Evolution conversation, Part 5: Morally Neutral Evolution

Part 5 of 6, enjoy!

You keep comparing evolution to gravity, but there are important differences between the two. Gravity is a common experience for everyone and ignorance of it is perilous. But who has observed the operation of evolution? I'm not talking about facts from which evolution can be inferred. I'm talking about direct observation of mutation and natural selection leading to speciation. And who was ever harmed by ignorance (or denial) of evolution? If you deny the operation of gravity, you could die. If you deny the operation of evolution (particularly common ancestry), you might be ostracized by biologists, but you're not likely to come to any harm. In addition, gravity is easy to model and easy to understand. Evolution is much harder. In fact, evolution is counterintuitive.

"I can understand a position of agnosticism in regard to natural selection but common decent [sic] is a fact that can't be reasonably denied."

Are you claiming better evidence and support for common descent than for natural selection? I find this surprising. Natural selection can be tested and observed. Can common descent? Are you claiming that scientists have been able to observe a species evolving into two or more new species? Because if you are, I'd be very interested in the reference. Why shouldn't I be agnostic about a phenomenon that has never been observed to occur?

I am not interested in a "god of the gaps." Such a god is not worthy of worship. It's fine with me if science vigorously pursues the question of the origin of life and discovers a naturalistic, non-supernatural explanation for it. I don't want science to posit a god for the questions it can't answer. What good is such a god? Every advance of science diminishes his domain. Besides, how can science continue to
advance if it stops short whenever it comes up against god's territory? The God I worship is a lot bigger than this "god of the gaps."

The existence of everything in our experience is contingent. It is caused by something else. There are only two rational possibilities: there is an infinite regress of contingencies, which can be explained by universes that explode, expand, and collapse only to do it all again, or there is something that exists outside our experience that is not contingent. It is not rational to suppose that everything came from nothing.


_______________________________________

Do we quit when we start repeating ourselves?

Repetition is inevitable in creationist vs. evolution "debates" because creationists can't accept the facts presented by evolutionists. We've heard Chips arguments over and over again, from others. They've all been soundly debunked. For example, I've been playing "ID/Creationist Bingo." I've checked off the arguments used by Chip so far...

- Irreducible Complexity
- "Watch" "Mousetrap" or "Mt. Rushmore"
- Darwinism responsible for Hitler/Nazis
- Random/Chance
- Confuse Evolution with Abiogenesis
- No morality without God
- We haven't observed evolution

A few more replies from Chip and I'll have, creationist BINGO!

Here is the problem. Christians seem to be under the misconception that accepting evolution means, to a certain extent, rejecting God's word. I'd like to assure them that evolution itself does not preclude Jesus and Christianity. You can be a good Christian and an evolutionist at the same time. They are not mutually exclusive! When Christians like Chip say things like, "It [evolution] is almost always part of a broader world view that is essentially antithetical to Christian beliefs" it's as if they believe accepting evolution means, to a certain extent, rejecting God's word. It needlessly puts them between an existential rock and hard place. That's why the only people who have trouble accepting common ancestry are theists. Evolution is accepted by the rest of the world. Once the evidence is presented, open minded people can see the truth of evolution immediately. But because accepting evolution entails naturalism in the minds of religious people, Christians can't regard evolution without bias. That's sad!

Evolution, like all solid scientific theories, is morally neutral. Evolution simply explains common ancestry. Christians believe evolution is "evil" only because science and evolution present a fact, a truth about reality, that Christian doctrine has a very difficult time dealing with, common descent. Chip, this is the reason you are an "Evolution agnostic." It's not because there is not enough evidence for you to decide if evolution is true or not. It's because you've created this false dichotomy for yourself of evolution vs. God. I just want you to realize that evolutionists have no problem with the belief that human beings have a divine soul created by God in God's image. So, when you say, "They [Christians] wish to assert that humans are more [than animals]", it rings hollow. Why? Because, evolution says nothing about man as the spiritual image of God. But genetically, not spiritually, there is no denying, we share a common ancestry with animals. When Christians deny this, they are using their faith to suppress the logical conclusion the facts would have normally lead them to otherwise.

