Theres a thread already. But id like a response from the author or anyone who can tell me what he is thinking.

Quote :

"Have you ever been shown why evolutionary theory is accepted as true? I do not ask if you have heard of Darwinism or have been told by ten gray-bearded men with Ph.D.'s that evolution is a fact; but have you ever really seen any "proof"? I was speaking to my physics professor about evolution a couple of semesters ago and asked where the matter, energy, and finely tuned physical constants necessary for the "big bang" came from. Instead of admitting evolution's inability to explain the ultimate origin of the physical universe, or at least the inherent weakness of the Big Bang theory, my professor just waved her hand and said, "Oh, well, science just has not told us that yet." But, if science has not told us this yet, then we certainly should not reject all opposing theories and claim to be doing so on scientific grounds. After speaking to her, I thought to myself, "What a flippant dismissal of one of the greatest questions facing mankind!" Whenever we accept a theory regarding society, mankind, or the origin of the universe, we must be mindful of its consequences. If we think man is designed for a specific purpose, then what does that purpose tell us about the nature of his designer? If society is morally obliged toward patriarchy, then what of the value of women? Are they really truly inferior to men? These types of questions are indispensable to measuring the truthfulness of theories with such vast, life-defining import. And, from a purely logical perspective, any of these theories we propose must not simply pass on one or two points but must provide a logically cohesive possible answer to all the questions which fall within the theory's explanatory context. In other words, if someone comes up with a theory about God which explains very well the reason for "loving" one another, yet contradicts the reality of pain and suffering in the world, then this theory simply does not work. When a young boy tells his mother the scratches on his knee are the result of him taking-a-spill at a local skating rink, he has said nothing extraordinary-- unless there is no local skating rink, in which case the mother would toss his explanation into the flames. By all means, we are entitled to ask, "Does the Darwinian theory of evolution meet this criteria?" And I mean a non-theistic, naturalistic explanation for the origin of life. This theory of evolution supplants a creator God and says that all life emerged after an incomprehensible number of random mutations, occurring over an incomprehensible amount of time, and defying incomprehensible odds. Strictly, technically, and literally, we are but the products of time, matter, chance and energy--or so claims evolutionary theory. Perhaps one of the most direct ways of measuring evolution--as there are great scientific minds on both sides of the debate--is by weighing evolution against the experiential realities of our daily lives. After all what evidence or subject of study could we possibly know better than mankind? Take for instance, human sexuality, the physical consummation of one's love for another person. Think about its wonder and complexity; the immense pleasure it brings, the binding affect upon the heart, the eruption of emotions, and the creation of a new life. Every one of us has felt the gravity of the desire for human sexuality, and almost every one of us has been privileged to hold a newborn baby within their arms. Both sexuality and life are two of the most sacred things to us. But if we are but the products of time, matter, energy, and chance, from where do we derive this sacredness. If sex is simply natural, then laws against rape prohibit natural affections. If life was created by natural selection, then Hitler was an icon of evolutionary progress, for he simply expedited the process of natural selection to benefit the human species. Furthermore, if we are but random off-shoots of DNA, then why is it so important to strive to further our own race? Without a transcendent reason for our existence, our desire to live and help one another is no more noble than our preference for spicy or salty foods--we simply respond to our DNA. Darwin himself struggled with this very issue; he worried that if we believed nature was simply "red in tooth and claw," then the out-workings of this philosophy would be devastating and horrendous. If you look at almost anyone claiming to be on a religious pilgrimage, you will find they are basically searching for meaning in life. And throughout our own lives, if we are honest, we will admit that meaning has been one of our chief pursuits. A meaningless existence is simply discontenting to the human heart. But ask any believer in non-theistic, naturalistic evolution if the universe has any meaning, and they will answer in the negative. For the universe is simply energy in its various configurations acting upon matter, nothing but a simple cause and effect. So could it be that ultimately all life is meaningless, yet we feel such a desperate need to find meaning in our own lives? That is to say, the surpassingly meaningless path of evolution is brindled with little bitty pieces of meaning along the way. There is such a vast incongruity between the nature of mankind and the theory of evolution, that it behooves us to at least question if not wholly doubt the theory. Ultimately, if we are to accept this form of evolution, we do so by faith and at the altar of everything we understand about the desires and dignity of mankind. A once professor of quantum physics at Cambridge University, Dr. John Polkinghorne, discussing the likelihood of the conditions necessary for the Big Bang, has said, "It would be like taking aim at a one-square-inch object at the other end of the universe twenty billion light years away and hitting it bull's eye." We would do well to understand that believing in evolution--a theory which flies in the face of the ineluctable, experiential realities of our lives--is a bold leap of faith."

Its nice how in the middle of this article you claim to be refuting a non-theistic theory of evolution, but for the rest, and the title, you make the gross error of excluding this vital qualifier. You just call it 'evolution'.


