Netfriend wrote:

I have admitted before that I do not have scientific qualifications. That does not mean that I should not try to think through these issues.

Chris responded:

The issue is not a lack of qualifications. It is a lack of knowledge. You make pronouncements about what you don’t know or understand. You claim evolution cannot be proved. You’re wrong. It is proved in the same way as any other scientific model; and the basic fundamentals of a long history of life and the relationships of diverse living species through common ancestors are facts. You resist that with all your being; because it conflicts with your religious assumptions — NOT because you understand the evidence or the proofs involved.

You suggest speciation is not observed. Of course it is observed. All the processes of evolution are extensively studied and applied in the field and laboratory. Speciation is an active subject of study; and part of that study including known observed instances of new species arising.

Netfriend:

The school system is training children to accept evolution as a fact.

Chris:

Evolution is a fact; and your own failure to understand what it means to be a fact in science, and what evidence applies to demonstrate the facts uncovered in science, is a testament to the inadequacy of your own education in science.

But again, you single out evolution… the truth is that the school system is teaching about geology and astronomy and many other areas of knowledge where the scientific facts are in complete and irreconcilable conflict with the naive religious literalism of so-called scientific creationism.

Also … as I have pointed on more than one occasion in the past; a decent science education does not simply indoctrinate students with the facts of science. A good education needs to show students how science works; how evidence is applied; and the reasons why we have come the knowledge we have.

The raw facts of geology and biology and astronomy are picked up naturally by curious youngsters. They read about dinosaurs and how they lived millions of years ago; and about distant galaxies and how the light takes millions of years to get here.

What a science education needs to do is let students understand HOW and WHY we know such things. It is not just indoctrination of the facts themselves.

Netfriend:

That means , as time goes by, more and more people will accept either atheistic or theistic evolution. From my readings by Scientific creationists I realise there are times when statments are made which later have to be revised. That is part of any research programme of moving from a previous set of ideas to another set of ideas. That has been an aspect of post-war education. As an Infants’teacher and Teaching Mistress I have had to think through the claims of those who present the Whole-Word and the Phonics Methods of teaching Reading. In Mathematics I realised the old way of explaining double line subtractions was illogical and proposed a different way, now called equal additions instead of borrowing. In heath matters I came to realise that psychiatrists were treating what were called Nervous Breakdowns (now called stress conditions) incorrectly. In respect of this issue of changes in species I have to consider whether one species changes into another species over millions of years up a tree of life OR whether there was a Supernatural Being who created life according to a variety of species, but preprogrammed genetically to change within certain environmental circumstances. I accept the latter as my definition of ‘speciation.’

Chris:

You don’t have the knowledge or background for your own personal definitions to be anything but errors and distractions; this is only an impediment to learning about the real processes involved.

This is the frustrating thing. You know you don’t have a good understanding of science. Why then are you inventing your own personal definitions?

What is even more revealing… your definition here is not biblical. It comes from somewhere else. Where, and why? Fundamentally, it is the same pervasive theological problem with creationism — creationists do not accept the action of God in nature. They say they do; but their actions and words show otherwise.

We’ve established now, I think, that there has to be a lot of speciation and variation in a creationist model to account for living diversity in animals to arise in just 4500 years or so, since the supposed flood. Biology studies how life diversifies by natural processes of evolution. But that is seen by creationists as a rejection of God, because they see natural explanations as being in conflict with God’s involvement. Hence we have this strange model proposed; in which God’s creative act is pushed into the past; with living creatures “pre-programmed” to diversify. Not from the bible; not from any evidence; only from a refusal to see a role for God in natural processes of the present.

It is, in fact, the God-of-the-Gaps; with God’s creative act removed to a convenient gap in the past.

It gets worse. [netfriend’s] “definition” is in conflict with all evidence. We can study the genetic code; and we have a long long way to go in understanding all its intricacies. But what we do know has been a stunning confirmation of the nested relationships between living creatures already predicted from evolutionary biology; and also has been a solid disproof of the notion that evolutionary change is pre-programmed.

Evolutionary change arises spontaneously as living creatures replicate with occasional small errors in copying. This is called mutation. It is observed, and studied. Measurements of mutation rates in humans show that each of us has, on average, something like 64 new mutations. Mutations are not preprogrammed. They occur naturally and spontaneously as part of the chemistry of replication. Most mutations have no effect. Of those that have an effect, most are detrimental. Was THAT preprogrammed?

Some mutations are beneficial. One interesting and well studied example in humans is a mutation that arose in the eighteenth century in a small village in Italy. There are now about thirty carriers of this mutations — called Apo-AI Milano. They are effectively immune to cardio-vascular disease. Was that preprogrammed?

If it was preprogrammed — why does it occur only in this one remote village, and only in one family? (It has been possible to trace back and identify the ancestral couple by name who first had this mutation, and passed it on to their children. We can’t tell if the mutation came from the father or the mother.) <http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/information/apolipoprotein.html>

Netfriend:

As I haven’t a cross-referenced file system I do admit I have made statements from memory. I have done College of Advanced Education studies which require acknowledgement of sources, but in my present circumstances, on many occasions, I have not done that. I understand that is frustrating for you. From your previous posting in which you referred me to a website giving Stephen Gould’s essay “Evolution as Fact and Theory” he made that statement that “fact” does not mean “absolute certainty”. I would assume, as I haven’t followed this matter through, that Stephen Gould was an atheist.

Chris:

Jewish agnostic. But his statement is fundamental, and common to all philosophers of science, whether believers or unbelievers. Science does not give absolute certainty. Scientific proof is inductive, not deductive like maths.

Gould was rather like myself in some ways; supportive of believing colleagues and quick to recognize their legitimacy. He often clashed more strident atheists who consider religion and science to be in conflict. Gould considered that science and religion were quite compatible;.

If you want a statement from a scientist who is a Christian, try this: “Let me try to make crystal clear what is established beyond reasonable doubt, and what needs further study, about evolution. Evolution as a process that has always gone on in the history of the earth can be doubted only by those who are ignorant of the evidence or are resistant to evidence, owing to emotional blocks or to plain bigotry. By contrast, the mechanisms that bring evolution about certainly need study and clarification. There are no alternatives to evolution as history that can withstand critical examination. Yet we are constantly learning new and important facts about evolutionary mechanisms.” — Theodosius Dobzhansky

Netfriend:

As there is not absolute certainty it is possible that a Supernatural Being could have been involved in the formation of the first living organisms. From the scientific principles that living things, among other attributes, can procreate, whereas non-living things cannot do that I would suggest that there is a very high probability that a Supernatual Being was involved in the creation of the original living beings.

Chris:

Shrug. Many evolutionists agree with that. I have given examples already.

What distinguishes evolutionists from creationists is not belief in the involvement of a supernatural being. It is a willingness to be honest with the evidence about the actual history of events.

Cheers — Chris