Since I keep reading again and again that the core of evolution is a "fact" and all the "facts" that support it, etc, etc. blah blah blah... I wanted to respond to that general idea. Maybe me with my "unreasoned beliefs and poor science education" doesn't understand the difference between a fact and an interpretation of facts. (I'm being facetious, because I actually have a better science education than most) Just so you know a little about me: I have a Bachelors of Science in Biological Engineering from a major secular university in the USA. Basically take a pre-med degree and an engineering degree and combine them. I also use to be a Theistic evolutionist (probably out of convenience of believing both Christianity and evolution were true), it wasn't until I was getting my degree that I realized the major problems and lack of true evidence/fact for evolution. Of course you have to be able to read and think for yourself to evaluate the spoon feeding mantra of evolutionary doctrine. It reminds me of the Jedi mind trick from star wars: picture the wave of the hand as "evolution is a fact" is said. Most science books just claim it is true, give some basic ideas behind it then move on to the real science, most science doesn't actually use anything more than observable natural selection and adaptation, even that is limited to the life sciences. The assumption (or interpretation) is that it applies to speciation or "macroevolution" as well. And yes, as kyu consistently says I do side with creationist (I believe God had his hand in creating the universe and life) though I don't agree with them on all points, such as the age of the earth being only 6,000 years old, but dating issues is another topic...
Sorry I'm rambling, but anyway. The "facts" are not was is normally disputed. Things like "There is a dinosaur fossil in this layer of rock" or "this bacteria adapted to this new drug", or "gene duplication and other genetic copying errors happen." These are the facts that everyone is ok with, they are scientifically verifiable. The problem is when a person takes the step from facts to theory, or said another way when someone interprets the significance or meaning of the facts. While it is necessary to interpret the facts so that you can apply them. There is a lot that goes into interpretations, such as one's working worldview and previous or "a priori" assumptions. A lot of evolutionist seem to ignore this fact. Most of you it seems to have a purely materialistic worldview where only material causes can even be considered to exists. You have thrown out any possibility of God/design before even looking at the meaning of the evidence. This limits your scope of reason, logic and science. Therefore you have accepted Darwinian evolution as "fact" because you have thrown out any other possibility, when in reality what you really have is just an interpretation of the facts, or a theory.
Take the fossil record for instance. It is a valid assumption that there were once living organisms that left countless fossils for us to find today. We have the fossil, that is a fact. Gaps in the fossil record is a fact. Coming up with a lineage of those fossils is where interpretation comes in, that common ancestor interpretation is already based on the assumption that evolution is true. Claiming that gaps (lack of fossils) is evidence for evolution is an interpretation, I can just as easily interpret it to mean that there are no transitions, since there is no evidence. So you make your interpretation of the facts fit your assumptions (as I do too). When in reality we don't know the actual lineage of any fossils. If you found two human skeletons buried in the same gave, and you had accurate dating. One being about 40 years older than the other. There is still no way to tell if one was related to the other (other than the obvious both human), fossils just can't give that type of information, it is only a snapshot of a single organism. It gets exponentially harder when you take two different species then say one is a precursor or common ancestor to the other, just because you date one later and they have similar features. It seems that evolution is assumed true, you make a lineage of fossils, then use that as evidence that evolution and common ancestry is true. It seems circular to me. Just look at modern animals for such as the Giant Panda and the red Panda, if you went by just morphology from bones you would say they are related, yet the debate was finally settled that one is a bear and the other a raccoon, not that one evolved from the other. Or look at the marsupial vs. placental animals. They are extremely similar in skeletal structure and morphology, yet they are vastly different and current evolutionary thinking is that they each evolved separately, an amazing claim sense there are correlating wolves, cats, squirrels, ground hogs, anteaters, moles, and mice. All very similar, yet not believed to have evolved from each other. But as just fossils this would be very difficult to say that the two wolves or squirrels are not evolved in the same line.
