Best creationism books according to redditors
We found 816 Reddit comments discussing the best creationism books. We ranked the 98 resulting products by number of redditors who mentioned them. Here are the top 20.
We found 816 Reddit comments discussing the best creationism books. We ranked the 98 resulting products by number of redditors who mentioned them. Here are the top 20.
Bingo. Stephen Jay Gould called this "Non-Overlapping Magisteria":
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Non-Overlapping_Magisteria
As a religious person, I view religion as a way of understanding the meaning behind it all, and science as a tool for exploring God's creation. Science is about the pursuit of truth, and God is Truth. How could there be any conflict? If religion has held some view (generally for lack of any better explanation at the time, as it was with Geocentrism) that has since been disproven by science (done correctly, that is), then what is a religious man/woman to do but rejoice? Knowledge is a good thing. If God created the universe, then to study the universe is to learn more about His handiwork.
EDIT: I just wanted to take a moment (since this post has gotten a wee bit of exposure and because this will be extremely relevant to a lot of the response comments) to suggest a book that has been instrumental in shaping my views on evolution and the relationship between religion and science. The book is called "Finding Darwin's God", and it's written by Kenneth Miller. Anyone use the green dragonfly Biology textbook in high school? Yeah, that Kenneth Miller.
http://www.amazon.com/Finding-Darwins-God-Scientists-Evolution/dp/0061233501
Anyway, this is the book that changed my mind (as a Christian raised with the "evolution is antithetical to our faith" mindset) on evolution. Miller (himself both an accomplished Biologist and a Christian) spends the first 2/3 of the book utterly demolishing every single common argument against evolution. Just... destroys them. "Irreducible complexity", young earth creationism, etc. You name it, he brings it down with logic and relevant examples. Great source for anyone looking for some well-sourced material and examples to bring to a (respectful, let's keep it classy) debate on the subject. Then, with the last 1/3 or so of the book, Miller talks about how embracing science (including evolution, obviously) is actually the only responsible choice for a person of faith. He discusses how the "God of the Gaps" philosophy is really and truly detrimental to belief in a glorious God who created the universe, and talks about how a Christian should not be afraid of new scientific discovery but should instead embrace it.
Anyway. Great book. If I were to list the 5 books that had had the largest impact on my life and views, this one would definitely be in the top 5. Plus it changed my mind on something. It's not often that that happens, especially to pre-college me (I've mellowed out a bit since then). I'd recommend it to anyone, whether you are a person of faith or not.
I'll stick to recommending science communication books (those that don't require a deep background on biological concepts):
---
For books that everyone studying biology ends up reading, my candidate would be Lehninger's Principles of Biochemistry, by Nelson & Cox but that's a textbook.
I grew up as a Jehovah's Witness and I was a staunch creationist, so I feel like I can see both sides of this equation.
I think that this is really a bigger issue than creationism. Evidenced by the comment that the goal of science is to prove the Bible wrong, or exists for the purpose of making Christians feel uncomfortable. This is about a fundamental difference in the way you see the world: approaching the world from the standpoint of belief first, or from the standpoint of observation first. I think that this difference in mindset will absolutely not diminish over the course of your marriage, it will constantly show up. I think your strategy of non-confrontation on this topic will not work long term, this needs to be cleared up if you expect a healthy marriage.
> How did you resist the temptation to cut their views apart with the glorious shears of science?
You don't. If he is a rational, thoughtful, intelligent man, then he is open to debate and personal growth. This is something he is wrong about, it's not insensitive or pushy to help him come a better understanding on this topic. Like I said, I used to be a creationist. I changed my mind because people challenged me, debated with me, investigated the consequences of my beliefs and pointed out logical inconsistencies. They didn't do it in an aggressive or rude way, but in a calm and rational way. I think you need to do the same thing. Sit down and hash this out.
> Tony knows that and is fine with it - we have had many rousing discussions about God, spirituality, philosophy, and what it means to be alive as well as regular intellectual conversations. He has (for the most part) always presented himself as a rational, thoughtful, intelligent man.
