One of the old-age questions is how the Universe came into existence and life developed in it. Some people believe that there could be an intelligent design behind the cosmos, but is that true? An answer to this conundrum has been provided today by a scientist at the University College Dublin in Ireland.
During his lecture, geneticist Steve Jones, a professor with the University College London, spoke to the title “Why Creationism is Wrong and Evolution is Right”. He pointed out that creationism seems to be resurging in the form of a new concept called “intelligent design”. Both ideas rest on the belief that the whole of the Universe - including humankind - has been designed by a high power being. Advocates of these two schools of thought argue that some systems, such as life forms, are too complex to have managed to evolve on their own. The schools differ, however, in that creationism is a religious belief and intelligent design has, arguably, a scientific basis.
Professor Jones further explained that there is concern within the biology community today about the return of an explanation for the origin and development of life in the Universe that is unsupported by evidence and that claims that life on Earth simply appeared by natural means with no evolutionary process involved. The untestable nature of the claims that both creationism and intelligent design make has consequently led many biologists just to dismiss both beliefs.
There is a history of heated debate on the origin of life on Earth and the diversity of species. Indeed, many people who do not see how Darwin’s theory of evolution successfully explains this have opted for either intelligent design or creationism. Professor Jones pointed out that Darwin’s theory of evolution is the prevalent belief on a global scale and that polls have shown that, for instance, most Americans believe in creationism.
In his talk, Steve Jones argued against supernatural explanations by elaborating on the theory of evolution. He laid out some evidence by referring to the changes in the HIV virus after infecting people. He also provided new evidence in favor of the idea that men are close relatives to chimps. He explained that women are closer to chimpanzees than men are because the X chromosome has changed less than the Y chromosome since humans and chimps split from a common ancestor. Jones concluded that unsupported theories that appeal to the existence of a higher power discredit religion more than science.
Professor Jones is the recipient of the 1997 Royal Society’s Michael Faraday Prize, the UK’s top award for communicating science to the public.
Original Source (s):
University College Dublin Press Release
UCD Conway Institute of Biomolecular and Biomedical Research
Guardian Unlimited (2006 article)
Picture Credits:
Tulane University
Ok, I expected that Darwin’s theory of evolution would be most prevalent globally, but I thought that would be the same case in the U.S. “Most Americans believe in creationism.” Really? I knew we were prevalently Christian, but seriously? That’s really hard to believe that most Americans think that, given the strong evidence of evolution. I wonder what poll this was/where it was taken/how many people/who the people were, etc. It says “most Americans,” which could include North AND South America, but given the context it sounds like it means U.S. citizens. I thought we had enough well-educated and scientific people in the U.S. that we would lean more towards evolution. We teach it in the classrooms even!
Hi Shaun,
Steve Jones is referring to US Americans not to North, Central and South America. And I was as surprised as you are to hear that “most” Americans choose creationism/intelligent design over Darwin’s theory of evolution. I am under the impression - and this is mainly based on what European scientists, humanists and media have reflected over the past years - that several US schools have been trying to include intelligent design/creationism at the expense of evolution theory in their educational programs. Here’s a link to an article by AP on CNN’s website (http://www.cnn.com/2005/EDUCATION/11/08/evolution.debate.ap/) that reports on this topic. Whether or not true, this is the message we are getting from the States…
There was a 2005 poll conducted by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life, in which 42% of respondents (the American people) expressed a belief that humans and other animals have existed in their present form since the beginning of time.
This poll has been widely quoted and is probably the source of Steve Jones’ statement.
So it’s not most Americans … but perhaps nearly half, according to this pole.
Deborah
The article says that “most Americans believe in creationism,” depending on how the question was asked couldn’t this simply mean exactly what is says? That most Americans believe in creationism? Certainly you can believe in both creationism and evolution, after all, I don’t think that by proving evolution as fact one can disprove the existence of a creator. Perhaps most Americans believe in creationism and evolution at the same time.
To believe in evolution one must believe that matter just appeared according to the big bang. This in itself refutes evolution because there was nothing and then it exploded, still results in the faith that NOTHING exploded into something. How can nothing explode? It takes faith.
Evolution requires there to be something to evolve from. There is either an intelligent designeer or we don’t exist because “nothing exploded” which means we are nothing so we don’t exist. Or we are something miraculous.
“That’s really hard to believe that most Americans think that, given the strong evidence of evolution.”
