Secular folks should worry.

[malkie]

Suppose, for a moment, that evolution had never become a legitimate scientific theory, and, as some would argue for, only the JudeoChristian creation myths were taught as biological science in place of evolution.

Would anyone hazard a reasonably educated guess of where we would be today in, for example, the field of medicine? What would we gain, and what would we lose in this scenario?

[Physics Guy]

An interesting question. I'm neither a biologist nor a doctor, but for what it's worth, my understanding is that evolution is not a powerfully predictive theory. I don't believe anyone has ever used evolutionary theory to predict what kinds of organisms, or fossil organisms, would exist in an uncharted place or stratum, and then found good agreement with the predictions when the critters had all been found and described. Most of the time, as far as I know, evolution is an explanation that explains the data afterwards.

So even a lot of molecular biology, including genetics, is probably independent of evolution in the sense that we could have discovered it all without knowing about evolution in advance. Inheritance of traits with variations, in agriculture and animal breeding and in human families, was a familiar fact for millennia before Darwin. For that matter one could in principle know everything we know today about genetics, I think, and still not guess at evolution.

It would be really hard, though, for alternate-history biologists who had been smart enough to develop polymerase chain reactions to be that obtuse. The fact that evolution is bound to occur is just obvious: some sets of genes are bound to proliferate more than others, and when they do, the biome will change. And there's just no reason why the ultimate amount of change should be limited, given enough time. Of course you can go from blue-green algae to giraffes. Why not? A single cell is a bunch of molecules; a giraffe is a bigger bunch.

So maybe part of the answer to malkie's question is the clear answer to a reversed one: we could not realistically have reached our current level of medical knowledge without noticing Darwinian evolution along the way. So in this sense, postulating a world in which evolution is not accepted science necessarily means postulating a world with much less advanced medical technology than we have, even if evolution didn't really contribute directly to medicine.

Probably evolution did encourage practical discoveries in biology, though, in the sense that it gave people more motivation to study the molecular basis of life. I think that people would still have been motivated to look for stuff like DNA even if we had all still believed implicitly in supernatural special creation. We'd still have wanted to see how life forms worked, however they got here. Darwinian evolution probably spurred us to look harder, sooner, however, because it suggested that life might be easier for us to understand, if we tried, than one could expect if life had been produced by an incomprehensible divine act. Evolution probably made effective medicine seem like a lower-hanging fruit than it would have seemed otherwise.

[malkie]

Thanks, PG. As always, your answers are a model of clarity and thoughtfulness.

We are fortunate indeed to be able to enjoy your presence.

[honorentheos]

There are multiple ways by which evolutionary theory makes useful predictions. Paleontologists look to geology to find exposed or accessible strata where fossil evidence may be found that appears to coincide with when a key evolutionary trait may have arisen, and successfully find those fossils in the predicted point in geologic time. An example includes the fishapod discovery in the Canadian artic in the early 2000s where exposed Devonian strata of fossil-bearing rock produced a critical species in the transition from sea to land animals.

[Res Ipsa]

There are multiple ways by which evolutionary theory makes useful predictions. Paleontologists look to geology to find exposed or accessible strata where fossil evidence may be found that appears to coincide with when a key evolutionary trait may have arisen, and successfully find those fossils in the predicted point in geologic time. An example includes the fishapod discovery in the Canadian artic in the early 2000s where exposed Devonian strata of fossil-bearing rock produced a critical species in the transition from sea to land animals.

One example of confirmed predictions based on evolutionary theory found in a quick google search: https://ncse.ngo/predictive-power-evolu ... d-mole-rat

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

The fact that evolution is bound to occur is just obvious: some sets of genes are bound to proliferate more than others, and when they do, the biome will change. And there's just no reason why the ultimate amount of change should be limited, given enough time. Of course you can go from blue-green algae to giraffes. Why not? A single cell is a bunch of molecules; a giraffe is a bigger bunch.

Just to run this comment a bit further back, if I’m to understand this from a layman’s perspective, at a ‘fundamental’ level we have various fields that interact with one another. Once these field start to layer on one another you’re already introducing complexity that begins to morph depending on whatever conditions are happening. This is evolution at a basic level.