This makes it seem like he actually would be receptive to some discourse on this topic. I totally disagree with the other comments recommending bringing this up during pre-marital counseling. This is something that needs to be talked about between you both first. Having a conversation investigating the specifics of his beliefs would help you understand him better.
From personal experience, here are some arguments/lines of reasoning that were particularly helpful in making me realize my creationist beliefs didn't make sense:
It might be worth it for you to read up on Evolution before having the discussion, so you can get some ideas of your own. Maybe Dawkin's The Greatest Show on Earth or Coyne's Why Evolution Is True. It might even be useful to ask him to read one of the books. If he is an intelligent and rational man like you describe him, he is open to hearing the other perspectives and making an informed decision. If he absolutely refuses to read either book, then you've learned something else concerning about his personality - that he is not willing to make informed decisions, which would be good to learn now before you get married.
Read a book like this one: http://www.amazon.com/Undeniable-Evolution-Creation-Bill-Nye/dp/1250074223
Try to find a copy of this incredible 3 episode PBS series: http://www.pbs.org/show/your-inner-fish/
Visit a good natural history museum
Watch this 4 minute video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rFxu7NEoKC8
Go to a zoo.
Read Darwin's On The Origin Of Species...This abridged audio production is fairly easy to follow: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SpU8HfUwdmY
It's easy to say 'I can't see evolution happen', but I could just as easily say 'I can't see a tree grow'. I really can't, but walking through a forest and seeing different sized trees should be enough for me to reasonably assume that they do.
You don't need to be a biochemist to see similar proof for evolution. It can be very clearly inferred from all sorts of things around you right now.
EDIT: Thanks for the gold /u/rjkardo!!
I present to you, the Tiktaalik.
I don't have time to answer your question properly but check out your local library or purchase Neil Shubin's Your Inner Fish which will help you achieve a proper understanding of this topic.
Then I'd recommend you read the book Why Evolution Is True by evolutionary biologist Jerry Coyne. At worst you'll end up with a better understanding of just what it is you're rejecting.
Oh, and to answer your question, yes. The existence of a god (yours or any other) isn't just a default answer we substitute when some other answer isn't available--or not one anyone should substitute by default, anyway.
Your Inner Fish is a book about researchers who predicted one of the missing links between fish and amphibians, and then found it. Not a soft tissue prediction, but in the same vein. Great read.
Shubin's Your Inner Fish covered this from an evolutionary/development perspective - an amazingly fascinating read.
In a shortened, abridged summary: The head of a shark is a series of segments where each segment as one vertebra, and in ennervated by nerves from that vertebra, and each vertebra has one gill pair. Nice and logical.
However, in mammals, many of those segments are munged together to create a neck, throat, ears and larynx structures from the gills, and many other components have moved from their original segment into the mess. The new jumbled components are ennervated from their historic segment, leaving some nerves very long and weird paths - for example the recurrent laryngeal nerve exits the spine close to the larynx, loops down to the heart, then back up to the larynx. It all made sense in the shark...
> I don't think I ever was a good muslim except for not eating pork.
Being a "good Muslim" is not a good thing
> My teacher said something about even though evolution is widely accepted it has not been fully proven yet.
Your teacher is wrong, there have been a ton of experiments that further prove why evolution is true.
I recommend reading The Greatest Show On Earth, by Richard Dawkins, it'll teach you quite a bit about evolution
I always recommend Your Inner Fish by Neil Shubin because it's less antagonistic and more matter of fact about our evolution. Another good choice might be The Third Chimpanzee by Jared Diamond. Again, I'm trying to think of the less obvious and less vitriolic choices than Harris or Dawkins. Handing him something entitled "The God Delusion" is likely to just shut off his brain instantly.
Oh ... to combat the Young Earth mentality, you could consider something like A Brief History of Time by Stephen Hawking.
Kind of a combination of things - but in general the age old adage "if it ain't, broke don't fix it" applies here.
See about 500 million years ago the basic body plan for tetrapods was decided upon. From this basic body plan very few modifications have been made. For whatever reason four limbs, two eyes, two ears, two nostrils, two kidneys, two lungs, two ovaries/testes, but one heart and one liver worked for it so it works for us.