It’s not really hard to believe given that your sentence is based on the word evolution, a term of equivocation that is used by its proponents to mean anything from all change that has ever taken place in the Cosmos to a minute change in the size of bird beaks. It is fitting that proponents rarely actually define and specify the term they have chosen given that they purport to explain away all specification, species and the words by which we define them. Given the lack of definition typical to the use of this term it is little more than hypothetical goo that it is based in.
The article:
“He explained that women are closer to chimpanzees than men are because the X chromosome has changed less than the Y chromosome since humans and chimps split from a common ancestor.”
These fellows who are naturally selected to deny the sentience and sapience of Homo sapiens used to say that blacks were more closely related to apes and so on with no real empirical evidence because what they’re really doing is citing their own imaginations about the past as if it is empirical evidence. That has long been the Darwinian way and that is why Darwin interwove his own imagination into the structure of his arguments: “If I couldn’t imagine a sequence of events that seem natural to me, then my theory would absolutely break down. It seems that I can always imagine something.” If you can treat your own imagination as evidence then the evidence will always favor what you’re saying in an “overwhelming” way, if only because the blurred forms of your imagination can overwhelm your mind.
A question for anyone, is a Darwinian struggle for survival and government by the law of natural selection true of Homo sapiens now? And if Darwinian reasoning about survival of the fittest and so on isn’t true now how are you sure it has always been true in the past?
Where does the information come from?
Once upon a time, 20 billions of years ago, all matter
(all elementary particles and all quarks and
their girlfriends- antiparticles and antiquarks,
all kinds of waves: electromagnetic, gravitational,
muons… gluons field ….. etc.) – were assembled in a “single point”.
It means that all information also was assembled in a “single point”.
And then there was ” big bang ” and all information flew to bits
in different sides.
Suppose , that every bits of a “single point”, every particle
of a “single point” is the owner of some information.
Then there are two possibilities:
a) every particle has the own information and after 20 billions years
they accidentally united and created everything including a man.
The aim of it is to observe all accidental possibilities.
b) in the beginning every particle has zero information .
Question :” How does zero information further arrive to a
very high informational level ? ”
========.
If you go on way a) - so maybe yes, maybe no
you will pass through a forest of knowledge .
If you go on way b) - you will pass a forest of
theoretical knowledge along a straight road.
========.
Why I say so?
The visible matter of world is only a small part of all mass in the Universe.
More then 90% of the matter in the Universe is unseen,” dark matter “.
Nobody knows what it is and therefore it is possible to say that more
then 90% of information is hiding and unknown to us.
So our aim must be to study “dark particles ” or…..
………..
We know, there is no information transfer
without energy transfer. More correct : there is no quant
information transfer without quant energy transfer.
And the electron has the least electric charge.
It means it has some quant of the least information.
What can electron do with this information?
Let us look the Mendeleev / Moseley periodic table.
We can see at first, that electron does, it interacts with proton
and creates atom of hydrogen. This is simplest design,
which was created by electron.
And we can see how this information grows and reaches
high informational level. And the most complex design,
which was created by electron is the Man.
The Man is alive essence. Animals, birds, fish are alive essences.
And an atom? And atom is also alive design.
The free atom of hydrogen can live about 1000 seconds.
And someone a long time ago has already said, that if
to give suffices time to atom of hydrogen, he would turn into Man.
Really, it is not beautiful, is it ?
Maybe it is better not to search about “dark, virtual particles ”
but to understand what the electron is,
because even now nobody knows what electron is.
=======================
Was I mistaken? No.
Because according to Pauli Exclusion Principle
only one single electron can be in the atom.
This electron reanimates the atom.
This electron manages the atom.
If the atom contains more than one electron
(for example - two), this atom represents ” Siamese twins”.
Save us, the Great God, of having such atoms, such children!
Each of us has an Electron, but we do not know it.
========.
Why does only electron have quant of information?
Maybe does proton also have quant of information?
No. Single proton has no quant of information.
Why?
Because information can be transfered only by
electromagnetic fields. And we don’t have a theory
about protono-magnetic fields.
==========.
Once upon a time, in the beginning, there was
one “single point ” accidentally.
Then it has accidentally blown up
Big Bang ” has taken place.
It was the reason of accidental creation of some thousands
kinds of elementary particles and their girlfriends - antiparticles.
Then atom of hydrogen was formed accidentally
Then complex atom was formed accidentally.
Then stars were formed accidentally.
Then the Planet the Earth was formed accidentally.
