On November 24, 1859 Charles Darwin first published "On the Origin of Species." It first introduced the theory that populations evolve through a process known as natural selection. Natural Selection in layman's terms is reproduction of the fittest. Over the next 150 years this book has become the cornerstone for the science of biology today.
I feel I should probably define science as I am referring to it above. Science: The systematic study of any phenomena with the purpose of creating a correct repeatable prediction, usually through use of the scientific method (Question, Research, Hypothesis, Experiment, Conclusion, Communication). In other words,
1.What happens if I throw a ball in the air?
2.History shows that it will fall to the ground.
3.My guess is that when I throw a ball into the air it will fall to the ground.
4.I do my experiment.
5.The conclusion is that the ball fell to the ground.
6.Then I should call all my friends and tell them what just happened.
Now, for anyone that doesn't know, natural selection has been one of the best examples of predictive science that the world has ever known. Our genetic research has confirmed its predictions, our radiocarbon dating has confirmed its predictions, and our psychology has confirmed its predictions, just to name a few. In fact every realm of natural science involves evolution on some level; geology, oceanography, astronomy, meteorology, biology, psychology, radiography, biophysics, chemistry, etc.
Now I get to the point of this post.
The overarching theory of natural selection modifying the characteristics of a population over time is called evolution.
Evolution is a Fact.
And just for those of you out there that may want to argue the point now I will define the word fact. Fact: something that has been tested or observed so many times that there is no longer a compelling reason to keep testing or looking for examples "ex: you can make electricity by turning a magnet inside a coil of wire". This is in contrast to the other definition which is a verifiable observation (ex: "the pen is on the desk").
And just to drive the point home, natural selection is a fact (verifiable observation) the same way that the earth is round.
We have to educate in order to overcome our ignorances. There was a time when people thought that the earth was 6000 years old and flat. I urge you to teach evolution to your children, it won't condemn them to Hell, in fact it might save our planet. And if you don't know how to, read this book.
I'm honored to be the first person to comment on this post, but you might not be so happy when I'm done...
ReplyDeleteI couldn't disagree with you more, Daniel. My argument can be summed up in two words: "irreducible complexity". Why those two? Because Charles Darwin (yes, the person in whom you seem to put so much stock) gives in Origin of Species the very description of a situation that would destroy his theory:
"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."
Mutation can create complex structures, but not without producing many non-functional intermediate steps. There are numerous examples of incredibly complex systems that could not have been created through any other means than intelligent design. Why do I think that? The method by which blood coagulates, the central nervous system, and the process by which human beings conceive and give birth to other human beings all scream "this is by design"!
I encourage you to read anything by Michael Behe or to read Paley's Argument (which is an excellent example of the fact that we as people instinctively know and understand that the amazing things we see around us are not the result of a fortunate outcome of some chemical or environmental process. That flies in the face of what every sane person should think, and I challenge you to tell me that you don't agree.
God is the Creator of everything we see, and he's at work in your life right now. You're making a mistake to say that evolution is a fact - it's a misrepresentation and an outright lie to try and imply that it meets the scientific criteria to become a "law". You're smart enough to know that if you were to refer to evolution as a "law" then the production of one statement that refutes the predictive or descriptive aspect of your "law" makes the entire law null and void. I'm not trying to claim that creationism is structured in a way that would provide the scaffolding to stand up to the rigor of validation applied to a scientific "law", but my belief in the Almighty God and the Holy Word in the Bible, provide as compelling a theory as to why life exists as evolution does. You can't prove evolution, but I can certainly provide just as many scientific arguments as to why it's bunk.
We'll be teaching our children about the theory of evolution, but stressing the theory part. It seems clear that species do evolve, but to think I'm sitting here typing on a computer because some amoeba happened to enter the primordial ooze at just the right time.
I'm reading this blog because I do in fact care for you Daniel. You're dead wrong on this one brother...I'd be happy to discuss this issue (or any other, for that matter) with you any time!
Chris, I’m not at all unhappy about your comment. This is what this blog is all about.
ReplyDeleteLet us start with what we have in common. It seems like we agree that different species evolve by natural selection. So our difference of opinion is on modern species (specifically human) evolution from single celled organisms. Which I concede is very much a theory by scientific standards. I encourage every generation to continue this research until we have answered every question about our natural history.
We also need to clear up Fact, Law, and Theory. A good scientist should never be as presumptuous as to claim the discovery of a law. Even Newton’s law of gravity has been over thrown. Also, I would say that Fact has two meanings. Here is an example using gravity: It is a fact that I witnessed the ball fall to the earth after I threw it into the air. However, it is a theory that gravity made it fall. In my blog I defined fact as, “something that has been tested or observed so many times that there is no longer a compelling reason to keep testing or looking for examples.” By my definition, gravity is a fact, not a theory.
So let’s tackle Blood Clots
Blood Clots: In a healthy individual, molecules called clotting factors flow through our blood doing nothing. But when we get cut the blood mingles with the surrounding tissue. Some of the proteins in the tissue react with one of the clotting factors. This clotting factor then starts a chain reaction with a second type, and then the second reacts with a third, and so on through a series of reactions. A final clotting factor slices apart a molecule called a fibrinogen, turning it into a sticky substance causing a clot. So from a tiny trigger, millions of fibrinogens can become activated. If an individual is born without just one of these clotting factors they become a hemophiliac.
Now, let’s take earthworms or starfish. They don’t bleed out because of a special cell in their bloodstream that can become sticky and form a crude clot. (though they don’t use any clotting factors). They will represent an evolutionary side path that isn’t as good as our system.
This evidence led scientist to hypothesize that there is a fibrinogen-like substance as far back in our evolutionary past as our invertebrate cousins; which, after 30 years of research, they found in sea cucumbers (though it serves another purpose now). This has been the life work of Russell Doolittle @ The University of California San Diego. And, while it doesn’t prove any real fact, it does fit our model (the molecules have had a chance to specialize for approx. 600 million years). If anything this just shows that 50 years after the discovery of DNA, we still have plenty to learn about the history of life. Let us not confuse ignorance with defeat.
A conversation about our central nervous system and mammals giving live birth will have to wait for a cup of coffee and a nice spring day. However, I would love for you to check out this image when you have time. It (as well as the eye) is a good example of imperfection from the process of evolution.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/7e/GiraffaRecurrEn.svg/1000px-GiraffaRecurrEn.svg.png
In closing, I don’t suggest that society banish all concepts of God because of evolution. I simply say that it is time that we teach it as fact the same way that we teach gravity as fact. If God changed the mass of protons every morning, then we wouldn’t have physics. And when a microbiologist is studying a resistive strain of tuberculosis, he doesn’t say that it exists through divine intervention. God has a place in science. Where there is God there are questions that need to be answered. If good science contradicts a verse in the Bible then maybe good science can explain why it was written incorrectly, either with linguistics or sociology. If Einstein is right and time and space are relative, then we can’t even ask what was before the big bang, so what would that mean for our 4 dimensional “scientific reality.”
Good Times