-dotcom@y..., Peggy <peggy@l...> wrote:
My reaction to that post:
This item on evolution is a marvelous post. In my experience, belief
in evolution can be a big stumbling block to a person's belief in
God. But here is a scientist who doesn't let her belief in evolution
get in the way of her belief in God. In fact, as she pursues
science, she discovers more to admire God for. I appreciate and
agree with this approach.
When Peggy posted this item, she did not include a reference to any
particular previous post, so it is hard to tell what she was arguing
for or against (although I have an idea) ;-). So for those who are
interested or who want to show their children how to look at both
sides of an issue, I have listed some points where a Christian non-
scientist who believes in the Biblical account of creation can agree
with a Jewish microbiologist who believes in a creator and
evolution. I've also noted some points of disagreement.
By the way, the author of that item has asked that it not be reposted
elsewhere without her permission. Please honor her wishes. Thanks.
Mike
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Points of agreement (author's statements are numbered, followed by
my agreement).
selection. You can see it at work, and you can see evidence of it
in the past. Natural selection works within a species to help
organisms to adapt.
Note: Creationists do not believe that natural selection can help an
organism evolve into another species. We all should be aware of what
someone means when they use the word evolution: are they talking
about adaptation within a species, transformation to another species,
formation of life, or origin of the universe (claymation, as someone
cutely termed it earlier)? "Evolution is a fact" can be quite
believable when referring to natural selection (adaptation), but much
less proven (or scientifically verifiable) when referring to the
origin of the universe.
even if you just call each day so many thousands or millions of
years. And the word for "day" in the Bible is the same word that is
used for a 24 hour day.
imagine happened, and scientists are testing it out to see if it will
work.
Note: However, even if it does work, and reasonable mathematicians
agree that there is some chance of the random chemical reactions
creating life, it does not mean that it did happen that way. And a
reasonable person will place less stock in it if the math equations
show a very small chance. This is where many evolutionists are
unwilling to even consider the possibility of a young earth, because
then none of the millions of years needed for this hypothesis would
be present. But young earth is a subject for another post on another
forum. I've already posted a number of URLs that address creation in
an earlier post. E-mail me if you'd like them.
protects us from meteorites and provides oxygen, the distance from
the sun provides water in a liquid state (rather than gaseous or
frozen), and many other things. As for "even in the harshest
environments", she expands on that later in point 6, where she finds
that the laws of nature were created to cause life to occur. Amen.
on a Thursday or a Sunday.
True, and I said the same thing in a post earlier. I wholeheartedly
agree that the Bible accounts have great impact, whether they are
taken literally or allegorically. I've copied the URL for a web site
(there are many others) that says the same thing: "Will I approach
the Bible as God's message to me?"
http://www.salisburybible.org/Questions%20About%
20God/is_the_bible_true.htm
just ignore any indication of a creator. Some even admit that they
strive to defend evolution and ignore evidence for creation because
they can't face the fact that there might be a creator. It is great
to read a post from a scientist who believes there is a creator and
who enjoys seeing his work.
> Aimee Yermish <ayermish@A...>Creationism/Evolution on a different list.
> Wrote this post in response to a question about
My reaction to that post:
This item on evolution is a marvelous post. In my experience, belief
in evolution can be a big stumbling block to a person's belief in
God. But here is a scientist who doesn't let her belief in evolution
get in the way of her belief in God. In fact, as she pursues
science, she discovers more to admire God for. I appreciate and
agree with this approach.
When Peggy posted this item, she did not include a reference to any
particular previous post, so it is hard to tell what she was arguing
for or against (although I have an idea) ;-). So for those who are
interested or who want to show their children how to look at both
sides of an issue, I have listed some points where a Christian non-
scientist who believes in the Biblical account of creation can agree
with a Jewish microbiologist who believes in a creator and
evolution. I've also noted some points of disagreement.
By the way, the author of that item has asked that it not be reposted
elsewhere without her permission. Please honor her wishes. Thanks.
Mike
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Points of agreement (author's statements are numbered, followed by
my agreement).
