The scientific integrity of Evolutionism

[narcan]

Evolutionism seems to presume that it has a monopoly on the use of the scientific method to explain the origins of life. However, let us take a look at the following example: the creation (for want of a more universally accepted term!) of the first ever cell.

Evolutionists look on this event with wonder at how random chance could lead to such a high level of order and complexity. Terms such as 'miraculous' have even been heard. The likelihood of such an event occurring is so infinitely small that any other reasonable explanation must have at least equal, if not greater, chance of being true. But according to the logic used by Evolutionists, there is no God, therefore the first cell must have come into existence by random chance.

However, to retain integrity in our scientific method, surely the only logical conclusion for the appearance of the first cell can be this: it was either the result of an extraordinary random occurance, or someone created it. To eliminate one of the possibilities because of one's own beliefs is poor scientific practice. You can say that one of the two explanations may be more or less convincing than the other, but you can't prove or disprove either of them. However, Evolutionism does exactly that.

Evolutionism falls from its moral highground of scientific integrity as it conveniently ignores the explanation that it disagrees with. While it accuses Christians of intellectual suicide in their use of logic, Evolutionism falls on it's own sword.

[McCulloch]

Evolutionists look on this event with wonder at how random chance could lead to such a high level of order and complexity. [...]
However, to retain integrity in our scientific method, surely the only logical conclusion for the appearance of the first cell can be this: it was either the result of an extraordinary random occurance, or someone created it.

I believe that Narcan has committed two logical fallacies. The first, is the false dichotomy. He has presented only two possible explanations for the existence of the first living cell. Perhaps there are others. I don't know. Which brings us to the second logical fallacy, refusing to accept that a particular fact may not be known currently. Science attempts to find answers to difficult questions with no currently known answers. This is one of them. We simply do not know how the first living cell came into being. There are at least two approaches to this problem. Science, which attempts to look at the details of how this may have occurred, which studies life-like molecules and viruses to try to get closer to a complete understanding of the issues. Religion, which invokes the god-of-the-gaps to explain the unexplained.

[palmera]

It's not about what scientists believe, it is about what they have observed and can predict with some degree of certainty an outcome... or a beginning. What many people who argue against evolutionary theory (whether macro or micro) fail to accept is that scientists in the field are not anti-God, nor do they try and disprove God. Further more, their concern is not even with God, or Allah or Ganesha or Kali- scientists do science. There is no way to test for or to prove false a creator being who made the first cell. Not only is it illogical, it doesn't hold up to the compedium of observations and facts about the natural world on the cellular and atomic levels.

It's not good science to say God did it because it severs any further inquiry. If we want to know anything, we must go deeper than "it's God's plan," or "God must want it to be this way" or "God did it." Science wouldn't exist if this were the case, nor would any realm of intellectual thought, because we would cease to use our minds on a level higher than that of our pet iguana. It's far more probable that the fist cell was created by the mixing of gases and water than by God because such a theory flows naturally from what we know about the interaction of atoms and molecules it different states. We can dig deeper to find out more using such a theory so that our understanding of life's processes and beginnings may be more refined. You cannot go any further, leearn any more, or use the brain God gave you by siting the creator God.

And yes, the creation of the first cell happened randomly, though your assesment that the likelihood of such an occurance is infinitely small doesn't hold with theories that scientists have about life on other planets. It was random, but not improbabe; with all the variables about our earth, it's position from the sun, it's size, atmosphere etc. the chances, though small were inevitable to occur on such a planet, at least for some degree of time.

[juliod]

Evolutionism seems to presume that it has a monopoly on the use of the scientific method to explain the origins of life

Evolution does not "assume" this. But in effect it does have a monopoly on the scientific method. All instances of the SM toward life, origin of species, genetics, etc, have yeilded the same result: Evolution is the means by which it happened.

Evolutionists look on this event with wonder at how random chance could lead to such a high level of order and complexity.

No they don't.

Evolutionary biologists study the process and mechanism of evolution as it happens in the world today. All you have there is the Argument from Ignorance.

But according to the logic used by Evolutionists, there is no God, therefore the first cell must have come into existence by random chance.

Nope. You should try to learn something about evolution. What you have there is a false characature, no doubt told to you by your preacher, or someone else equally uninformed about science.

DanZ

[micatala]

To clarify, what exactly do you mean by "evolutionism" as stated in the title of the thread? If we are talking science, simply evolution or evolutionary biology would be better.