Its not just humans that have these basic structures - birds, fish, reptiles, amphibians, and other mammals all have this basic body plan. Yes some have lost their limbs - like snakes, and others have lost an ovary - like birds...but underlying it all is that same basic blueprint. You may be interested in the book your inner fish.
It's not that weird. We share a lot of the same neurobiology. The seeds of our emotional brains are present in other animals. The late Jaak Panksepp did a lot a lot of great work on the neurobiology of animal and human emotion. Here's a TED talk by him: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=65e2qScV_K8
Humans didn't evolve the capacity for emotions out of nowhere, just like we don't have eyes or arms or a spine out of nowhere. (For more detail, I recommend Neil Shubin's Your Inner Fish, and Panksepp's The Archaeology of Mind.) The rudiments are there in the animals, whose ancestors we share, though they may have gone onto divergent evolutionary pathways.
You said in another comment below that others were treating you as a troll or an idiot. I don't think that's necessarily the case: many of us are just trying to present the facts, and may be a little bit frustrated due to how YECs typically react. For example, my earlier comment about how creation science does not count as science, and how Geocentrism is incorrect, I did not set out to treat you like an idiot (and if I did, I'm sorry). I did treat you as ignorant, which isn't as bad as it sounds. I'm ignorant to a lot of things. Everyone is. But I love to learn, because I love to expand my knowledge.
Ignorance can be cured. Stupidity can't. We encounter wilful ignorance a lot, and it gets very frustrating, so that colours what we say.
If you're genuine about your desire to learn more, I'll drop some suggestions for further inquiry. Some of the language may be abrasive, but please keep an open, skeptical mind:
I'll give you fair warning on this next one: it may have a profound effect on you. At the very least, it will help you understand our philosophical position better as atheists.
For reading:
Hopefully that gets you started.
Hello and welcome! Here are my recommendations for getting those nasty watchtower cobwebs out of your head, in other words, here is what I did to de-indoctrinate myself:
Take some time to learn about the history of the bible. For example, you can take the Open Yale Courses on Religious Studies for free.
Read Who Wrote the Bible by Richard Elliott Friedman
Also read A History of God by Karen Armstrong
Next, learn some actual science. For example - spoiler alert: evolution is true. Visit Berkeley's excellent Understanding Evolution Website.. Or, if you're pressed for time, watch this cartoon.
Read Why Evolution is True by Jerry Coyne
Read The Greatest Show on Earth by Richard Dawkins
Learn about the origin of the universe. For example, you could read works by Stephen Hawking
Read A Briefer History of Time by Stephen Hawking
Learn about critical thinking from people like Michael Shermer, and how to spot logical fallacies.
For good measure, use actual data and facts to learn the we are NOT living in some biblical "last days". Things have gotten remarkably better as man has progressed in knowledge. For example, watch this cartoon explaining how war is on the decline..
Read The Better Angels of Our Nature by Steven Pinker
Another great source is the youtube series debunking 1914 being the start of the last days.
I wish you the best. There is a whole world of legitimate information out there based on actual evidence that you can use to become a more knowledgeable person.
You may still wonder how you can be a good human without "the truth." Here is a good discussion on how one can be good without god. --Replace where he talks about hell with armageddon, and heaven with paradise--
Start to help yourself begin to live a life where, as Matt Dillahunty puts it, you'll "believe as many true things, and as few false things as possible."
The usual is Why I am no longer a Christian by Evid3nc3, but that's all youtube.
If you want to go old-school angry try out Testament: Memoir of the Thoughts and Sentiments of Jean Meslier (from the 1700s).
>Know, then, my friends, that everything that is recited and practiced in the world for the cult and adoration of gods is nothing but errors, abuses, illusions, and impostures. All the laws and orders that are issued in the name and authority of God or the gods are really only human inventions…."
For a more general and softer approach, try out 50 Reasons People Give for Believing in a God.
***
If you need someone who was really a "true Christian" try perhaps something from Richard Price or listen to the podcasts of Matt Dillahunty.