Then the fauna was formed accidentally.
Then the animal kingdom was formed accidentally.
Then the man was created accidentally.
And this man can accidentally think logically.
But of course, unfortunately, not always.
==============.
Many years ago man has accustomed some wild
animals (wolf, horse, cat, bull , etc.)
and has made them domestic ones.
But the man understands badly the four-footed friends.
In 1897 J. J. Thomson discovered new particle - electron.
Gradually man has accustomed electron to work for him.
But the man does not understand what an electron is.
==============
For my peasant logic at first it is better to understand
the closest thing (for example an electron) and then
to study the far away space and particles
(for example dark, black, virtual …etc particles).
============.
Best wishes.
http://www.socratus.com
http://www.wbabin.net/
I like the way Zeph described it, I think that description fits me pretty well. And being SPECIFIC to avoid the content being called “hypothetical goo”, the word evolution as I interpret and use it means:
The change of mankind (or womankind) from the beginning of the existence of mankind or its earliest ancestors, up to mankind’s present state. I think that’s appropriately specific enough.
We seem to leave out of the discussion that the very concept of existance, and existance it self, could not have evolved from nonexistance. In otherwords, some Uncaused Cause must have decided for there t o be existance. Mindless natural matter, or accidental natural processes, do not have the capacity to declare: “you will exist”. This demonstrates the logic and reason for an ultimate First Cause, who decided our existence.
-Brian
“The change of mankind (or womankind) from the beginning of the existence of mankind or its earliest ancestors, up to mankind’s present state. I think that’s appropriately specific enough.”
The more you begin to define the hypothetical goo at the root of Darwinian reasoning the more it will be falsified by empirical evidence in the case of mankind because it is based on a false philosophy of man to begin with. You argue that Darwinian evolution governs mankind’s present state? Then why don’t Homo sapiens always reproduce to the limit of their food supply, thus generating a struggle for life that shapes the survival of the fittest?
As the philosopher David Stove noted of Darwinian reasoning:
“It is by no means true, then, even of all animal populations, that they are always as large, or are rapidly tending to become as large, as the available food would permit. For populations of pine, cods, and countless other species, it is not doubt a useful approximation to the truth, to say that they always blindly and quickly multiply up to the numbers that there is food to support. But by the time one gets to man, it is a grotesque travesty of the truth to say this. Human life is full of opportunities for reproduction which the supply of food would permit, but which are not taken in fact.
…our species practices, or has practiced, on an enormous scale, infanticide, artificial abortion, and the prevention of conception. No other species does anything at all of this kind, but we do, and we appear to have done so always. If the Malthus-Darwin principle were true, then every human life which has ever been deliberately ended before birth or shortly after it, or has ever been deliberately prevented from beginning, would otherwise soon have been ended anyway, by starvation. Have you ever heard of anything more ridiculous than this? In the city where you live, hundreds or thousands of artificial abortions are performed every day. Is it really true that there is not enough food to support even one of these potential children into adulthood? Well, that is what the Malthus-Darwin principle says…”
(Darwinian Fairytales: Selfish Genes, Errors of
Heredity and Other Fables of Evolution
by David Stove :39-40)
One could go on to list error after error when it comes to basic empirical facts vs. Darwinian reasoning. There is one simple reason why Darwinian speculation goes so far off the more sapience/intelligence an organism has, the sentience and intelligent selections of higher organisms are not governed or explained by natural selection. One could cite our own experience of sentience or any number of plain empirical facts to make the case against Darwinism but typically proponents shift away from explaining higher life forms and begin to argue how effective it is at explaining fish or cod or a minute change in the size of bird beaks.
But since you seem enamored with such reasoning and seem to believe that it explains mankind’s present state let’s say that it does in your case, therefore all the symbols and signs of intelligence you try to write or communicate are an illusion brought about by things like chance, time and natural selection. So it would seem that we cannot identify the text which you write here as an artifact of intelligent design recognizable its highly specified nature, the information rich traces of symbols and signs typical to intelligent design and so on. Given that, one should not talk to the illusion of you as a sentient being capable of creating information in the formation of things through the intelligible workings typical to intelligence. Instead one should focus on the real truth of all organisms which is governed by things like natural selection. You may think you are thinking but your thoughts are really just an illusion dictated by the mating habits of some ancient worms, so one should study ancient worms instead of your words.
“Mindless natural matter, or accidental natural processes, do not have the capacity to declare: “you will exist”.”