>1. Natural selection is *not* actually a biological process. It is aTrue. Creationists and evolutionists both believe in natural
>mathematical and thermodynamic one, and *no one* (not even the
>fundamentalists) is disputing the mathematical and thermodynamic
>laws (they are so certain as to be actually called "laws") which
>give rise to it.
selection. You can see it at work, and you can see evidence of it
in the past. Natural selection works within a species to help
organisms to adapt.
Note: Creationists do not believe that natural selection can help an
organism evolve into another species. We all should be aware of what
someone means when they use the word evolution: are they talking
about adaptation within a species, transformation to another species,
formation of life, or origin of the universe (claymation, as someone
cutely termed it earlier)? "Evolution is a fact" can be quite
believable when referring to natural selection (adaptation), but much
less proven (or scientifically verifiable) when referring to the
origin of the universe.
>2. How does that fit in with the Biblical version of creation? ItTrue. The Biblical account of creation does not describe evolution,
>doesn't. I've heard lots of people suggest that if you simply
>redefine the length of a "day," then everything's fine. But it's not.
even if you just call each day so many thousands or millions of
years. And the word for "day" in the Bible is the same word that is
used for a 24 hour day.
> 3. And folks are homing on on how those nucleotides could haveTrue. Science has a hypothesis that a reasonable person could
>arisen in the first place through random chemical reactions that
>could reasonably have occurred on the early Earth. In other words,
>science *has* a plausible answer to the question, one that we are
>actively testing and refining.
imagine happened, and scientists are testing it out to see if it will
work.
Note: However, even if it does work, and reasonable mathematicians
agree that there is some chance of the random chemical reactions
creating life, it does not mean that it did happen that way. And a
reasonable person will place less stock in it if the math equations
show a very small chance. This is where many evolutionists are
unwilling to even consider the possibility of a young earth, because
then none of the millions of years needed for this hypothesis would
be present. But young earth is a subject for another post on another
forum. I've already posted a number of URLs that address creation in
an earlier post. E-mail me if you'd like them.
> 4. The more we learn about life, the more it looks like it's aTrue. Earth is the perfect place for life to occur. The atmosphere
>mathematical certainty for life to occur, even in the harshest
>environments.
protects us from meteorites and provides oxygen, the distance from
the sun provides water in a liquid state (rather than gaseous or
frozen), and many other things. As for "even in the harshest
environments", she expands on that later in point 6, where she finds
that the laws of nature were created to cause life to occur. Amen.
> 5. Mythological stories are the way we tell ourselves about ourthat's what's important about the story, not whether creation started
>world and ourselves, and they can have deep truth to them without
>needing to have even a shred of literal truth. Figure out what you
>can learn about the world and your place within it from this text
>and from what other people have said about it over the centuries --
on a Thursday or a Sunday.
True, and I said the same thing in a post earlier. I wholeheartedly
agree that the Bible accounts have great impact, whether they are
taken literally or allegorically. I've copied the URL for a web site
(there are many others) that says the same thing: "Will I approach
the Bible as God's message to me?"
http://www.salisburybible.org/Questions%20About%
20God/is_the_bible_true.htm
> 6. Okay, hard-nosed scientist hat off, spiritual hat on. When IAwesome. Many scientists have their spiritual heads in the sand and
>learn of a new scientific discovery which shows me more of the
>incredible beauty and diversity that has created itself according to
>the incredibly simple mathematical laws of the cosmos, I am moved
>to say a blessing to God who set such a wondrous self-creating
>system in motion. Frankly, I am *more* impressed by a God who built
>a self-creating system than I am by the image of someone with a
>whole lot of Tinker Toys.
just ignore any indication of a creator. Some even admit that they
strive to defend evolution and ignore evidence for creation because
they can't face the fact that there might be a creator. It is great
to read a post from a scientist who believes there is a creator and
who enjoys seeing his work.
Mike Ebbers
--- In Unschooling-dotcom@y..., Peggy <peggy@l...> wrote:
author is a Jewish scientist who believes in a creator and in
evolution. Previously I posted six points of agreement with her,
even as a Christian non-scientist who does not believe in evolution.
