Contributions of Creationism/Intelligent Design to Science

reply to post by Pimander


As has been posted in this thread or others like it numerous times now, here are some observed instances of speciation.

Observed Instances of Speciation
Some More Observed Speciation Events

Now, I have a question for you. Since you admit that speciation occurs in insects and in the lab, what is the mechanism that prevents it occurring in other organisms outside of the lab?

reply to post by libertytoall


The micro-/macroevolution dichotomy is a false one that is propaganda created by Creationists. I have a question for you similar to the one I just asked Pimander. What prevents the small changes of "microevolution" from accruing into the large changes of "macroevolution?" And before you start insulting people's intelligence maybe you should learn the scientific definition of theory. It's been posted in every thread on evolution at least once and I'm pretty sure someone even has it as their signature. For your own edification here is the definition once again.

A scientific theory comprises a collection of concepts, including abstractions of observable phenomena expressed as quantifiable properties, together with rules (called scientific laws) that express relationships between observations of such concepts. A scientific theory is constructed to conform to available empirical data about such observations, and is put forth as a principle or body of principles for explaining a class of phenomena

Originally posted by Xcalibur254
reply to post by Pimander

 

As has been posted in this thread or others like it numerous times now, here are some observed instances of speciation.

Observed Instances of Speciation
Some More Observed Speciation Events

Now, I have a question for you. Since you admit that speciation occurs in insects and in the lab, what is the mechanism that prevents it occurring in other organisms outside of the lab?

Good question

In those two links there is only one example of an animal undergoing speciation (formation of five new species of cichlid fishes) apart from in insects and in that example it was not observed occurring and the species was still capable of breeding with the species it is alleged to have broken away from (not true speciation.)

The links you gave me illustrate my point. There has been speciation - of that there is no doubt. It has rarely been observed in 'higher animals' - if at all.

What prevents it occurring outside the lab? Nothing. It simply happens rarely. A likely explanation is the theory of punctuated equilibrium which has been ably championed by Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge.

Punctuated equilibrium (also called punctuated equilibria) is a theory in evolutionary biology which proposes that most sexually reproducing species will experience little net evolutionary change for most of their geological history, remaining in an extended state called stasis. Punctuated equilibrium also proposes that stasis is broken up by rare and rapid events of branching speciation called cladogenesis. Cladogenesis is the process by which species split into two distinct species, rather than one species gradually transforming into another.[1] Punctuated equilibrium is commonly contrasted against the theory of phyletic gradualism, which states that evolution generally occurs uniformly and by the steady and gradual transformation of whole lineages (anagenesis). In this view, evolution is seen as generally smooth and continuous.
en.wikipedia.org...

.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/0ee399e0517b.gif[/atsimg]

Finally, I will let Gould speak for himself.

Originally posted by Astyanax
theories amount to fact, not faith.

No facts amount to theories. The facts are the dots - the theories are the lines that connect the dots - just because you connect 2 close dots does not mean the lines are correct, because you never know how many other dot's could in reality actually come between the ones you are connecting - but you exercise a bit of faith in your theory that the dots you are connecting are close enough that it is probable your theory is right

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


The bottom line, which in your overly long post you have ignored, is that I keep asking you how the Big Bang theory was derived from the idea that a supreme intelligence created the universe, you've yet to provide that. As for the Genesis thing, you were guilty of misrepresentation, that's why I'm bugging you about it. I have no problem with people treating it as myth, I have a problem with people misrepresenting what is written in the myth.

Now, you're calling me a liar...yet you're really just calling a straw man a liar. I never said that he wasn't a creationist, I'm saying that you have yet to show how the idea that a supreme being created the universe directly led to the idea of

You keep lying, directly. You keep saying that I'm not taking Lamaitre as an example of a creationist...yet I'm not talking about creationists in this thread. He may have been a creationist, so was Newton. For that matter, so was Galileo. I have no problem conceding that creationists contributed anything to science, they're people capable of scientific thought. I'm asking where the contribution of creationism lies. I want you to prove your assertion that Lamaitre arrived at his position solely through the conjecture that a supreme intelligence created the universe.