When a mind believes that the matter through which it thinks is all that matters then it is fundamentally irrational on its own terms so it is not as if a naturalist or materialist will be able to understand what you just wrote. You think that mind can set matter in motion while they feeel that matter is all that is even after they think that they have followed the trail of a supposedly unbroken chain of material cause and effect back into a singular moment of creation of all cause, effect and time. Similarly, what is the materialist to make of the observations typical to quantum mechanics? It’s little wonder that a pseudo-Newtonian view of Nature as a closed system and an unbroken chain of being which contains its own reason is being undermined.
An interesting note:
“The British physicist William Bonner, for example, suggested that the Big Bang theory was part of a conspiracy aimed at shoring up Christianity: ‘The underlying motive is, of course, to bring in God as creator. It seems like the opportunity Christian theology has been waiting for ever since science began to depose religion from the minds of rational men in the seventeenth century’
Fred Hoyle was equally scathing when it came to the Big Bang’s association with religion, condemning it as a model built on Judeo-Christian foundations. His views were shared by his Steady State collaborator, Thomas Gold. When Gold heard that Pius XII had backed the Big Bang, his response was short and to the point: ‘Well, the Pope also endorsed the stationary Earth.’
….
However, this wariness sometimes bordered on paranoia, as noted by the English Nobel Laureate George Thomson: ‘Probably every physicist would believe in a creation if the Bible had not unfortunately said something about it many years ago and made it seem old-fashioned.’ “(Big Bang: The Origin of the Universe by Simon Singh :361-62)
cf. http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/they-would-have-believed-in-creation-if-it-wasnt-in-the-bible/
in an infinite univese or a big bang, big crunch, big bang,…etc. over and over, an infinite number of outcome is possible and sooner or later,…if that can apply to infinite,you will arrive with the universe as we see and understand it. infinity demands that all things have occured will occur.or are presently occuring.
Wow, I should have checked this out a few days ago…lots of stuff to say, but I’ll be satisfied for now answering the question that many people have had about most Americans believing in creationism. Earlier this past summer, there was a poll that questioned a large number of Americans on several issues, including their political beliefs and whether they believed that creationism is the correct explanation for the diversity of life on Earth currently and in the past (of course, the poll didn’t ask the question this way, but this is how the question should really be thought through). If I remember the numbers correctly, 64% of Americans said that they believed in creationism. Slightly surprisingly for some people (though not to me), this was relatively uniform across the political parties: something like 67% of Republicans believe in creationism and 63% of Democrats believe in it. As far as I know, no intelligence measure (such as “what is your IQ?”) was included in the poll, but my guess would be that if it had been, the results would have been relatively uniform–in fact, I wouldn’t be completely surprised if the creationists ended up with a slight edge, seeing as you sometimes have to be pretty clever to be able to turn creationism into a coherent belief system. Of course, most of its proponents are simply happy passing on quotes and explanations that they get from their churches, fellow believers, and especially creationist web sites (I could write many pages about how these sources get their “information” and why they’re successfully able to pass it onto others). Anyway, yes, it’s true that most American’s believe in creationism; the main reason for this is that most of the world’s fundamentalist Christians live in the United States, and when you have concentrated communities with these people, others who might have different “basic” religious beliefs often get caught up in the misinformation, especially since creationists are very big proponents of trying to pass on their beliefs to whoever will listen. They’re actually often good and nice people, but are simply very dogmatic in their beliefs and very closed-minded about things that might cause them to question their beliefs; this tends to be true of people in general, no matter what their political or religious inclinations. I often joke that there is an inverse relationship between IQ and number of bumper stickers on the back of one’s motor vehicle.
“in an infinite univese or a big bang, big crunch, big bang,…etc. over and over, an infinite number of outcome is possible and sooner or later…”
Then it would be possible in such a universe that an infinite number of outcomes would be impossible sooner or later. That’s just basic logic. The fact is, some things actually are impossible no matter how much time or space exists.
“Anyway, yes, it’s true that most American’s believe in creationism; the main reason for this is that most of the world’s fundamentalist Christians live in the United States, and when you have concentrated communities with these people, others who might have different “basic” religious beliefs often get caught up in the misinformation….”