My wife told me I should have mentioned the link between Judaism and
Christianity, since Jesus was of Jewish descent and faith. This
country was founded by firm believers in God through the Judeo-
Christian faith. Jews and Christians share the same scriptures: the
Old Testament, as Rachel Ann mentioned, was passed intact from Jews
to Christians. I believe that our Biblically-based Constitution and
laws are the reason our society has lasted longer than just about any
other democracy.
The Jewish scientist closed with this quote about the Bible:
Christians agree that the more the Bible is investigated, the more
accurate it is known to be, when interpreted correctly. The problem
with evolutionary theory is that it doesn't even try to match to what
the Bible says.
Today I am posting some quotes from eminent scientists and
evolutionists (even microbiologists) who find weaknesses in the
evolutionary theory. This is to answer the question, "Since
evolution is scientific and all but proven, why all the fuss about
teaching creation? Isn't evolution state-of-the-art science?" No,
there is still much debate inside and outside of scientific circles.
It is not "all but proven." Here are some quotes that show this,
compiled from the web page below.
Mike
http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/7547/cequotes.html
"So many essential conditions are necessary for life to exist on our
earth that it is mathematically impossible that all of them could
exist in proper relationship by chance on any one earth at one time."
-Dr. A. Cressy Morrison, past president of the New York Academy of
Sciences.
"...contrary to what is widely assumed by evolutionary biologists
today, it has always been the anti-evolutionists, not the
evolutionists, in the scientific community who have stuck rigidly to
the facts and adhered to a more strictly empirical approach."
-Dr. Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (London: Burnett
Books, 1985), p. 353, 354. (Note: Dr. Denton is neither a creationist
nor a Christian.)
"Biologists are simply naive when they talk about experiments
designed to test the theory of evolution. It is not testable. They
may happen to stumble across facts which would seem to conflict with
its predictions. These facts will invariably be ignored and their
discoverers will undoubtedly be deprived of continuing research
grants."
-Professor Whitten (Professor of Genetics), University of Melbourne,
Australia, 1980 Assembly Week address.
...Every single concept advanced by the theory of evolution (and
amended hereafter) is imaginary as it is not supported by the
scientifically established facts of microbiology, fossils, and
mathematical probability concepts. Darwin was wrong. ...The theory of
evolution may be the worst mistake in science."
-I.L. Cohen, in Darwin Was Wrong - A Study in Probabilities.
"Do not be afraid of being free thinkers! If you think strongly
enough you will be forced by science to the belief in God, which is
the foundation of all religion. You will find science not
antagonistic but helpful to religion."
-Lord Kelvin, Father of Thermodynamics and modern Physics.
"It's such a deeply ingrained faith, such a strong dogma on which we
are all raised from an early age. Interestingly, I've read a number
of biographies of scientists who are leaders in both creationist and
evolutionary thought. The overwhelming trend is that the leaders of
evolutionary thought all make their living purely from evolutionary
theory. They are 'specialists in evolution' and there is no way that
you could see how someone whose entire life and reputation and
livelihood were bound up with the theory could turn against it. On
the other hand, the leaders of the creationist movement usually have
made a name for themselves in some area of fundamental and applied
science -- real science -- before moving into creation science."
-Kouznetsov, in Dr. Carl Wieland, "Interview with Dr. Dmitri
Kouznetsov," Creation Ex Nihilo, Vol. 14, No. 1, p. 36.
An ACLU member says:
"For the past five years, I have closely followed creationist
literature and have attended lectures and debates on related
issues.... based solely on the scientific arguments pro and con, I
have been forced to conclude that scientific creationism is not only
a viable theory, but that it has achieved parity with (if not
superiority over) the normative theory of biological evolution. That
this should now be the case is somewhat surprising, particularly in
view of what most of us were taught in primary and secondary school.
In practical terms, the past decade of intense activity by scientific
creationists has left most evolutionist professors unwilling to
debate the creationist professors. Too many of the evolutionists have
been publicly humiliated in such debates by their own lack of
erudition and by the weaknesses of their theory."
-Robert E. Smith, "Origins and Civil Liberties," in Creation Social
Sciences and Humanities Quarterly, 3 (Winter 1980): 23-24.