It's called science, please understand how it works. Theories make predictions. Nowhere in the idea of creationism is the Big Bang a logical conclusion.

reply to post by Xcalibur254


For convenience, I made a thread. Now you only have to create one link, not two. I was also seriously tired of the assertion that there aren't any observed instances of speciation and I hoped to spark a discussion that would show creationists the error of their ways.

Originally posted by Xcalibur254
reply to post by libertytoall

 

The micro-/macroevolution dichotomy is a false one that is propaganda created by Creationists. I have a question for you similar to the one I just asked Pimander. What prevents the small changes of "microevolution" from accruing into the large changes of "macroevolution?"

I can play that game too. What prevents a god from existing that created all life which then evolved?

I don't want to put my faith in unproven data either way.. Evolution holds enough weight to have become a theory and it may turn out to be true but it certainly has yet to be proven on a large scale, meaning it's not a fact..

reply to post by madnessinmysoul

The bottom line, which in your overly long post you have ignored, is that I keep asking you how the Big Bang theory was derived from the idea that a supreme intelligence created the universe, you've yet to provide that. As for the Genesis thing, you were guilty of misrepresentation, that's why I'm bugging you about it. I have no problem with people treating it as myth, I have a problem with people misrepresenting what is written in the myth.

And still you continue to lie! I did not misrepresent a thing about Genesis. You are pedantically insisting that my omission of 1:1 meant something, when all I did was go directly to the language that is remarkably similar to the explanations of the Big Bang Theory. Further, your assertions that my few paragraphs constitute "overly long posts" is laughable considering I am quite careful to keep them as brief as possible so as not facilitate your pedantry and annoying proclivity towards breaking down each and every sentence, quoting it, then ranting on for two, three, sometimes endless paragraphs so that a few paragraphs can easily wind up facilitating a post from you that stretches on for what can feel like forever. Ha!

Now, you're calling me a liar...yet you're really just calling a straw man a liar. I never said that he wasn't a creationist, I'm saying that you have yet to show how the idea that a supreme being created the universe directly led to the idea of

You are a liar, and your O.P. never demanded members who post "show how the idea that a Supreme Being created the universe", or even how that assertion led directly to the idea of, say the Big Bang Theory, and just because later you attempted to make that the game, it is a game I am not interested in playing. Had you been honest from the get go, I never would have entered this silly thread.

You keep lying, directly.

You may as well be looking in a mirror.

You keep saying that I'm not taking Lamaitre as an example of a creationist...yet I'm not talking about creationists in this thread.

See what I mean? Read your own O.P.!

I have no problem conceding that creationists contributed anything to science, they're people capable of scientific thought. I'm asking where the contribution of creationism lies.

This is not what you stated in your O.P. I don't care if it is because the O.P. was poorly written, or because you are now changing the rules of the game. I read your O.P. and my first thought was of Lemaitre. You can pretend all you want that Lemaitre was not directly influenced by Genesis when forming his hypothesis, it is pretense and nothing more.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by madnessinmysoul

 

I have no problem conceding that creationists contributed anything to science, they're people capable of scientific thought. I'm asking where the contribution of creationism lies.

This is not what you stated in your O.P. I don't care if it is because the O.P. was poorly written, or because you are now changing the rules of the game. I read your O.P. and my first thought was of Lemaitre. You can pretend all you want that Lemaitre was not directly influenced by Genesis when forming his hypothesis, it is pretense and nothing more.

Actually, it's exactly what he asked in the OP

I keep seeing people espousing the creationist/intelligent design point of view and I'd simply like to ask: What the hell has it ever contributed to science?
What valuable, applicable knowledge has been gained from it?
What are the applications of this knowledge?
Where has it been applied?
Who applied it?

reply to post by MrXYZ

I keep seeing people espousing the creationist/intelligent design point of view and I'd simply like to ask:

Read that sentence carefully. It is the height of disingenuous to suggest that Lemaitre, a Catholic priest for crying out loud, did not have a Creationist point of view.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


But he came to his conclusion based on observation and mathematical/physical/astronomical analyses...and because he also had a relationship with Einstein. It's not as if being a Catholic made him draw conclusions from scientific evidence