The fact is, I feel I have failed you, and Nick, and the other creationists reading my words as if they mean nothing. I have failed to explain evolution well enough to convince you that it is how life really works. I spend so much time and effort trying to convince fundamentalist Christians because I honestly feel truth can change their lives for the better, give them a wider view of the world and in the process, make them a little wiser. This is the goal of all teachers. But, I feel like Don Quixote. I do battle with the windmills of ignorance, not knowing or not accepting the fact that it's a futile endeavor. Yet I fight on. The fact of the matter is, if your mind is already made up about evolution, I can't change it. Only you can.

With that hope, I'm going to debunk more of your anti-evolution arguments now.

"But who has observed the operation of evolution? I'm not talking about facts from which evolution can be inferred. I'm talking about direct observation of mutation and natural selection leading to speciation."

"Although information in experimental science is acquired through observation, the observation of a great amount of indirect evidence of a process makes as good a scientific case as the direct observation of a process. As Michael Ruse asks, "[t]he evidence that I have a heart is all indirect, neither I nor anyone else ever seen it, but does anyone really believe that it is not a fact that I have a heart?" (Ruse 1982:58). In the same way, there is sufficient evidence for macroevolution that it can safely be considered a fact without direct observation of the process occurring in our time. We need not, as many unsophisticated creationists put it, observe cats changing into dogs right before our eyes, in order to have a good case for macroevolution." - Mark I. Vuletic

"You keep comparing evolution to gravity, but there are important differences between the two. Gravity is a common experience..."

The experience of gravity is easy to understand. The theory itself, a manifestation of space and time... not so much. You are equivocating BADLY between the effects of gravity and the actual theory.

"In addition, gravity is easy to model and easy to understand."

You mean the effects of gravity, not the theory itself. I think the theory of evolution itself is much more intuitive than the theory of gravity. Nick, this is for you and all other fair minded readers curious about...

How Evolution REALLY Works (in less than 10 minutes)


See? Evolution is very intuitive when explained correctly! Chip, to download the code for the simulation go to: http://files-upload.com/files/621209/Evolution%20Functions.zip

"In fact, evolution is counterintuitive."

Not to anyone else but American Christians, it seems.

"Are you claiming that scientists have been able to observe a species evolving into two or more new species? Because if you are, I'd be very interested in the reference. Why shouldn't I be agnostic about a phenomenon that has never been observed to occur?"

Not true. As one example, in 1964, Dr. D. J. Reish removed 5 or 6 polychaetes (Nereis acuminata) from Los Angeles/Long Beach Harbor, and grew his sample to a size of thousands. In 1986, four pairs from this group were brought to Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution; the population at Woods Hole thus had gone through two bottlenecks, which are supposed to help drive evolution through genetic drift. In 1977-1978, two new cultures of N. acuminata were gathered from nearby Long Beach and Newport Beach, and grown under the same conditions as the Woods Hole sample. The three populations were later crossed, and it was found that the only crosses that would not produce viable offspring were the crosses involving the Woods Hole culture and the two new cultures. This signifies nothing less than speciation, and all in the laboratory as well. (Weinberg et al. 1992) The young-earth creationist organization Answers in Genesis has completely disavowed this argument.

"I can't imagine the world without God."

From Chip's post, "Atheism Sucks". Chip, "Atticus was right. One time he said you never really know a man until you stand in his shoes and walk around in them." - Scout, "To Kill A Mockingbird"

I'd like to finish where I began. Here is a picture showing some shared genetic traits between two species.

Two Peas in a Pod

It's a fact there is only one way for parents to pass genes to their offspring and that's through inheritance. What is the explanation of the shared genes evident in this picture? Common ancestry, of course. If there is an alternative scientific theory that explains HOW species share the same genetic traits, the world hasn't heard it yet. It's an undeniable fact that evolution, like gravity, happens. The theories of gravity and evolution explain how. One sees the effect of gravity when they observe the tide changing. One sees the effect of macroevolution when they observe the genetic similarities between different species.

Creationist's who believe only in microevolution fail to take evolution to it's logical conclusion: that if animals evolve within the Species level, then they also evolve in the Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, and Genus levels as well. It only makes sense.