"At this point the war centering around Darwinism and its control
over the scientific discussion of origins is going well for the
creationists, and evolution is being defeated in many battles."
-Dr. Paul D. Ackerman, It's a Young World After All (Grand Rapids:
Baker Book House, 1986), p. 12.
"When confronted with the marvels of life and the universe, one must
ask why and not just how. The only possible answers are religious.
For me that means Protestant Christianity, to which I was introduced
as a child and which has withstood the tests of a lifetime. But
religion is a great backyard for doing science. In the words of Psalm
19, "The heavens declare the glory of God and the firmament showeth
His handiwork." Thus scientific research is a worshipful act in that
it reveals the wonders of God's creation."
-Arthur L. Schawlow, Nobel Laureate (Physics, 1981).
> Aimee Yermish <ayermish@A...>Yesterday an excellent item entitled "Evolution" was posted. The
> Wrote this post in response to a question about
>Creationism/Evolution on a different list.
author is a Jewish scientist who believes in a creator and in
evolution. Previously I posted six points of agreement with her,
even as a Christian non-scientist who does not believe in evolution.
My wife told me I should have mentioned the link between Judaism and
Christianity, since Jesus was of Jewish descent and faith. This
country was founded by firm believers in God through the Judeo-
Christian faith. Jews and Christians share the same scriptures: the
Old Testament, as Rachel Ann mentioned, was passed intact from Jews
to Christians. I believe that our Biblically-based Constitution and
laws are the reason our society has lasted longer than just about any
other democracy.
The Jewish scientist closed with this quote about the Bible:
>Did things come about the way the Bible says? Of course not. Is ittrue?
>Absolutely.In other words, the Bible is true, and we are just reading it wrong.
Christians agree that the more the Bible is investigated, the more
accurate it is known to be, when interpreted correctly. The problem
with evolutionary theory is that it doesn't even try to match to what
the Bible says.
Today I am posting some quotes from eminent scientists and
evolutionists (even microbiologists) who find weaknesses in the
evolutionary theory. This is to answer the question, "Since
evolution is scientific and all but proven, why all the fuss about
teaching creation? Isn't evolution state-of-the-art science?" No,
there is still much debate inside and outside of scientific circles.
It is not "all but proven." Here are some quotes that show this,
compiled from the web page below.
Mike
http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/7547/cequotes.html
"So many essential conditions are necessary for life to exist on our
earth that it is mathematically impossible that all of them could
exist in proper relationship by chance on any one earth at one time."
-Dr. A. Cressy Morrison, past president of the New York Academy of
Sciences.
"...contrary to what is widely assumed by evolutionary biologists
today, it has always been the anti-evolutionists, not the
evolutionists, in the scientific community who have stuck rigidly to
the facts and adhered to a more strictly empirical approach."
-Dr. Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (London: Burnett
Books, 1985), p. 353, 354. (Note: Dr. Denton is neither a creationist
nor a Christian.)
"Biologists are simply naive when they talk about experiments
designed to test the theory of evolution. It is not testable. They
may happen to stumble across facts which would seem to conflict with
its predictions. These facts will invariably be ignored and their
discoverers will undoubtedly be deprived of continuing research
grants."
-Professor Whitten (Professor of Genetics), University of Melbourne,
Australia, 1980 Assembly Week address.
...Every single concept advanced by the theory of evolution (and
amended hereafter) is imaginary as it is not supported by the
scientifically established facts of microbiology, fossils, and
mathematical probability concepts. Darwin was wrong. ...The theory of
evolution may be the worst mistake in science."
-I.L. Cohen, in Darwin Was Wrong - A Study in Probabilities.
"Do not be afraid of being free thinkers! If you think strongly
enough you will be forced by science to the belief in God, which is
the foundation of all religion. You will find science not
antagonistic but helpful to religion."
-Lord Kelvin, Father of Thermodynamics and modern Physics.