In short, whether or not he was a creationist didn't influence his findings and the outcome of his analysis of given evidence.

reply to post by MrXYZ

But he came to his conclusion based on observation and mathematical/physical/astronomical analyses...and because he also had a relationship with Einstein. It's not as if being a Catholic made him draw conclusions from scientific evidence

Monsignor Lemaitre did not choose physics as his calling, he chose the Church as his calling, and yes, he did rely on physics, this is actually one of the points I am trying to make here. Lemaitre was trying to align the two disciplines. I understand that I can't change stubborn minds, but I still see it as absurd that people are actually trying to convince me that a Catholic priest rejected Creationism in order to reach a scientific conclusion. This is just not the case. You can't pretend that Creationism didn't come into play when he formed this hypothesis. Do you seriously think he didn't even consider the ramifications? Are you suggesting that he determined that his hypothesis was a contradiction of the Creationist point of view?

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


Doesn't change the fact that it was LeMaitre who made the contribution, and that it wasn't based on creationism. He came up with the theory because of his involvement with science, and it's backed up by objective evidence following scientific method.

Show me proof that the theory is explained and backed up by using creationism.

It's backed up through astronomy, cosmology, and physics...not creationism

It doesn't matter what his personal BELIEFS were, he could have been a serial raping pedophile atheist, it would still not invalidate the theory...

Originally posted by libertytoall
I can play that game too. What prevents a god from existing that created all life which then evolved?

I don't want to put my faith in unproven data either way.. Evolution holds enough weight to have become a theory and it may turn out to be true but it certainly has yet to be proven on a large scale, meaning it's not a fact..

edit on 24-3-2011 by libertytoall because: (no reason given)

No you can't play that game for obvious reasons.

Life and the universe are explained pretty well without the invocation of some supernatural being. If you do invoke a god as the creator then what created god? Why insert a being infinitely more complex than the universe whose very creation assumes to be either an infinite regress or requiring no explanation at all, the latter being a contradictory position on the need for a creator. Contradictions can not exist. Our scientific understanding of the world is not a contradiction and requires no creator. Thus god is superfluous.

As for "micro and macro" evolution, species with shorter life cycles have undergone speciation that has been observed, studied, and well documented in the laboratory and in nature. Species with longer life cycles, according the theory of evolution, are not expected to change over brief periods of time because of the robustness of canalized genes, therefore direct observation of change for "higher" organisms will never happen. Having said that, there is an overabundance of evidence to suggest no mechanism exist that prevents speciation from occurring at "macro" levels, and smooth gradients of DNA and fossils have been uncovered and thoroughly analyzed to identify phylogenic relationships. The Human Chromosome 2 even has a proverbial "magic marker" showing where the chromosome fused over the last 5 million years of diverging from our closest cousins, the bonobo and pygmy chimps, leaving us with 46 and other apes with 48. Seriously, under a telescope you can see an anomalous indentation that is an obvious indication of the fusion between two chromosomes.

Evolution is true, it happens. There is variation between traits and reproductive success, thus evolution occurs. If you don't believe this than you are a lost cause.

reply to post by MrXYZ

Doesn't change the fact that it was LeMaitre who made the contribution, and that it wasn't based on creationism. He came up with the theory because of his involvement with science, and it's backed up by objective evidence following scientific method.

It is precisely because it was Lemaitre, (the M is not capitalized), who advocated this theory that it is clear that it is rooted in Creationism.

Show me proof that the theory is explained and backed up by using creationism.

Oh, for crying out loud! Fine, let me do the work for you then:

As odd as it may sound, Lemaitre was upset when Pope Pius XII endorsed his theory. He felt that approval from the pope would make his science less acceptible to skeptics. Still, Lemaitre had recognized the religious implications of his theory all along. In an unpublished paper written in 1922, he wrote that he believed that the universe had begun in light "as Genesis suggested it." (His scientific theory was not published until nine years later.)

www.christianhistorytimeline.com...