If I had to pick one, it would be Finding Darwin's God. It's not the best book for understanding evolution, but it is probably the best book to convince a fundamentalist Christian that scientists are not wrong about where species come from.
Francis Collins who headed the human genome project is one. Also Kenneth Miller, who appeared for the plaintiffs in Kitzmiller v. Dover. I highly recommend his book Finding Darwin's God.
Let's dismantle your friend's arguments:
> Because something can't come from nothing...
Prove it. If he can't, his argument already falls apart. People assume that "something can't come from nothing" is a fact, but what evidence backs this up? Every single human being has been surrounded by "something" for every instant of his or her existence. Not once has any person experienced absolute "nothing". Thus any statement about the properties of "nothing" (besides being self-contradictory, as "nothing" cannot have properties) is complete and total Making Shit Up. This is begging the question.
> ...there had to be a being intelligent enough to create it
If something can exist without prior cause, then clearly prior cause is not always needed for existence. Therefore the demand that the universe have a prior cause is unreasonable. Furthermore, the universe is not a "thing" - it is the set of all things. Assuming that the whole must have the characteristics of its parts is the fallacy of composition.
> Because god exists outside of science, he doesn't need a scientific explanation.
"Outside of science" is a nonsensical statement. Please define or stop using this. Also, this is special pleading.
> The chances of abiogenesis occurring is 1 in 10^40,000. Most statisticians agree that these chances are far too improbable for such a thing to occur that it's essentially impossible.
This is Just Plain Wrong. The chance of abiogenesis occurring is not 1 in 10^40,000; people who think so are basing their beliefs off junk science and junk math. See: here for details. By the way, the whole "most statisticians agree..." is a ploy by your friend to hide the fact that he just pulled a random unsubstantiated number (10^40,000) out of the air and expects you to accept it.
>Nearly all genetic mutations are big and negative...
Again, Just Plain Wrong. See this and this. Your friend needs to do a little more research.
> ...therefore evolution having mutations that are small and positive is nearly impossible.
Your friend is showing his ignorance regarding evolution. Mutations are neither positive nor negative without context. A mutation which is helpful under certain circumstances is harmful under others. See the previous two links for more.
> Everything in nature seems perfectly designed for human beings.
Yep, cancer, natural disasters, predators, odorless toxic gases, plagues have all been perfectly designed to suit human beings. Toss your friend alone and naked into the wilderness and see how far that "perfectly designed" environment takes him. Better yet, toss him into the 99.99999999% of the universe that is not Earth and see how long he survives.
Furthermore, saying that "everything looks designed" is self-defeating. Ask your friend to show you an example of something which is not designed. Let's say he suggests X. Point out that, according to his beliefs, God did in fact design X, thus your friend has demonstrated an inability to tell the difference between things that are designed and not designed. In addition, if literally everything around us is designed, then he very concept of being designed loses all meaning (in the same way that theists like to say that good without evil loses all meaning).
> There's no way to explain that/the complexity around us with mutations.
Again, does not understand evolution. He should read this before making more ill-informed statements.
> There had to be a creator.
Even if this were true (it's not, given that every single thing your friend has said above is utterly wrong) - but even if this were true, there's nothing that says that this creator is anything like human notions of "God".
I read,”Why Evolution Is True “ by Jerry Coyne.
It’s an easy read and lays out an argument that I can’t find flaw with.
Only the most obtuse could peruse this scientific aggregate and still try to deny the age of the earth and evolution.
"Prove" is a strong word. The fossil record provides extremely strong evidence for evolution from a common ancestor, but I concede that if that was all the evidence we have, I might not accept evolution either (though I am not a paleontologist... They might disagree).
But fossils are only one tiny bit of the overall evidence. In fact when Darwin formulated his theory, he didn't even have anything close to the fossil record we have now. His evidence came not from fossils but from comparative Anatomy and biogeology. And nowadays we have far more powerful evidence such as DNA & Genetics. I can completely understand why you don't accept evolution based solely on the fossil record, but if that is all you are looking at, you are ignoring the vast majority of the evidence.