"It's such a deeply ingrained faith, such a strong dogma on which we
are all raised from an early age. Interestingly, I've read a number
of biographies of scientists who are leaders in both creationist and
evolutionary thought. The overwhelming trend is that the leaders of
evolutionary thought all make their living purely from evolutionary
theory. They are 'specialists in evolution' and there is no way that
you could see how someone whose entire life and reputation and
livelihood were bound up with the theory could turn against it. On
the other hand, the leaders of the creationist movement usually have
made a name for themselves in some area of fundamental and applied
science -- real science -- before moving into creation science."
-Kouznetsov, in Dr. Carl Wieland, "Interview with Dr. Dmitri
Kouznetsov," Creation Ex Nihilo, Vol. 14, No. 1, p. 36.
An ACLU member says:
"For the past five years, I have closely followed creationist
literature and have attended lectures and debates on related
issues.... based solely on the scientific arguments pro and con, I
have been forced to conclude that scientific creationism is not only
a viable theory, but that it has achieved parity with (if not
superiority over) the normative theory of biological evolution. That
this should now be the case is somewhat surprising, particularly in
view of what most of us were taught in primary and secondary school.
In practical terms, the past decade of intense activity by scientific
creationists has left most evolutionist professors unwilling to
debate the creationist professors. Too many of the evolutionists have
been publicly humiliated in such debates by their own lack of
erudition and by the weaknesses of their theory."
-Robert E. Smith, "Origins and Civil Liberties," in Creation Social
Sciences and Humanities Quarterly, 3 (Winter 1980): 23-24.
"At this point the war centering around Darwinism and its control
over the scientific discussion of origins is going well for the
creationists, and evolution is being defeated in many battles."
-Dr. Paul D. Ackerman, It's a Young World After All (Grand Rapids:
Baker Book House, 1986), p. 12.
"When confronted with the marvels of life and the universe, one must
ask why and not just how. The only possible answers are religious.
For me that means Protestant Christianity, to which I was introduced
as a child and which has withstood the tests of a lifetime. But
religion is a great backyard for doing science. In the words of Psalm
19, "The heavens declare the glory of God and the firmament showeth
His handiwork." Thus scientific research is a worshipful act in that
it reveals the wonders of God's creation."
-Arthur L. Schawlow, Nobel Laureate (Physics, 1981).
Rachel Ann
Another addendum.
There have been alterations between the what Christians call the Old Testement and what the Jews call the Torah. They may seem minor to some but the significantly affect the philosophy.
I don't remember any off hand, but even a good translation of the Torah does not convey perfectly, the meaning of the text.
be well,
Rachel Ann
There have been alterations between the what Christians call the Old Testement and what the Jews call the Torah. They may seem minor to some but the significantly affect the philosophy.
I don't remember any off hand, but even a good translation of the Torah does not convey perfectly, the meaning of the text.
be well,
Rachel Ann
----- Original Message -----
My wife told me I should have mentioned the link between Judaism and
Christianity, since Jesus was of Jewish descent and faith. This
country was founded by firm believers in God through the Judeo-
Christian faith. Jews and Christians share the same scriptures: the
Old Testament, as Rachel Ann mentioned, was passed intact from Jews
to Christians. I believe that our Biblically-based Constitution and
laws are the reason our society has lasted longer than just about any
other democracy.
The Jewish scientist closed with this quote about the Bible:
>Did things come about the way the Bible says? Of course not. Is it
true?
>Absolutely.
In other words, the Bible is true, and we are just reading it wrong.
Christians agree that the more the Bible is investigated, the more
accurate it is known to be, when interpreted correctly. The problem
with evolutionary theory is that it doesn't even try to match to what
the Bible says.
Today I am posting some quotes from eminent scientists and
evolutionists (even microbiologists) who find weaknesses in the
evolutionary theory. This is to answer the question, "Since
evolution is scientific and all but proven, why all the fuss about
teaching creation? Isn't evolution state-of-the-art science?" No,
there is still much debate inside and outside of scientific circles.
It is not "all but proven." Here are some quotes that show this,
compiled from the web page below.
Mike
http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/7547/cequotes.html
"So many essential conditions are necessary for life to exist on our
earth that it is mathematically impossible that all of them could
exist in proper relationship by chance on any one earth at one time."