At this point, I suppose the apologist claiming atheists believe in the ex nihilo argument, have to essentially concede evolutionary ‘whatever’ will happen no matter what in this universe, so they might be inclined to claim we believe the Big Bang itself came from nothing. The God of the Gaps gambit then pushes God out of this universe all together, making Him a sort of Observer-Programmer operating a program that was switched on (the ‘let there be light’ Big Bang flipping the power on moment). If God was manifested in this universe, then He is a natural phenomenon only, and still subject to whatever natural rules exist here.

Essentially, if God exists outside of this creation then He’s just magic, and will fulfill whatever desire the believer places upon Him as a concept. Since that’s obvious, in that believers already do that, then any variation of faith is just as legitimate as the other. The whole organized religion thing is just a scam to induce dummies to pay for an indulgence.

- Doc

[MG 2.0]

The ID folks, as you call them, aren't convincing anyone with scientific arguments because their arguments fail to actually be demonstrable with evidence. The only folks convinced that it is science are folks like you who have a need to demand others order society around your mythologies.

What your claims consist of isn't a competing explanatory theory but rather an argument from a God of the Gaps. It inserts "god" as "x" for a theory and expects it to be given equal consideration as an argument built from evidence. If you then assert there is evidence for God, that isn't itself an opposing scientific theory but a theological belief.

For me it is a combination of factors that lead me towards a Mind behind the creation. As I’ve already said, I think the evidence (even as a layperson) demonstrates that evolution has been a prime mover in the ongoing saga of life on earth. But at its very root the questions are still there. Is there a ‘Mind’ or ‘Intelligence’ behind the scenes running the show?

As you’ve alluded to this becomes somewhat a question of faith. I choose faith, but not willy nilly faith. ID does play a part. Anthropic Principle/Goldilocks Principle/Rare Earth Hypothesis plays a part. Choosing ‘purpose’ over randomness plays a part.

If I’m not mistaken, everything as we know it can be reduced to ‘information’ bits. What is the source of that information at its root level/core?

This person’s views somewhat parallel my own:

https://medium.com/@achalissery/chapter ... 685fce4cb3

We can describe evolutionary theory whether we choose the ID version or another, but we haven’t been able to get at the ‘source of all things’. That remains a mystery to scientists.

From this link:

Science has been able to give a plausible explanation as to how it all started and how most of what we see around works. Unfortunately Science cannot give credit to the Intelligence that is behind all Creation. That is something that the scientists, physicists, biologists, mathematicians and astronomers have to sort out. That is their problem. The facts are on the table. No one, in the last 5–10,000 years have been able to disprove the existence of an Intelligence behind all creation.

This intelligence we Latter-Day Saints refer to as the Creator or Father of all things. The Supreme Being. It is not unreasonable to place faith in a Creator in whom all knowledge dwells. An intelligence that has provided REAL purpose (beyond our own making) for our existence, now and and also hoped for afterlife existence.

Yes, this is a ‘faith’ in something not known for a fact, but hoped for based upon evidence not seen but believed to be true.

As with most of the discussion here it all comes down to whether or not there is a creator God. Everything is dependent on THAT. I and many other people of faith chose to believe in a Mind behind the creation.

Others don’t.

But when the don’ts are having greater and greater influence on the education of our children that becomes a concern for those that believe in some sort of accountability and affiliation towards a Creator and/or Supreme Intelligence.

Again, that is the point of this thread and it’s OP. What does the future hold if we were to become a society, a world, in which theistic belief plays second fiddle to those that would ‘kill’ God?

That’s a concern. Who or what takes the place of the natural human impulse to worship and/or place faith in something beyond themselves? And if there IS a God…how would He respond to this? All questions that need to be asked and discussed as we move into a future in which A.I. is now not only on the horizon but in some respects is acting as a god in the here and now with its worshipping adherents.

At the end of the day religionists question the so called wisdom (arrogance?) of those that have rejected God and replaced Him with gods of their own making.

Those gods can take many different names.

Regards,
MG

[Res Ipsa]

Here is one of many examples why Meyer does not belong in a science curriculum.https://www.amazon.com/review/R2HNOHERF ... 64b2939ab7 It's a review on the Amazon page for Meyer's second book: Darwin's Doubt. When MG is blathering on about punctuated equilibrium the Cambrian "explosion," he's parroting what Meyer wrote in this book.