I took this dialogue from "In praise of science", by Sander Bais. It's a conversation between father George Lemaitre (the Big bang Guy) and some scientists, as remembered by the great Physicist Victor Weisskopf (After a talk where Lemaitre demonstrated that the earth was 4.5 billions of years):

"So, you believe the Bible?"

"Yes, every word is true"

"But, how can you tell us the earth is 4.5 billions of years, if the bible says it is about 6000 years old?"

That is no contradiction"

"How come?"

"God created the earth 6000 years ago, with all the radiactive substances, the fossils, and other indications of an older age. He did this to tempt humankind and to test it's belief in the bible."

"Why are you so interested in finding out the age of the earth if it is not the actual age?"

"Just to convice myself that God didn't make a single mistake."

www.rationalskepticism.org...

And because of assertions such as this:

I was there when Abbe Georges Lemaître first proposed this [Big Bang] theory. ... There is no rational reason to doubt that the universe has existed indefinitely, for an infinite time. .... It is only myth that attempts to say how the universe came to be, either four thousand or twenty billion years ago. [Expressing his belief that the Big Bang is a myth devised to explain creation. He said he heard Lemaître (who was, at the time both a member of the Catholic hierarchy and an accomplished scientist) say in private that this theory was a way to reconcile science with St. Thomas Aquinas' theological dictum of creatio ex nihilo—creation out of nothing.]

— Hannes Alfvén

Lemaitre would counter with arguments such as this:

As far as I see, such a theory [of the primeval atom] remains entirely outside any metaphysical or religious question. It leaves the materialist free to deny any transcendental Being. He may keep, for the bottom of space-time, the same attitude of mind he has been able to adopt for events occurring in non-singular places in space-time. For the believer, it removes any attempt to familiarity with God, as were Laplace's chiquenaude or Jeans' finger. It is consonant with the wording of Isaiah speaking of the 'Hidden God' hidden even in the beginning of the universe ... Science has not to surrender in face of the Universe and when Pascal tries to infer the existence of God from the supposed infinitude of Nature, we may think that he is looking in the wrong direction.

— Monsignor Georges Lemaître

www.todayinsci.com...

Lemaitre was, as has been said by others, concerned that his hypothesis would not be taken seriously because of his position in the Church. How ironic you and the O.P. make the arguments you now make, no? Even so, there are atheists who will make arguments to the contrary:

Science is the opposite of religion. Right? No! Wrong! Religion is always trying to infiltrate into religion. Sometimes it succeeds. For instance, in the Big Bang theory.

...

To some nonbelievers, like me, the Big Bang theory seems just a disguised version of the Bible creation, when Jehovah said "Fiat Lux", and the universe was created. So far as I am concerned, in spite of the beautiful mathematical formulas of the scholars, I can't accept that this indescribably immense universe has been originated from a single atom (or from a fireball the size of a baseball), all of a sudden, out of nothing. I would rather believe in Santa Claus.

www.positiveatheism.org...

This next Link is a biography of Lemaitre. Whether or not you will actually take the time to read the text, I have no control over, and of course, if I want some measure of control on that text, I cannot just simply copy and paste, and must type into the EX-TEXT, any relevant text:

"Father Lemaitre's intellectual background was unique. His education was a synthesis of the classics, philosophy, and theology, along with engineering, mathematics, and physics. Perhaps this powerful combination is what allowed his mind to formulate a concept as abstract and significant as The Primeval Atom Hypothesis..."

It appears that Pius XII's underlying assumption was that the supernatural act of divine creation began with the early stages described by the Primeval Atom Hypothesis:

"...contemporary science with one sweep back across the centuries, has succeeded in bearing witness to the august instant of the primordial Fiat Lux, which along with the matter there burst from nothing a sea of light and radiation...Thus, with that concreteness which is characteristic of physical proofs, modern science has confirmed the contingency of the universe and also the well founded deduction to the epoch when the when the world came forth from the hands of the Creator"

Statements such as these contradicted contradicted Lemaitre's own strict distinction for the tools of investigating matters of science and theology. "He realized quite fully the tentative and hypothetical character of scientific theories and for this reason alone, if for no others, opposed the use of such theories to support philosophical, theological, or faith statements. As a result, Professor Lemaitre wanted his scientific theories to be judged exclusively on their physical merit, keeping metaphysical implications completely separate.