I hope you get my main point and don't get caught up in the minor details. Its fine to say you believe in evolution or that you think it is true, but its overreaching to say that it is "fact" and to act like only smart people believe what you believe. Also, It is naive to say that the "facts" are what led to the theory. Evolutionary thoughts and philosophy has been around for over 2000 years, there was a major philosophical movement toward it before Darwin provided any scientific explanation for it. The facts are not what's disputed, but the interpretation is. You're just patting each others shoulders and it is clear that you don't understand how thought has progressed throughout history and how scientific evidence for theories comes in degrees, not truth claims. Most philosophies and theories start with a lot of promise because they have a lot of initial explanatory power, normally during this stage a common error is that they get applied to many more areas of thought than they should (such as Descartes trying to explain all of life using mathematics, or evolutionist trying to explain religion or morality) but as they are worked through the realization that they only have a limited application becomes undeniable and a new wave of thinkers rise up in place of the old. At that point it is put in its proper place for another more accurate theory. We have see this easily in physic as the shift from Newton to Einstein to quantum,etc. It's probably easier to accept this type change because it doesn't carry the baggage and implications for life that evolution and design does.
ok, I'll stop now, and sorry I wrote a book I just think it needed to be said.
Sorry I'm rambling, but anyway. The "facts" are not was is normally disputed. Things like "There is a dinosaur fossil in this layer of rock" or "this bacteria adapted to this new drug", or "gene duplication and other genetic copying errors happen." These are the facts that everyone is ok with, they are scientifically verifiable. The problem is when a person takes the step from facts to theory, or said another way when someone interprets the significance or meaning of the facts. While it is necessary to interpret the facts so that you can apply them. There is a lot that goes into interpretations, such as one's working worldview and previous or "a priori" assumptions. A lot of evolutionist seem to ignore this fact. Most of you it seems to have a purely materialistic worldview where only material causes can even be considered to exists. You have thrown out any possibility of God/design before even looking at the meaning of the evidence. This limits your scope of reason, logic and science. Therefore you have accepted Darwinian evolution as "fact" because you have thrown out any other possibility, when in reality what you really have is just an interpretation of the facts, or a theory.
Take the fossil record for instance. It is a valid assumption that there were once living organisms that left countless fossils for us to find today. We have the fossil, that is a fact. Gaps in the fossil record is a fact. Coming up with a lineage of those fossils is where interpretation comes in, that common ancestor interpretation is already based on the assumption that evolution is true. Claiming that gaps (lack of fossils) is evidence for evolution is an interpretation, I can just as easily interpret it to mean that there are no transitions, since there is no evidence. So you make your interpretation of the facts fit your assumptions (as I do too). When in reality we don't know the actual lineage of any fossils. If you found two human skeletons buried in the same gave, and you had accurate dating. One being about 40 years older than the other. There is still no way to tell if one was related to the other (other than the obvious both human), fossils just can't give that type of information, it is only a snapshot of a single organism. It gets exponentially harder when you take two different species then say one is a precursor or common ancestor to the other, just because you date one later and they have similar features. It seems that evolution is assumed true, you make a lineage of fossils, then use that as evidence that evolution and common ancestry is true. It seems circular to me. Just look at modern animals for such as the Giant Panda and the red Panda, if you went by just morphology from bones you would say they are related, yet the debate was finally settled that one is a bear and the other a raccoon, not that one evolved from the other. Or look at the marsupial vs. placental animals. They are extremely similar in skeletal structure and morphology, yet they are vastly different and current evolutionary thinking is that they each evolved separately, an amazing claim sense there are correlating wolves, cats, squirrels, ground hogs, anteaters, moles, and mice. All very similar, yet not believed to have evolved from each other. But as just fossils this would be very difficult to say that the two wolves or squirrels are not evolved in the same line.
I hope you get my main point and don't get caught up in the minor details. Its fine to say you believe in evolution or that you think it is true, but its overreaching to say that it is "fact" and to act like only smart people believe what you believe. Also, It is naive to say that the "facts" are what led to the theory. Evolutionary thoughts and philosophy has been around for over 2000 years, there was a major philosophical movement toward it before Darwin provided any scientific explanation for it. The facts are not what's disputed, but the interpretation is. You're just patting each others shoulders and it is clear that you don't understand how thought has progressed throughout history and how scientific evidence for theories comes in degrees, not truth claims. Most philosophies and theories start with a lot of promise because they have a lot of initial explanatory power, normally during this stage a common error is that they get applied to many more areas of thought than they should (such as Descartes trying to explain all of life using mathematics, or evolutionist trying to explain religion or morality) but as they are worked through the realization that they only have a limited application becomes undeniable and a new wave of thinkers rise up in place of the old. At that point it is put in its proper place for another more accurate theory. We have see this easily in physic as the shift from Newton to Einstein to quantum,etc. It's probably easier to accept this type change because it doesn't carry the baggage and implications for life that evolution and design does.
ok, I'll stop now, and sorry I wrote a book I just think it needed to be said.
"An unexamined life is not worth living." - Socrates