In the introduction, you clearly state that you are refuting "evolutionary theory" in this column. But then you mince terms. In a middle paragraph you claim to be actually refuting something that is not even a scientific concept to begin with; the inexistence of god, a "non-theistic" thoery of evolution. Why do you pervert the debate? Why do you seek to stupify our pupulation? Why not restate this qualifer, why not state it plainly in the introduction?

so;

9/16/2005 4:27:01 PM

in this response to a readers remarks;

Quote :

"My Response: Dear _____ , You wrote: "First and foremost, evolution says absolutely nothing about the origin of the universe or about the origin of life." That is correct. I never said evolution had anything to do with the origin of the universe or with the Big Bang theory. What I said was that if we cannot know a theory to be overwhelmingly true, we cannot rule-out alternative theories. Sadly, many who hold to non-theistic, naturalistic evolution reject to the notion of "God" or to the theory of "intelligent design" and claim to do so on scientific grounds. But they are betraying a philosophical prejudice, for science has not shown this to be true. You wrote: "Secondly, evolution does not require 'defying incomprehensible odds' [...] Mutations are indeed random, but after going through the filter of natural selection, the result is anything but random. The beneficial mutations reproduce tend to reproduce, and harmful mutations tend to die out." For life to have been spawned my non-theistic, naturalistic evolution, the changes had to have been random and multitudinous. Natural selection only works once you have life. For natural selection "selects" those changes which do you contribute to the organism's survival for death. Thus, since the construction of chemical systems which comprise life is not aided by natural selection, and since in the absence of natural selection all changes are random, it follows that non-theistic, naturalistic evolution has to defy incomprehensible odds--for it is extraordinarily unlikely that elements combine and systems form which are capable of forming and sustaining life. You wrote: "The third point is that evolution is not by any means a 'weak' theory." Generally when people want to attack an argument, they do so by attacking one of the premises of that argument. You did not do that, however. My arguments were that non-theistic, naturalistic evolution plainly contradicts the experiential realities of our lives. Since the experiential realities in our lives are rendered false or ultimately meaningless by non-theistic, naturalistic evolution, you either need to disprove the experiential realities of our lives or show my premises false. Since you did neither of the two, I am perfectly rational is my belief that non-theistic, naturalistic evolution is indeed false. You wrote: "I suggest Mr. Underwood enroll in Biology 101 and take notes." Thanks for the suggestion, but I'm too busy finishing my chemistry degree. I suggest that you reread my column and try to do one of the following things: *disprove the experiential realities in our lives that I mentioned *show how non-theistic, naturalistic evolution can account for the experiential realties in our lives that I mentioned Until you have done one of these things, you have failed to successfully refute the primary contention of my column, that non-theistic, naturalistic evolution is false."

You clearly concede this here. You owe us an apology, correction and retraction. Is it valid for me to claim the bible advocates sex with children becuase some priests must clearly think so? No. You cant have it both ways. You are morphing a scientific theory into a philosophical issue so you can try to pick it apart, probably because its the only thing you know how to do.


Since you asked for the following, ill give it to you.

Quote :

"*disprove the experiential realities in our lives that I mentioned *show how non-theistic, naturalistic evolution can account for the experiential realties in our lives that I mentioned"

*To create a scientific theory or law that is accepted, one is not required to disprove the existence of all evidence contrary to it. In fact, scientific theories sometimes change, and by definition, are not infallible. They are simply the best understanding of truth as we know it.Also, "experiential realities" doesnt really mean anything on their own. Experiments are required to make conclusions. Perhaps you are asking us to disprove your conclusion? That *might* makes sense. Although maybe you are asking for something else.

*I cannot show this. One cannot disprove the existence of God. We've known this forever. Which means, YOU WIN! Youve framed a debate about the validity of evolution and demanding someone concede they cannot see an invisible man. No sir, I cannot prove God doesnt exist.

9/16/2005 4:27:31 PM

sounds like he had a basic philosophical thought and explained it

wow, great

9/16/2005 4:31:58 PM

evolution is science, not philosophy. thats the whole point. you cant refute science on the grounds of philosophical conjecture.

i see no reason why point masses can spin, yet they do. we dont refute the existence of electron spins , though.

[Edited on September 16, 2005 at 4:33 PM. Reason : -]

9/16/2005 4:33:06 PM

you cant prove anything ever

is that the answer you're looking for? cause its the right answer

9/16/2005 4:35:32 PM

no

9/16/2005 4:38:26 PM

im just saying in general you cant prove a lot of things beyond a shadow of a doubt...if the person wants concrete evidence of the source of the big bang, hes shit out of luck...i tend to believe things that make the most sense and seem the most likely at the time, while acknowledging i could be dead wrong

9/16/2005 4:41:18 PM

of course -- thats the nature of science.

we go with the evidence; we select the best.

[Edited on September 16, 2005 at 4:56 PM. Reason : -]

9/16/2005 4:55:19 PM

Quote :

" tend to believe things that make the most sense and seem the most likely at the time, while acknowledging i could be dead wrong"

this is the essence of science. Underwood doesn't really get this.


if you WANT to believe something you will

9/16/2005 5:53:04 PM

I did not think Underwood was that stupid.