Evolutionists look on this event with wonder at how random chance could lead to such a high level of order and complexity. Terms such as 'miraculous' have even been heard. The likelihood of such an event occurring is so infinitely small that any other reasonable explanation must have at least equal, if not greater, chance of being true.

One must be careful when making probabilistic arguements.

Shuffle any deck of 52 cards thoroughly. Then, look one by one through the deck. The chances that the deck is just as you find it, in this particular arrangement, is 1 out of about 8.066 times 10^67. By some measure, you could say what you have just done is essentially impossible. Yet, there it is. In fact, if you want to do it again, you could produce another impossible arrangement of the cards in a few more seconds.

One could apply the same logic to the formation of snowflakes, which form in manner that includes randomness and which exhibit a very high degree of organization, some might say design. And yet, billions upon billions of snowflakes form every year, and each one, by the type of logic that is often cited to 'prove' evolution is probabilistically impossible, could not possibly have formed because the odds against that particular snowflake forming are so high.

Probabilistic arguements against evolution just do not hold any water because they assume evolution must have produced exactly what we see, or just this particular cell, or just this particular protein or set of proteins. They forget that it could have produced a different biological world, or a different type of cell, or a different protein.

Just as the history of the world as we know it could have occurred in uncountably many different ways (all more or less equally likely or perhaps we should say equally unlikely or even impossible), so could the history of life as we know it. Thus, the odds against what has happened actually occurring are really irrelevant.

[Bugmaster]

Evolutionism seems to presume that it has a monopoly on the use of the scientific method to explain the origins of life.

What is this "evolutionism" of which you speak ? I know about the theory of evolution, but that's just a description of the process by which species change over time (through natural selection). As such, it makes very good sense, and has been verified time and time again -- just like the theory of gravity, or Ampere's Law, or other scientific theories.

I was not aware that there was an evil "Evolutionist" cult that actually worshipped evolution... I mean, that's even weirder than Chthulhu !

Evolutionists look on this event with wonder at how random chance could lead to such a high level of order and complexity. Terms such as 'miraculous' have even been heard.

Not by me. Remember: evolution deals with species changing over time. Therefore, it simply does not apply unless you have some species that can change -- even if those species are just single-celled organisms.

Other scientific disciplines, such as cosmology and cell biology, do deal with origin of life on Earth; research is ongoing, and some interesting results have been produced so far (though nothing as solid as gravity or evolution). But evolution has nothing to do with it.

But according to the logic used by Evolutionists, there is no God, therefore the first cell must have come into existence by random chance.

That's a two-pack of false dichotomy (evolution vs. God) and a straw-man ("evolution is random chance").

However, to retain integrity in our scientific method, surely the only logical conclusion for the appearance of the first cell can be this: it was either the result of an extraordinary random occurance, or someone created it.

No, there's at least one other possibility: that life is the result of a natural process which we have not fully understood yet. Additionally, even if "someone" did create life (which I personally doubt), that someone could be anyone -- Zeus, Allah, Brahma, an alien, The Universal Consciousness, Chthulhu, some random undiscovered god, etc. How would you fnd out for sure ?

[Cathar1950]

I am not sure evolution is random chance or even random change. It seems to me that evolution is change and the mechanisms.
They are not necessarily random but fit into the environment as well as the evolutionary history of the organism.
It seems that once something happens it is no longer probable. Probability has to do with the location of data with in an historical circumstances or set of data. It is past but once achieved it is 100% actuality. It is no longer a probability.
So it seems it is wrong to use it when discussing of creation. Also you are right even if we proved a creator that does not tell us the creator’s nature. It could be a turtle.

[Jose]

All of the above is true, and I second the statements. I'll add one more bit, of which the OP seems to be unaware.

Science proceeds by people making observations. We develop questions to which we would like to know the answer (like how did life develop), and we do experiments, make measurements, study related fields, and periodically ask ourselves if the data suggest any answers to the question we started with.

That's it. There are no assumptions that god is or is not involved. There are no assumptions about randomness. There's just the data, and our ability to propose explanations that account for the data.

It would seem obvious that we ask questions to which we do not know the answers. If we knew the answer, we wouldn't bother trying to answer it. But, since we don't know the answer beforehand, we can't tell when any particular explanation is actually correct. That's why we call the best explanations "theories." Only religion claims to know Absolute Truth.

So why is there this notion that life originated through a long, drawn-out process of increasingly-complex chemistry, culminating eventually in self-replicating entities? Because that's what the data indicate.

Why is there this notion that life, once it arose, was able to change over time, giving rise to all of the life forms now extant? Because that's what the data indicate.

That's all there is to it.