Evolution

Out of respect for Aunt Bee, I have chosen not to post this as a comment on her blog.

The first, and most important point, for anyone who feels evolution contradicts their beliefs (whether Christian, Hindu, or whatever) is that before you start trying to find scientific evidence to corroborate your position, you need to understand exactly what evolution says and doesn't say. If you do not, you risk making yourself look like an idiot. It's like deciding to invade Iraq without bothering to get a decent map first. See, there are a lot of Creationist sites and books that say "Look at this!" and triumphantly declare that they've shown evolution is false. Evolutionists look at the same info and either say "So?" or "Geez, they're all idiots," simply because the Creationists have no clue what it is they're actually attacking.

The second point, is why does it matter? Science says one thing. Your beliefs say another. So what? In latching onto science itself to support your faith, you are undermining your own beliefs and indicating to an outside observer that you know your position is weak without science to back it up. If your beliefs are true to you, it should not matter that science disagrees, nor should it matter that your children learn both viewpoints. There are plenty of things that I've experienced that science would dismiss as coincidence or meaningless. I know better. I have no need to vindicate my experiences with science. I am not that insecure.

The third point, is that Creationists are not doing science, even when they try. Before you go all litig on me, let me explain. Scientists are presented with evidence. The evidence suggests a hypothesis. Scientists gather more data to test that hypothesis and either confirm, reject, or modify it. Creationists look at data and try to force it to a preconceived mold. If it does not fit the mold, they reject the data, not the hypothesis. This is not science. Scientists "follow the evidence," as Grissom would say. Creationists try to beat it into submission. (I will be the first to admit that scientists have been guilty of this as well, but at least they have other scientists who can catch that. I have yet to see any Creationists debunk each other. AiG's complaints about Carl Baugh are as near to criticism as Creationists get of each other. See Religious Tolerance for an example of refusal to admit even glaring mistakes.)

The fourth point, is that Creationists don't actually seem to care whether the science they present to people is valid or not. It is more important to them that people believe that it is valid. This is not science. This isn't even pseudoscience. This is garbage.

Now, anyone reading this who is a Creationist is undoubtedly at least annoyed with me, if not angry. And I'm sure you have lots of arguments to show that Creationists are actually doing science. If you can find one not on the Index to Creationist Claims, I'll be very surprised. AiG has one that I haven't seen addressed directly on Talk-Origins, but enough mass to actually create an event horizon around the earth would have left some mark in the record.

I think it is very, very revealing that talk-origins links to nearly every major Creationist site, yet NO Creationist sites link back to it. This does not indicate any openness to dialogue. Science requires dialogue, feedback, and criticism. More importantly, it requires a grounding in the actual subject matter. AiG is the only site I've seen that indicates some Creationist arguments have been discredited. Thus it is the only site I consider even remotely scientific.

As for the trilobyte/sandal issue, that's on talk-origins as well: The Meister Print. This is (of course) not conclusive proof. There is no such thing as conclusive proof beyond observing the event for ourselves.

I can think of lots of other things to say, but I think the last point I need to make is that evolution is not an isolated "theory" of science. It is supported by physics, geology, astronomy, biology, and a host of others that I know little about. Data from disparate disciplines agrees on many critical points that Creationists attack (including the age of the earth). So in attacking evolution, you're attacking all of science. You're attacking the science that allows me to type this missive and allows you to read it and get angry with me. You're attacking the science that allows us to make medicines to treat diseases. You're attacking the science that allows us to blow Iraqis to smithereens with the touch of a button. No one requires you to believe all the conclusions of science to be a good citizen, though. As for me, the trees tell me their memories go back millions of years. And while I am perfectly serious about that, I would never, ever claim that was a scientifically valid reason for anything.

If you don't like the talk-origins scientific bias, look through the evolution material at Religious Tolerance. Just search for evolution and you'll find plenty. They try to be neutral as much as possible, however they are also the source of this little gem:

"A conflict based on the number of fossils observed:

Creation scientists teach that the fossil remains of land animals which have been found trapped in the many rock layers were all actually alive at the time of Noah's flood. These few generations of animals all drowned. Some turned into fossils and were trapped in the layers of sedimentary rock which were laid down during the 150 days of the flood.

With our present knowledge, it appears impossible to harmonize this belief with the actual number of fossils in existence.

Robert Schadewald wrote: "Robert E. Sloan, a paleontologist at the University of Minnesota, has studied the Karroo Formation [in Africa]. He asserts that the animals fossilized there range from the size of a small lizard to the size of a cow, with the average animal perhaps the size of a fox. A minute's work with a calculator shows that, if the 800 billion animals in the Karoo formation could be resurrected, there would be twenty-one of them for every acre of land on earth." 1 That is, if all of the fossils of animals in the Karroo Formation had been alive at one time, were drowned during the flood of Noah, and ended up evenly spaced around the entire land surface of the earth, there would be 21 animals per acre. 2 A very conservative estimate is that there are about 100 fossils elsewhere on earth for each fossil in the Karroo Formation in Africa. Thus, assuming that all of these animals were evenly distributed, there would have been over 2,100 living animals per acre of land - "ranging from tiny shrews to immense dinosaurs" when the flood hit. This is clearly impossible.

To make the creation science story even more unlikely, only a small percentage of animals ever form fossils when they die. Assuming that 1 of each 1,000 land animals is fossilized, (an outrageously high number) then there would have been about 50 land animals per square feet of land wandering around at the time of Noah. The Earth would have been packed "wall-to-wall" with creatures. Animals would have been stacked on other animals to form multiple layers. Even if, as many creation scientists believe, the land area on earth Earth was much greater than it is today -- that is, closer to 100% than to 25% -- the number of animals alive at the time of Noah would have had to be enormous -- massively beyond the ability of the Earth to support.

To make the creation science story even more unlikely, animals could not be evenly distributed around the entire land mass. This means that the piles of animals covering some areas would be even deeper.

Scientists have concluded that the world's fossils came from millions of generations of animal life spread out over many hundreds of millions of years. Since all of the fossils were formed over a very long interval, then only a very tiny fraction of the animals would have been alive at any one time. The Earth could and did accommodate them all."

To my mind, the only way for Creationist views to be correct is if God deliberately planted false evidence in His Creation. This is also known as the "lying God" hypothesis, and that sums up my opinion of it. *sighs and wonders when the flamethrowers will hit*

ADDENDUM: I put a more philosophical view on my Taoist blog. Note that the only absolute in Taoism is that there are no absolutes. :-)