9/16/2005 6:15:38 PM

Smath's evolution thread(s) are better

9/16/2005 7:43:58 PM

fuck daniel underwood

9/16/2005 7:46:58 PM

Quote :

"Instead of admitting evolution's inability to explain the ultimate origin of the physical universe, or at least the inherent weakness of the Big Bang theory, my professor just waved her hand and said, "Oh, well, science just has not told us that yet.""

I pretty much quit reading after this part.

Evolution doesn't even try to explain the origins of the universe, only how life changes from one form to another. The tool that asked this question clearly has no actual understanding of what evolution is, only what some hardcore, anti-evolution Creationist has spoon-fed to him/her.

[Edited on September 16, 2005 at 8:42 PM. Reason : asdf]

9/16/2005 8:41:34 PM

I actually kinda like a few of his columns. Hes conservative but I agree with a lot of the points he makes about the social ways of undergraduate life.

If I thought he was a complete idiot I wouldnt have asked for a response.

9/16/2005 10:34:19 PM

Whoa... I had no idea this column -- being nearly a year old -- might still attract attention.

Were I to re-write this column, there would be a few things worded differently.

Yes, I'm quite aware that evolutionary theory deals with change, not creation. Yes, I'm quite aware that evolutionary theory and various theories of the origin of the universe and/or life are to be treated separately.

The thrust of my argument, however, did not deal with origins. I tried to build a case -- both contingent upon certain assumptions of the reader and constrained by a bothersome 900 word limit -- that, if one accepts a few, as I called them, "experiential realities," this person cannot accept a naturalistic, non-theistic theory of evolution (assuming, of course, that evolution is to be held guilty for spawning mankind).

And now, for the quote that has bothered nearly half the NC State campus, for perhaps good reason:

Quote :

"Instead of admitting evolution's inability to explain the ultimate origin of the physical universe, or at least the inherent weakness of the Big Bang theory, my professor just waved her hand and said, "Oh, well, science just has not told us that yet.""

This is admittely unclear. I had in my mind the entire context of the conversation I had with the professor. When I wrote this column, or at least while typing this sentence, I for a moment forgot that the reader wasn't there with the professor also. I completely understand how this sentence was misunderstood. Like I said, some things would be worded differently the second time around. This is one of them.

Having said that, I stand by my essential argument.

---------

I know this won't quell all disagreement, but it will at least provide a certain degree of clarification. And please don't expect me to sit around and respond to every counterargument under the sun. I'm not fortunate enough to have that much time.

As to the "fuck daniel underwood" comment, please, go easy on me. I can't contend with such intellectually sophisticated argumentation...

9/17/2005 1:08:14 AM

Josh8315 wrote:

Quote :

"*To create a scientific theory or law that is accepted, one is not required to disprove the existence of all evidence contrary to it. In fact, scientific theories sometimes change, and by definition, are not infallible. They are simply the best understanding of truth as we know it.Also, "experiential realities" doesnt really mean anything on their own. Experiments are required to make conclusions. Perhaps you are asking us to disprove your conclusion? That *might* makes sense. Although maybe you are asking for something else. *I cannot show this. One cannot disprove the existence of God. We've known this forever. Which means, YOU WIN! Youve framed a debate about the validity of evolution and demanding someone concede they cannot see an invisible man. No sir, I cannot prove God doesnt exist."

Bravo! You're addressing exactly what I wanted people to address.

(not that I necessarily "agree" with you, but then, that's what's so great about open discourse...)

[Edited on September 17, 2005 at 1:12 AM. Reason : ]

9/17/2005 1:11:22 AM

It would be great if the author of this column could just stick to things he's knowledgeable about. It doesn't take much research (or education into the subject) to find 'proof' of evolution. But I suppose you don't need much of real research or facts when all you want to do is argue philosophical ramblings.

Quote :

"evolution is science, not philosophy. thats the whole point. you cant refute science on the grounds of philosophical conjecture. i see no reason why point masses can spin, yet they do. we dont refute the existence of electron spins , though. "

I think that's really all that needs to be said in response to the column -- you're probably just wasting your time trying to argue with someone that simply can't or won't grasp the point.

9/17/2005 1:32:42 AM

Thanks for responding, so my grand point is;

Most people dont believe life was created due to utter random chance, and people like yourselves accuse people who believe in evoution of that pervert the discourse and rally the radical extremists.

Thats why being very clear about who you are arguing against is so important.



So please, if you ever publish anything again on evolution or creatism or intellegent design, you must be very explicit about the terms you use, and you should define them in at least the introduction.




[Edited on September 17, 2005 at 1:40 AM. Reason : -]

9/17/2005 1:36:15 AM

Eh, so what if it's all random chance?

"Well I don't think my life is meaningless 'coz that makes me feel bad" - that's not much of an argument.

And don't even get me started on the, "OMFG, rape and Hitler! RAPE AND HITLER!!111" part...

9/17/2005 2:53:13 PM

^yea, those are some of the most irrelevant arguments

Quote :

" Perhaps one of the most direct ways of measuring evolution--as there are great scientific minds on both sides of the debate--is by weighing evolution against the experiential realities of our daily lives."

No, it's not. This is so stupid.

9/17/2005 3:23:32 PM