This next passage from the biography is particularly important and supports precisely what I have been saying all along:

Despite his unquestionable scientific credibility, Lemaitre's priesthood often led skeptics to question his theories, believing the Big Bang was "presented in the spirit of concordism with the religious concept of creation, and even received its inspiration from that religious concept."...Father Lemaitre had an excellent response to such critics:

"Should a priest reject relativity because it contains no authoritative exposition on the doctrine of the Trinity? Once you realize that the Bible does not purport to be a textbook of science, the old controversy between religion and science vanishes...The doctrine of the Trinity is much more abstruse than anything in relativity or quantum mechanics; but, being necessary for salvation, it would have been revealed to St Paul or to Moses...as a matter of fact neither St Paul nor Moses had the slightest idea of relativity."

And then there is this:

Throughout all of this, Lemaitre knew that the very nature of his research led man to consider the theological implications. Speaking to Catholic scientists, Lemaitre said:

"The Christian researcher has to master and apply with sagacity the technique appropriate to his problem. His investigative means are the same as those of his non-believer colleague...In a sense, the researcher makes an abstraction of his faith in his researches. He does this not because his faith could involve him in difficulties, but because it has nothing directly in common with his scientific activity. After all, a Christian does not act differently from any non believer as far as walking or running or swimming is concerned."

Continuing he states:

"He (the Christian researcher) knows that not one thing in all creation has been done without God, but he knows also that God nowhere takes the place of his creatures. Omnipresent divine activity is everywhere essentially hidden. It never had to be a question of reducing reducing the Supreme Being to the ranks of a scientific hypothesis"

This last quote of his is profoundly important in understanding the undeniable influence of Genesis and Creation while also understanding why he was so insistent on making clear that regardless of this influence, his theories were done in a scientific manner and not a theological one, out of a profound respect to God.

It is getting late, and in order to accommodate you and the O.P. on this proof issue I have spent much time on this single post, when in all fairness you could have just Googled this yourself. That so many of his skeptics insisted on accusing him of using his scientific research to promulgate religious ideas, including Einstein, only makes clear that such a criticism seemed fairly evident to many more than just I His insistence on separating the two disciplines was not in the same vain as you or the O.P., but was a desperate attempt to gain credibility while all the while holding strong with his faith.

I have clearly not cherry picked data here in order to create an appearance that Lemaitre was insisting that it was Genesis alone that advanced his hypothesis, and in doing so, (this is what a critical thinker does), I expect the same courtesy and I would ask you or the the O.P. not to ignore parts I have quoted in order to stubbornly insist that the fact that a Jesuit Priest was the one who first advanced a hypothesis that has remained the dominant theory in cosmology has nothing to do with his belief in Genesis.

It is a complex issue, and simplifying and reducing it the way the O.P. is clearly attempting to do is not at all conducive to finding the truth. Lemaitre was a complex man, clearly and admittedly influenced by the Bible, and Creationism, but not some fool, and was just as profoundly influenced by the scientific method. Out of respect for this man, perhaps you and the O.P. can, at the very least, attempt some facsimile of this complexity, and leave your bias outside of this thread long enough to see that it was indeed a Jesuit Priest profoundly influenced by Genesis that first considered, in wholly scientific terms The Big Bang Theory. In this regard, Genesis has contributed to the furtherance of science.

It is also worth noting, that rather than thump a Bible and attack non believers, Lemaitre instead embraced a field, (science), where he was continually treated with suspicion and skepticism because of his faith, and was able to accept non religious views without being dismissive or petty and close minded, and just went about the business of faith and science gracefully juggling the two disciplines.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


According to your logic, the laws of gravity are also to be credited to creationism given that Newton was a Christian...right?

Again, they justified their findings through empirical evidence, not religion. Show me where he backed up his theory with religion! Fact is, he didn't...he didn't do it, because he knows that's not how scientific method works. In short, he looked at the evidence, and then came up with a conclusion. No part of creationism is used to validate the theory, it is therefore irrelevant for that theory.