Why should we take the review seriously? Well, it was written by an actual paleontologist who has both written textbooks on paleontology and one of the best books for a general audience on the actual evidence in the fossil record and what it means in terms of evolutionary theory. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Prothero

TL/DR -- Meyer misrepresents the actual evidence found in the fossil record. The entire book is an egregious example of the straw man fallacy.

If you want to understand Meyer, the branch of the Discovery Institute that he founded, and why what they do is not science, an excellent source is the Panda's Thumb. https://pandasthumb.org

[Res Ipsa]

The ID folks, as you call them, aren't convincing anyone with scientific arguments because their arguments fail to actually be demonstrable with evidence. The only folks convinced that it is science are folks like you who have a need to demand others order society around your mythologies.

What your claims consist of isn't a competing explanatory theory but rather an argument from a God of the Gaps. It inserts "god" as "x" for a theory and expects it to be given equal consideration as an argument built from evidence. If you then assert there is evidence for God, that isn't itself an opposing scientific theory but a theological belief.

For me it is a combination of factors that lead me towards a Mind behind the creation. As I’ve already said, I think the evidence (even as a layperson) demonstrates that evolution has been a prime mover in the ongoing saga of life on earth. But at its very root the questions are still there. Is there a ‘Mind’ or ‘Intelligence’ behind the scenes running the show?

As you’ve alluded to this becomes somewhat a question of faith. I choose faith, but not willy nilly faith. ID does play a part. Anthropic Principle/Goldilocks Principle/Rare Earth Hypothesis plays a part. Choosing ‘purpose’ over randomness plays a part.

If I’m not mistaken, everything as we know it can be reduced to ‘information’ bits. What is the source of that information at its root level/core?

This person’s views somewhat parallel my own:

https://medium.com/@achalissery/chapter ... 685fce4cb3

We can describe evolutionary theory whether we choose the ID version or another, but we haven’t been able to get at the ‘source of all things’. That remains a mystery to scientists.

From this link:

Science has been able to give a plausible explanation as to how it all started and how most of what we see around works. Unfortunately Science cannot give credit to the Intelligence that is behind all Creation. That is something that the scientists, physicists, biologists, mathematicians and astronomers have to sort out. That is their problem. The facts are on the table. No one, in the last 5–10,000 years have been able to disprove the existence of an Intelligence behind all creation.

This intelligence we Latter-Day Saints refer to as the Creator or Father of all things. The Supreme Being. It is not unreasonable to place faith in a Creator in whom all knowledge dwells. An intelligence that has provided REAL purpose (beyond our own making) for our existence, now and and also hoped for afterlife existence.

Yes, this is a ‘faith’ in something not known for a fact, but hoped for based upon evidence not seen but believed to be true.

As with most of the discussion here it all comes down to whether or not there is a creator God. Everything is dependent on THAT. I and many other people of faith chose to believe in a Mind behind the creation.

Others don’t.

But when the don’ts are having greater and greater influence on the education of our children that becomes a concern for those that believe in some sort of accountability and affiliation towards a Creator and/or Supreme Intelligence.

Again, that is the point of this thread and it’s OP. What does the future hold if we were to become a society, a world, in which theistic belief plays second fiddle to those that would ‘kill’ God?

That’s a concern. Who or what takes the place of the natural human impulse to worship and/or place faith in something beyond themselves? And if there IS a God…how would He respond to this? All questions that need to be asked and discussed as we move into a future in which A.I. is now not only on the horizon but in some respects is acting as a god in the here and now with its worshipping adherents.

At the end of the day religionists question the so called wisdom (arrogance?) of those that have rejected God and replaced Him with gods of their own making.

Those gods can take many different names.

Regards,
MG

ID isn't a version of evolutionary theory at all. "Nu-uhhh" is not a theory.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

This person’s views somewhat parallel my own:

https://medium.com/@achalissery/chapter ... 685fce4cb3

I have to ask. What were your google search key words that resulted in Augustine Chalissery coming up as a hit?

- Doc