That’s simplistic. History indicates why: “The most notable evolutionist contributor to The Fundamentals was George Frederick Wright, a renowned glacial geologist and professor of the harmony of science and revelation in Oberlin College. Wright had been a Darwinian for more than forty years when The Fundamentals appeared. In the mid-1870s he joined with Darwin’s most prominent American supporter, Asa Gray, in publishing a collection of Gray’s essays on Darwinism and natural theology.
….we shall have to look to the decade after the First World War to find a movement militantly opposed to evolution, a Fundamentalism that supplied the imagery to reinforce the metaphor in which the post-Darwinian controversies had been cast.” (The Post-Darwinian Controversies
By James Moore :72-73)
Fundamentalists largely supported Darwin originally until more people began to recognize the proto-Nazi nature of Darwinism and eugenics, their original support comports with the historical pattern of Christians or Christian apostates supporting Darwin on theological grounds instead of scientific grounds. Those who support Darwinian reasoning currently still often fail to focus on facts, logic and evidence in the least and instead rely on theology or philosophy. One can ask biologists how the theory of natural selection has been stated in the language of mathematics and verified in a trajectory of adaptation in a group of organisms given that they equate their hypothetical goo with the theory of gravity and so should be able to specify it and falsify or verify it in the same way and they will shift to theological claims. They cannot predict that the panda’s thumb would evolve into its current form or specify the supposed force of natural selection that governs evolution so they shift to theology and argue that any evidence which they believe indicates a lack of God’s selection is therefore evidence of natural selection. Without such theological props their mentally incompetent ideas about evolution recede back into the hypothetical goo from which they emerged, yet on the irony is that when creationists want to enter into their game to answer it with positive theology then the same evolutionists who just finished engaging in theology become hypocrites who argue that science and theology must be kept separate.
You should probably read this article:
http://www.mtulode.com/article.php?articleId=775
Excerpt:
“Yet this time the menace [of intelligent design] comes not really from the United States. Although they gave birth to the modern ID movement, design arguments did not originate there. Early design arguments were already present in Europe’s intellectual bosom and formulated by Greek philosophers such as Socrates and Plato. Describing
the structure and function of the eye, Socrates asked “whether a disposition of parts like this should be the work of chance, or of wisdom and contrivance?” Design arguments are steeped in observations of the natural world and follows as conclusions based on these observations. Creationism, by contrast, is based on revelation given in form of a religious creation story. As a creationist, you may very likely be interested in arguments that point to design, but there is no valid way to infer creationism from such arguments. Moreover, linking creationism and intelligent design thus leads to the absurd conclusion that people like Socrates were creationists.”
I’m surprised that Professor Jones would call creationism “wrong.”
It’s an unproven belief, and perhaps true I’ll grant it that, but if science calls it “wrong,” then by definition creationism would become a valid scientific hypothesis subject to experimental validation. As it is, creationism remains unprovable by scientific means, and, this is why it must stay out of the science classroom.
“As it is, creationism remains unprovable by scientific means, and, this is why it must stay out of the science classroom” … jorgesalazar
If this is the measure by which we determine what is and isn’t allowed in the science class room then there is much more material that needs to be taken out of the science class room since much of science is theoretical only and not provable. Would you be in favor of truly removing all material from the science class room that is not provable? Theories and or anything based partially or entirely on theory is not provable but at best probable.
Wow, this is a really great debate… I can’t decide myself, I mean, creationism really seems pretty kookie and to fly in the face of common sense. But I have to say that a lot of evolution doesn’t make much intuitive sense either. Now while that shouldn’t be cause for belief or disbelief I think it’s compelling to go back to the beginning, be it the big bang or Let there be light, and ask yourself: where did the big bang or let there be light take place? in space? what kind of space? no space? When did it take place? In time? what time? no time? Because time and space are fundamental qualities of physics there is really no defining them clearly, because they are the things we use to define everything else, and so in that way they bare a lot of resemblence to the concept of creationism or intelligent design… you can’t really prove or disprove that they exist b/c you don’t have the proper perspective… I guess the only true answer is: I don’t know. That’s my own personal opinion, but it’s still very interesting to talk and think about (although I wouldn’t get too concerned about what percentage of americans believe in whatever or whatnot) these are fascinating topics to discuss and ultimately lead to speculations on time, and space, on infinity, and I guess, ultimately (I speak for myself) on God… or that which we cannot know.
As a student of “Cell & Molecular Biology” & “Genetics” I have seen how both of these subjects reinforce Darwin’s view of evolution. As an amateur astronomer, I can see how ‘The Big Bang Theory” seems to defy the known laws of Physics.