If you sincerely want to know more, you can start on this Wikipedia page.. From there, I recommend either Why Evolution is True by Jerry Coyne or The Greatest Show on Earth. Both go into all the various bits of evidence, from all the various fields. Either one will give you a much deeper understanding of why the fossil record is very compelling evidence, but how it is far from the only evidence.
Here are some books, articles, websites and YouTube Videos that helped me on my journey from a hardcore creationist to a High School Biology teacher.
BOOKS
The Language of God - By Francis Collins ~ A defense of Evolution by the head of the Human Genome Project (Who also happens to be Christian)
Only a Theory - By Ken Miller ~ Another Christian biologist who accepts and vigorously defends the theory of evolution
Your Inner Fish - by Neil Shubin ~ The wonderful story of how Tiktaalik was found
Why Evolution is True - By Jerry Coyne ~ A simple and thorough treatment of evolution written for the mainstream
The Greatest Show on Earth - By Richard Dawkins ~ A wonderful and beautifully written celebration of evolution
The Panda's Thumb - By Stephen Jay Gould ~ A collection of eloquent and intelligent essays written by SJG. Any of his collections would do but this one is my favorite.
ARTICLES
Crossing the Divide - By Jennifer Couzin ~ an article about an ex-creationist and his difficult journey into enlightenment.
15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense - John Rennie ~ a nice rundown of the major objections to evolution.
WEBSITE
An index of Creationist Claims - Via the TalkOrigins archive ~ an impressive index of the major problems creationists have with evolution, as well as good, evidence based rebuttals.
YOUTUBE VIDEOS/PLAYLISTS
Why do People Laugh at Creationsts? - Via Thunderf00t ~ a scathing review of outrageous sins of logic committed by creationists. Thunderf00t's style isn't for everyone, since he can come off as smug and superior
How Evolution Works - Via DonExodus2 ~ a nice and thorough overview of how evolution works
The Theory of Evolution Made Easy - Via Potholer54
Evolution - Via Qualia Soup ~ short (10 minutes), simple and well made, this is one of my go-to videos to help logically explain how evolution happens.
Ahora que anda el puerta a puerta te recomiendo esto.
Step back and breath. I was just pointing out that the level of this person's usage of facebook is apt for the subreddit /r/oldpeoplefacebook. This is a common practice on reddit, pointing out a comment or post and saying that it would fit into another subreddit.
***
Yep, breakups happen. They suck. I had a girl who I dated for 4 years and was living with break up with me. Often times you can use this as a time of introspection to ask yourself questions and be objective with the answer. Asking things like:
Why did this person break up with you?
I can only speculate, but I'll cover some of the most common reasons.
Was it because you, or they, need to grow more as a person?
Your post history says that You're a freshman, I'm going to assume in High School and not college. Regardless, your experience is real and I don't want to dismiss that. You've both got growing to do, I know High School (and even College) seem like they are the whole world. Being obsessed with popularity and the social games that are played.
It's often said that "the best revenge is a life well lived." Grieve for the loss of the relationship, that's normal, but the best way to move on is to show this person (and everyone else) that you've improved on yourself for yourself.
Were they no longer attracted to you?
You shouldn't change who you are to fit into the mold other people want. You should strive to be the best person you can be. If you do that and you remain strong and confident, then people will be attracted to you. When this happens and you find someone who is at their best, you will make great partners to each other. Focus on improving and growing yourself, when you do that people will recognize it.
Did they find some base reasoning that the relationship could not work?
You said that this breakup came after a discussion on evolution. This can be an aspect of a person's core beliefs. If they are religious evolution often goes against their beliefs and make them feel like you not believing the same as them.
If you want to seek a deeper understanding of the evolution v. religion topic I would suggest this video. I would also suggest Bill Nye's follow up book Undeniable: Evolution and the Science of Creation. This should give you more information on what science knows and be able to appeal to a source or existing arguments.
I would also check out the /r/CrashCourseYT series Philosophy. This will help you build logical arguments, so that way you can say what you believe, why you believe it, and why they should agree with you. In addition to keeping an open mind in case they also have information that might benefit you.