-Dr. A. Cressy Morrison, past president of the New York Academy of
Sciences.
"...contrary to what is widely assumed by evolutionary biologists
today, it has always been the anti-evolutionists, not the
evolutionists, in the scientific community who have stuck rigidly to
the facts and adhered to a more strictly empirical approach."
-Dr. Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (London: Burnett
Books, 1985), p. 353, 354. (Note: Dr. Denton is neither a creationist
nor a Christian.)
"Biologists are simply naive when they talk about experiments
designed to test the theory of evolution. It is not testable. They
may happen to stumble across facts which would seem to conflict with
its predictions. These facts will invariably be ignored and their
discoverers will undoubtedly be deprived of continuing research
grants."
-Professor Whitten (Professor of Genetics), University of Melbourne,
Australia, 1980 Assembly Week address.
...Every single concept advanced by the theory of evolution (and
amended hereafter) is imaginary as it is not supported by the
scientifically established facts of microbiology, fossils, and
mathematical probability concepts. Darwin was wrong. ...The theory of
evolution may be the worst mistake in science."
-I.L. Cohen, in Darwin Was Wrong - A Study in Probabilities.
"Do not be afraid of being free thinkers! If you think strongly
enough you will be forced by science to the belief in God, which is
the foundation of all religion. You will find science not
antagonistic but helpful to religion."
-Lord Kelvin, Father of Thermodynamics and modern Physics.
"It's such a deeply ingrained faith, such a strong dogma on which we
are all raised from an early age. Interestingly, I've read a number
of biographies of scientists who are leaders in both creationist and
evolutionary thought. The overwhelming trend is that the leaders of
evolutionary thought all make their living purely from evolutionary
theory. They are 'specialists in evolution' and there is no way that
you could see how someone whose entire life and reputation and
livelihood were bound up with the theory could turn against it. On
the other hand, the leaders of the creationist movement usually have
made a name for themselves in some area of fundamental and applied
science -- real science -- before moving into creation science."
-Kouznetsov, in Dr. Carl Wieland, "Interview with Dr. Dmitri
Kouznetsov," Creation Ex Nihilo, Vol. 14, No. 1, p. 36.
An ACLU member says:
"For the past five years, I have closely followed creationist
literature and have attended lectures and debates on related
issues.... based solely on the scientific arguments pro and con, I
have been forced to conclude that scientific creationism is not only
a viable theory, but that it has achieved parity with (if not
superiority over) the normative theory of biological evolution. That
this should now be the case is somewhat surprising, particularly in
view of what most of us were taught in primary and secondary school.
In practical terms, the past decade of intense activity by scientific
creationists has left most evolutionist professors unwilling to
debate the creationist professors. Too many of the evolutionists have
been publicly humiliated in such debates by their own lack of
erudition and by the weaknesses of their theory."
-Robert E. Smith, "Origins and Civil Liberties," in Creation Social
Sciences and Humanities Quarterly, 3 (Winter 1980): 23-24.
"At this point the war centering around Darwinism and its control
over the scientific discussion of origins is going well for the
creationists, and evolution is being defeated in many battles."
-Dr. Paul D. Ackerman, It's a Young World After All (Grand Rapids:
Baker Book House, 1986), p. 12.
"When confronted with the marvels of life and the universe, one must
ask why and not just how. The only possible answers are religious.
For me that means Protestant Christianity, to which I was introduced
as a child and which has withstood the tests of a lifetime. But
religion is a great backyard for doing science. In the words of Psalm
19, "The heavens declare the glory of God and the firmament showeth
His handiwork." Thus scientific research is a worshipful act in that
it reveals the wonders of God's creation."
-Arthur L. Schawlow, Nobel Laureate (Physics, 1981).
Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT
~~~~ Don't forget! If you change topics, change the subject line! ~~~~
If you have questions, concerns or problems with this list, please email the moderator, Joyce Fetteroll (fetteroll@...), or the list owner, Helen Hegener (HEM-Editor@...).
To unsubscribe from this group, click on the following link or address an email to:
[email protected]
Visit the Unschooling website: http://www.unschooling.com
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]