I think that there is one key problem in the debate between creationism and evolution: there is no actual debate!

As Rev. Nolting pointed out briefly in the first chapter, the existence of God is unfalsifiable. This means that it is a priori impossible either to prove or disprove absolutely. And if you're looking to whip up a quick argument pro or con, I'm sorry to say that this question has been pored over for thousands of years by the greatest minds of the human race, people that make you and me look like complete blathering idiots. And yet, we have no conclusive evidence, no progress from one side to the other.

It is quite probable that this problem of God's existence is inherently and necessarily unsolvable. Thus, it moves out of the realm of science and into the realm of belief. One can debate ad infinitum the question on a metaphysical or epistemological level; but an attempt to debate it on a scientific level is wasted from the start.

This brings us to the main point: modern science is inherently ateleological. This means that it is not concerned with ideas of goal, purpose, ends, intent, finality, et cetera. Modern science merely tries to describe actual phenomena; in other words, the venture of science is to make sense of the world around us. A scientific theory is at its root an interpretation of observable data.

Again, to qualify as scientific, a theory must be falsifiable. It must be within the rule of possibility that facts could arise that disprove the theory. For the theory of evolution via genetics, we would only have to prove that DNA has no causal relationship to observed change in organism. In other words, species may or may not change through genetics; but the argument rests squarely on whatever evidence is observed. Thus, it is entirely possible that the current theory of evolution can be disproven!

However, this does not mean that we abandon the scientific endeavour. A true scientist will never simply throw up his or her hands and say, "It is impossible for me to make any sense of these data right now; thus, there can be no scientific theory that can possibly explain them, ever!" The very foundation of modern science is the supposition that any and every piece of observable data can be made sense of (awkward phrase, I know). In other words, a true scientist believes that it is possible to explain the universe in rational terms, without appealing to a "deus ex machina" (pardon the pun) to explain it away. It cannot be stated enough that all of modern science rests on this supposition. If one does not believe that it possible to explain ateleologically the phenomena one observes, one must not pretend to remain in the realm of science. This is why religion can never be "disproven;" religion is outside of the bounds of science, and vice-versa.

If one chooses a side in this pseudo-argument, s/he must exercise rigorous logic up to the point of belief. In fact, this debate is entirely concerned with belief: whether one believes that it is possible to explain in a rational and ateleological fashion the observable data of differences and changes in organisms, or one believes that it is not possible. Once one's belief on the matter has placed him/her on either side of the divide, then one can argue over the theories/interpretations of the question of life.

Thus, I think that only those who choose the scientific interpretation of the world can debate whether the current theory of evolution is accurate, and if not, what scientific theory is better represents the facts. Similarly, only those who choose the religious, teleological interpretation can debate whether God created us as we are 6,0 years ago, or intelligently designed everything in the fashion that scientists currently believe to have occured. Or, one can take the role of agnostic in this issue, not knowing what to beleive.

But one thing will remain true: one cannot not argue a religious theory as a scientific one, nor cannot one argue a scientific theory as a religious one.

If you're wondering, I am both a faithful advocate of modern science, and a follower of Jesus Christ and the God he represents.

i have never heard of dna polymerases being called 'fax machines.' hah. that's quite brilliant!!"sperm cells could have traits you’ve never even thought of??" hmm.. from what i remember, the dna replication process makes a large number of mistakes, but it also has many fixing mechanisms to take care of that. so, that seems a bit exaggerated. but i'm just being picky, when in fact, you did a phenomenal job of summarizing mutations. kudos to you.actually, each and every page of this essay is fantastic. i can't believe how well you've managed to cover all the different concepts of evolution. i especially enjoyed the second page where you dissected and killed each of joe's arguments, which are ideas that (sadly) most americans carry these days.and oh, if only the kansas state board of education had at least read your first chapter covering theories and hypothesis (because it was written so well), maybe they wouldn't have redefined science.but kansas is a lost cause... on another note, have you heard of the flying spaghetti monster?? you should look it up; it's a great bit of satire. i think you would appreciate it. :).anyway. please continue this.

haha. . . awesome job. Godo work with clearing up some aspects of evolution. It really is very elegant.

You do well explaining micro-evolution (it's been proven, even we Creationists accept this one) but I remain unconvinced about macro. As ChristianGeekGuy pointed out, it's rather untestable as well.

I can't help recalling from [my version of Bio 101] that there are certain cycles within the body that because it's a cycle there was no way it could have evolved, either the cycle exists or life does not. Something involving a mousetrap analogy? It's been a while, I'd have to ask my scientist father-in-law-to-be.

A good, well researched essay, overall. I still don't understand how someone could believe in Biblical Creationism in a literal sense, but who's gonna stop them.