Was it because of your actions towards them or others?
Being verbally or emotionally abusive. You can assess your actions by reading this article. People can use your behavior towards them or others to identify if you're a good match for them. Generally showing kindness, even when someone is wrong, is key. If you're nice to others, then this can appeal to a possible mate. If you are cruel to others, then this signals people you might be interested in that you could, eventually, be cruel to them.
***
I wish you the best and hope that some of what I have written will encourage you to become the best person you can be.
Edit: fuckin trolled
Hello and welcome! Here are my recommendations for de-indoctrinating yourself:
Take some time to learn about the history of the bible. For example, you can take the Open Yale Courses on Religious Studies for free.
Read Who Wrote the Bible by Richard Elliott Friedman
Also read A History of God by Karen Armstrong
Watch this talk from Sam Harris where he explains why "free will" is likely an illusion, which debunks the entire premise of "the fall of man" as presented by most Christian religions.
Watch this video on the Cordial Curiosity channel that teaches how the "Socratic Method" works, which essentially is a way to question why we believe what we believe. Do we have good reasons to believe them? If not, should we believe them?
Watch this video by Theramin Trees that explains why we fall for the beliefs of manipulative groups in the first place.
This video explains why and how childhood indoctrination works, for those of us born-in to a high-control group.
Another great source is this youtube series debunking 1914 being the start of the last days.
Next, learn some science. For example - spoiler alert: evolution is true. Visit Berkeley's excellent Understanding Evolution Website. Or, if you're pressed for time, watch this cartoon.
Read Why Evolution is True by Jerry Coyne.
Read The Greatest Show on Earth by Richard Dawkins.
Watch this series where Aron Ra explains in great detail how all life is connected in a giant family tree.
Learn about the origin of the universe. For example, you could read A Briefer History of Time by Stephen Hawking.
Learn about critical thinking from people like [Michael Shermer] (http://www.ted.com/talks/michael_shermer_on_believing_strange_things?language=en), and how to spot logical fallacies.
For good measure, use actual data and facts to learn the we are NOT living in some biblical "last days". Things have gotten remarkably better as man has progressed in knowledge. For example, watch this cartoon explaining how war is on the decline.
Read The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined by Steven Pinker.
Watch this Ted Talk by Hans Rosling, the late Swedish Statistician, where he shows more evidence that the world is indeed becoming a better place, and why we tend to wrongly convince ourselves otherwise.
I wish you the best. There is a whole world of legitimate information out there based on actual evidence that we can use to become more knowledgeable people.
You may still wonder how you can be a good human without "the truth." Here is a good discussion on how one can be good without god. --Replace where he talks about hell with armageddon, and heaven with paradise--
Start to help yourself begin to live a life where, as Matt Dillahunty puts it, you'll "believe as many true things, and as few false things as possible."
>And apparently she thinks that science doesn't back up what Paleontologists have found so far. It's just amazing to me that people are so willing to listen so someone who doesn't even study this shit. Does anyone have any sources I can check out that can point me in the right direction on what's correct and what's not? I'm in the dark and have never looked into evolution or anything like it.
https://www.amazon.com/Why-Evolution-True-Jerry-Coyne/dp/0143116649/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1491459123&sr=8-1&keywords=why+evolution+is+true
Read this book. This book is written perfectly for laymen and normal people, explains it all very well. Evolution isn't a "theory." Its a verified fact.
As to the rest of the lunacy, you'll need to list it out a bit more. I take it you're still living with them? Be careful how much you argue with them about it. But don't let creationist baloney hold you back in your scientific education. I never pursued biology and a potential career as a doctor partly because the church told me it was all lies. I'm still mad about that.
Zero evidence equals zero reason to believe. Your understanding of how evolution works needs some help... try reading some non-religious sources. I suggest 'Your Inner Fish' by Neil Shubin.
https://www.amazon.ca/Your-Inner-Fish-Journey-3-5-Billion-Year/dp/0307277453
One of my favorites, Your Inner Fish by Neil Shubin, puts evolution in a wonderful context. It focuses on the evolution of development and shows you just how related you are to all other animals.
