Tim Thompson

I've always thought it useful to introduce the concept of a meta-theory. The prefix "meta" implies that it is "about" something. So, metaphysics is not physics, it's about the non physicsl, logical foundation of physics. Likewise, metamathematics, refers to the non mathematical, logical foundations of mathematics. In that sense, "evolution" is a meta-theory about life.

There are lots of ways to evolve. Lamarckism, though probably wrong, is certainly a theory of evolution. So is strict Darwinism. So is punctuated equilibrium. So is Kimura's neutral theory, and so on. They are not the theory of evolution, but they are all examples of the meta-theory of evolution. They are all founded on the same basic principle: all life is descendent from previous life, in a modified form (or something like that, better wording is doubtless available). I call that basic principle of the ancestor-descendent relationship the meta-theory of evolution, or if you will, metaevolution.

Creationists are not just anti-evolutionists, they are anti meta-evolutionists, since they routinely deny the ancestor-descendent relationship outside the boundaries of ill-defined "kinds".

Well, it all makes sense to me, even if nobody else gets the point.

Synaesthesia

Scramble,

Dawkins is notorious (and sucessful) because he does not acknowledge adaptive mechanisms in addition to natural selection. The only known mechanism by which organized complexity can develop is natural selection. His theories are not additional to natural selection, they are a development of it.

scumble

It's scumble.

I just meant to say that there could be more than one theory of evolution, good or bad.

Tricia

One....More....Day......

just one more day of school and I'll be home free. But I just have this need to get to

Tricia

1000 posts!

~Tricia

wildernesse

Hello Tricia,

I hope you have done well on your finals, and congratulate you on you 1000 posts! I lurk here quite regularly, and have finally read all of this thread.

I'm a Protestant Christian who accepts evolution as the means by which this beautiful world exists as we know it today. I do exist! and in the Southern U.S. too!

I too was very dismissive of evolution, and the Big Bang--which I felt contradicted my faith. As I learned what these ideas actually meant, my black and white belief changed. Maybe yours will too--but that's certainly something you will have to decide on your own.

Also a note to those who choose to reply to Tricia--often it's not the words (go read a textbook) that offend, it's the snarl of tone that accompanies the statement.

--tiba

Tricia

So true. I have a library card to a local college that I plan to use this summer, most notably on books on evolution. I don't mind reading textbooks (heh, funny story on that ), just when people say it because they think I have every available resource at my fingertips and I'm just too lazy to do it.

Hey! Do you think you could tell me what changed your mind?

Thanks about the final bit, I got straight A's again!

~Tricia

wildernesse

Tricia,

You asked for the reasons that changed my mind about evolution and the big bang—well, I’ll have to tell you that it hasn’t been night and day one way or the other, more like a peaceful coexistence of the two.

In high school, our biology teacher spent about 10 minutes on evolution (I don’t actually remember what she said) and followed it up with the statement that she didn’t believe it either and that it was perfectly alright to believe in Adam and Eve. (Yes, this was a public high school—I know, I know.) That was fine with me because I didn’t believe any of that apes to men idea either! It wasn’t a big deal with my family or church—it was just science saying there wasn’t a God and we didn’t have to listen to that.

My freshman year in college, I took Intro to Anthropology. During the first week of that class, our prof explained evolution.. Namely, that evolution says that organisms that successfully reproduce pass on their traits to the next generation. When the environment changes, organisms that already possess traits suitable for the new environment are at a greater advantage than those that do not. (The organisms already suitable could have random mutations which were previously useless and now helpful.) Therefore, the organisms with suitable traits have a greater influence on the population as a whole. Eventually, with successive environmental changes a later organism could be very different from the earliest organism.

I know that this is not even half of what the whole of evolution is—I’ve left out genetic drift and bottlenecks and population dynamics and yadayadayada. And I know that you probably have heard this and more explanative versions before in this very forum. But I knew nothing about evolution, except that it was wrong and proved God didn’t exist to some people. But this idea of change over long amounts of time—this didn’t say anything about God existing or not—this didn’t say that God didn’t create the first organisms. And the Bible never said that what God created never changed—only that it was good in His sight. No, this idea simply made sense—it was science. So it really wasn’t for me the idea of creation versus evolution changed, simply that there could be creation then evolution. And while I will admit that I don’t know very much about the Big Bang or other scientific ways to explain the universe—what you have been asking here is great for me too—I see no reason to say that what science has learned and is learning about the rules and the structure of the universe now and at its beginning conflict with my knowledge of God and His role in my life.

There’s no reason to think scientists are out in the world trying to overthrow faith—they are simply investigating how this natural world works. Neither are they trying to deceive—the glory is in finding the truth. Why then are there some people of faith crusading against science? While I’m sure you could get plenty of answers to this question on this board, I think it’s because their worldview is limited and they’ve assigned God a place in it and it can’t be changed—not even to grow. Never be afraid to change your mind, Tricia.

I don’t feel that this is complete—but I will be glad to answer anyone’s questions about these my thoughts!
--tiba

scigirl

just wanted to say. . . welcome Wildernesse!

And Tricia, what year are you in school? Are you starting college this fall?

scigirl

Quetzal

wildernesse: Outstanding post! Welcome to II. I hope you find your stay enjoyable.

Tricia: Congrats on the straight "A"s. I never got straight A's in my life - although my daughters do so consistently (must be good genetic variation from my wife 'cause they didn't get it from ME. )