It makes you wonder though, why they don't at least touch on theories associated with the topic. Some schools teach exclusively creationism, some teach exclusively evolution. They should touch on them all as theories, and let students decide for themselves what they believe.

another thing that's fun to note is that every adult who can drink milk is technically a mutant; a mere half a millenia ago, almost all kids became lactose intolerant at wee ages after the nursing period. Some mistake was made, having little to no effect on the child, was passed on, and now-Lo!-A lot of us lucky mutants can drink milk.

~Tchau

Really. Where were you when I took Bio freshman year? This is so much more entertaining--and, uh, informative too, almost forgot--than my teacher's lecture.

Go evolution! ::waves flag::

Good job. I would especially like to say that it was a good idea to define "theory." Nice essay.

I noticed one reviewer said that mutations were disastrous, and kill people. I just wanted to clarify:

Many mutations don't kill you. The dangerous ones are most likely to get into news and textbooks and things. For example, even if you don't have one gene to make some protein, you might also have a different gene that also makes it, so you're alright. Also, if the mutated gene is recessive, it might not mater at all (for example, I'm pretty sure hemophilia is recessive).

I sem to be rambling, s maybe I'll just stop. bye...

It was kinda shocking seeing my author name pop up - I didn't remember I had read this essay, let alone reviewed it.

What I wrote about fatal mutations was meant as an addition to what you had written, not to raise a quetion. I still agree with most of what you write, but since you're discussing the topic of mutation now anyways, I would like to state something:

Most mutations are NOT favorable to an organism or evolution!

This because evolution worked over such a long period of time the proteins are often (nearly) perfect. 99.9% of the mutations don't change anything, or comepletly screw up the gene. Positive change is extrremely rare.

Nevertheless, mutation is a very powerful evolutionairy force, simply because it is the only process that can create new genes.

A mistake: "And if a copy-enzyme accidentally includes some of this “junk DNA” in with the real genes, things change."Insertions of junk DNA into a gene occur, but that is certainly not done by the DNA polymerase (=copy-enzyme).

And BTW, although it is not important for your argument, the newest scientific research indicates "junk DNA" might not be completely insignificant after all.

Wow this is certainly differnt than most of the essays on this sight. you acutally have an essay in a sense! This is very well written and I will hopefully wait for the next subject in evolution. Though I know about genes I seem to have gotten nearly all the recesive genes in my family but that aside I really don't know what you'll write only you do or do you?

Marine Sgt, I am gonna give you a thumbs up for that reveiw. A great opinion expertly stated!\

Lord, my grammar is getting worse by the day.

"Hey! Hear that, readers? Sex!"

Oh boy!

Again, another great chapter. I think your explanation for CGG's question was good. Is this the actual pathway evolution followed, according to scientists, or is this an example?

Good arguments! And very good point about the artificiality of our classification schemes. I think the whole species/genus/phylum thing can be a major mental block for most people (me included). I also like how you point out the flaws in the deer argument -- a common argument (or motif for an argument) used against evolution. To convince more people I would also reccommend you emphasize how LONG a time period this is operating over, which you talk about some as well.

Good job and very informative.

Absolutely fantastic.

It's about time someone stuck up for evolution on this site.

It amazes me that so many Americans still believe in the Creation theory, it makes you wonder if they actually teach it in schools. It’s illegal in the UK to teach the 'Creation' theory in schools, and even the CofE recognise Evolution as fact.

Keep it up

Regards

Marine Sgt.

Hey Sam,

First off, this is a fairly accurate, holistic, and well spoken representation of Evolution. Well done. There's a few things I seem to remember that weren't present so far, but I definately think you know what you're talking about.

Something I wanted to point out though was that Evolutionism does *not* entirely rule out creationism, it just pushes it back. I'm agnostic and am by not really a bible scholar, but I seem to remember that according to a few passages, "God's ways are not our own" and time for Her is altogether different than for us. Evolution theory begins with the single celled organism already started--it does not explain the beginning of life, only the beginning of *human* life. It also does nothing to explain the start of the universe and the beginning of things. There are other ideas for that, and God still stands as one of the leading, nigh-irrefutable ones. And in his world, seven days might just be 11.2 billion years (the estimated age of the universe accoring to space.com)--with us appearing in not only the last day, but the last couple minutes. And I suppose it was good.

Ok, i'm going to stop blathering now, but i just wanted to say that it's not impossible to believe in God, Creationism, and Evolution all at the same time. After all, Evolution is a pretty simple and yet self-streamlining and amazing system, if you believe in God, why not give him the credit of being able to delegate?

Balls that was long. I should have emailed you.~Out.