Biologists virtually all agree that life on this planet has evolved over a period of about 3.7 billion years and that humans and modern fish share a fish-like ancestor (and a single-celled ancestor, for that matter). They have reached these conclusions because they're the best explanations for the evidence we see in the fossil record and in our DNA, among other things. Creationists deny these conclusions because they're not very well-informed or because they're unwilling to let go of a Genesis-based explanation for the existence of life on this planet.
I'm not trying to bash you; it sounds like you have an open mind and that's good. But the "battle" you describe isn't really a meaningful one. The people who know the most about this sort of thing consider the question settled.
I'd encourage you to read up on the subject if you're curious. Richard Dawkins recently released a book full of evidence for evolution. And although I don't recommend it as wholeheartedly, Finding Darwin's God was written by a Christian for Christians to make the case for evolution.
im not OP but try The greatest show on earth by Richard Dawkins, thats where i got started.
You still have your gills. They just turned into mammalian jaws and ear bones, that's all. If its any consolation, you had gills when you were an embryo for a short time.
Read Your Inner Fish by Neil Shubin for lots more on our fishy ancestry.
>So it doesn't sound like I'm setting up an anonymous strawman, basically.
To be fair, anyone who doesn't consider the Garden of Eden as a literal event can be considered a skeptic. So that means there's plenty of Chrisitian denominations with their own prominent figures that you could write about also.
The only recent "Skeptic vs Literal" debate I can think of is the Bill Nye vs Ken Ham debate. I didn't get to far into it though so I'm not sure how much they touched on the Garden of Eden. I do know that Bill was so frustrated by the debate that he went out and wrote his book Undeniable afterwards. He might have something.
Generally though, it's going to be hard to find an atheist who's not skeptical of the whole Bible and not just a literal interpretation of the Garden of Eden.
If it helps, my realizing that the Bible wasn't inerrant is what helped lead to my deconversion.
EDIT: The book itself doesn't have a chapter that directly addresses the Garden of Eden or problems with the story. I meant he might have criticisms of it on a website or in an interview.
I was trapped in a cult called Mormonism. This magazine taught me much about critical thinking and I escaped :
https://www.csicop.org/si
And this :
Why People Believe Weird Things: Pseudoscience, Superstition, and Other Confusions of Our Time https://www.amazon.com/dp/0805070893/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_XHXIAbHYPT1YR
And this:
The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark https://www.amazon.com/dp/0345409469/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_7JXIAbH1KZTJH
> No, I do not see enough evidence in evolution.
As an honest question, have you genuinely looked at the evidence? I feel like many people who say the evidence for evolution isn't convincing, have either not looked at the evidence, or have only very selectively looked at it through the lens of creationism (which often caricatures evolution in a way that many "new atheists" caricature Christianity & religion)
If you were genuinely interested, this book does a fantastic job. Yes, it's written by Richard Dawkins, but the subject is 100% evolution, nothing about God or religion. Even Dawkin's harshest critics on the subject of religion typically agree that he is a phenomenal scientist/biologist and one of the worlds best experts on the subject of evolution. That book basically lays out a lot of the evidence and not only builds a proper understanding of evolution (which many of its critics do not have) but answers many other questions about it you might not even of had.
Some books that have been often mentioned as good introductory texts about evolution for the layman:
Why Evolution Is True by Jerry Coyne
The Greatest Show on Earth by Richard Dawkins
Your Inner Fish by Neil Shubin
Websites with general information:
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/evolution/ (old site: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/)
The folks at /r/evolution might be interested in giving their view, too if you have any specific questions.
You could also look into the biology curriculum of your college and check out the introductory biology courses you will soon be taking, and buy in advance the textbook(s) that deal with evolution.
> I think I'd like to learn more about it.
Finding Darwin's God: A Scientist's Search for Common Ground Between God and Evolution is a 2000 book by the American cell biologist and Roman Catholic Kenneth R. Miller wherein he argues that evolution does not contradict religious faith.