To make it even clearer. Our numbers are Arabic...and form the basis of numerous theories, including the big bang. So according to your logic, we all have to thank Allah for those discoveries? That's beyond hogwash!

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

I am quite careful to keep (my posts) as brief as possible...

Yes, go on...

...so as not facilitate your pedantry and annoying proclivity towards breaking down each and every sentence, quoting it, then ranting on for two, three, sometimes endless paragraphs so that a few paragraphs can easily wind up facilitating a post from you that stretches on for what can feel like forever. Ha!

If that's the best you can do at keeping it short, Twitter is not for you, Jean-Paul.

Oh, and it's quite clear who goofed and is now trying to cover it up with big words and bluster. Sorry, chum; we can all read English, and some of us can understand it too. You misread or misunderstood the OP. Take it like a man and stop squirming. It's embarrassing to watch.

reply to post by MrXYZ

According to your logic, the laws of gravity are also to be credited to creationism given that Newton was a Christian...right?

My logic? Logic is not a pair of pants, or shoes that someone wears. Logic is not something owned, it is a disciplined that is practiced. Naturally, given your proclivity to eschew logic, you need this explained to you.

Again, they justified their findings through empirical evidence, not religion. Show me where he backed up his theory with religion! Fact is, he didn't...he didn't do it, because he knows that's not how scientific method works. In short, he looked at the evidence, and then came up with a conclusion. No part of creationism is used to validate the theory, it is therefore irrelevant for that theory.

This is the changing of the rules I am talking about! There is no way that the O.P. declared that I or anyone else must show how religion is a scientific doctrine, and of course, when I made the effort I made last night because you were too lazy to make the effort yourself, it was fairly predictable that you would not even speak to that and instead rely on the same sort of tactics that the priest class do and use misdirection as a method to declare yourself right.

Here is the fact of the matter, prior to Lemaitre's hypothesis, it was a steady state universe that was being advocated. Let me explain what that means, since it is doubtful at this point that you understand, the presumption was that there was never any creation of the universe, it just always existed. It took a Creationist to come along and by using the tools of science, demonstrate that it was more likely that the universe was indeed created, and will likely end.

Because of his religious background, the vast majority of scientists, including Einstein, saw his advocacy as a religious one, espousing the Creationist point of view. Lemaitre's objection to this was that he did not rely on the tools of religion to derive his findings, but that he used the tools of science, but that so many scientists saw in his hypothesis similarities between Genesis and his hypothesis, and indeed, that the Church, and the Pope, also saw this, seems to get lost on you.

Lemaitre never denied his influence was distinctly religious, he objected to actual science being dismissed as not being science - a point that Einstein accepted as valid, and because of this Einstein was one of the first to applaud Lemaitre for his efforts - but that it took someone influenced by Creationism to finally change the scientific paradigm of a steady state universe is not something I am making up, nor am I misconstruing its importance.

Both you, and the O.P. and to some degree the clown who has posted below your post I am responding to now, are not interested in critical thought, and clearly not even interested in science, all you are interested in is dismissing the validity of religion, and will use all sorts of mystical nonsense - how ironic is that? - foolishly believing this non critical thought is somehow a valid way to argue. You are not interested in finding truth, just interested in attacking that which you do not understand. All of which doesn't change the fact that it took a Creationist to contribute to science a hypothesis that radically changed scientific paradigm and by using science convince secular science that the universe was most likely created.

^ great post and very educational for the creationist bashing crowd

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

Here is the fact of the matter, prior to Lemaitre's hypothesis, it was a steady state universe that was being advocated. Let me explain what that means, since it is doubtful at this point that you understand, the presumption was that there was never any creation of the universe, it just always existed. It took a Creationist to come along and by using the tools of science, demonstrate that it was more likely that the universe was indeed created, and will likely end.

Mhhhh, the big bang theory he campe up with doesn't state the universe was created

Look, he came up with his theory by observing nature and doing scientific calculations...NOT because creationism supported the theory. He didn't say "the big bang theory is correct because of creationsim". He came to his conclusions because of using scientific method...so creationism had nothing to do with it. He could have been a satanist or atheist, he would have arrived at the same conclusion