It turned into science because we found lots of evidence for it.
Here is a short video about it: What is the evidence for evolution? by Stated Clearly.
And a longer book about it: Why Evolution Is True by Jerry Coyne.
> I don't disagree with it, but that's just the thing; the Bible is, as far as now, historically accurate in the things we have evidence for
Go spend a few weeks reading archeology and textual criticism, and then try to tell me that with a straight face again.
I recommend starting here. Then you will know enough about the state of the field to go hunt down primary sources from the past 10 years, and see how his thesis has become the mainstream consensus.
Then maybe read a book on the formation of some doctrine, like the doctrine of hell. Hell is a late development in Judaism, and was shamelessly stolen from surrounding cultures, just like most all the rest of the biblical stories and ideas.
> One can't prove that there is or isn't a god, and that seems like a stalemate.
I can't prove there isn't a deity, but I can give strong evidence that irregardless of whether he exists, the bible is a very flawed human creation and all supposed revelation is dubious at best.
I was a fundamentalist a bit over a year ago. Then I actually read a lot of archeology, biblical textual criticism, psychology, neuroscience, cognitive science of religion, as well as the best books on Christian evidence like N.T. Wright's "Resurrection of the Son of God."
I'm sad to say that the case for naturalism of religion is much much stronger then any of the mutually incompatible claims religionists make by themselves. This is the main reason I am no longer a Christain.
If you want to look into the evidence against what you believe and want a good introductory book, I'd recommend this one. It covers a lot of ground, and then you can go look at any of the sections that interest you in more detail.
The simple answer is Skeptics Annotated Bible as far as spotting contradictions to know beyond any doubts that the Bible is one giant fairy tale.
If you want to go further, also recommend:
Aron Ra Foundational Falsehoods of Creationism For a preview of Aron Ra Biblical Absurdity
Bart Ehrman Forged: Writing in the name of God
There's also this fabulous presentation by Richard Carrier: Did Jesus Even Exist?
I would not read On the Origin of Species to get an introduction to evolution. It is quite long winded, but that was the standard of the time.
I would start with Why is Evolution True by Jerry Coyne and The Greatest Show on Earth by Dawkins. At this point you should have a good grasp on the basics.
After reading these if you want a more technical introduction I would suggests The Selfish Gene by Dawkins.
For your own sake and curiosity, I recommend reading how Kenneth R. Miller argues that the randomness of quantum mechanics is actually how God interacts with the Universe. There's literally no rational explanation for what happens at the quantum level which is why we rationally conclude that it's just meaningless and random. And yet that's how the entire Universe exists in the state that it does - and how every biological mutation occurred in evolutionary theory.
https://www.amazon.com/Finding-Darwins-God-Scientists-Evolution/dp/0061233501
As for your sister, though, she's screwed. She's a liberal and a women's studies major at a secular university. Most people in that demographic suffer from the Dunning-Kruger Effect. She also has strong ulterior motives and you're arguing against her dopamine reward system (living with her boyfriend).
This may help you understand her rather than wasting your breath arguing with her.
Why Evolution Is True
https://www.amazon.com/Why-Evolution-True-Jerry-Coyne/dp/0143116649
> as I have no proof that we evolved from other animals/etc.
Such proof abounds. If you're going to debate these people, you need to know some of it.
I don't mean enough to ask a couple of questions, I mean enough to carry both sides of the conversation, because he'll make you do all the heavy lifting.
Start with talkorigins.org.
First, the FAQ
Maybe the 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution next,
then the pieces on observed instances of speciation
See the extensive FAQs index
Here are their questions for creationsists - see both links there
and then read the index to creationist claims
That's just to start. Take a look at the Outline (which starts with an outline of the outline!)
If you're going to talk with a creationist, you either need to get some idea of the topography or you'll end up chasing in circles around the same tree again and again.
Yes, it looks like a major time investment, but once you start to become familiar with it, it gets easier quickly. Don't aim to learn it all by heart - but you should know when there is an answer to a question, and where to find it.
read books like Your Inner Fish and Why Evolution Is True and The Greatest Show on Earth
I list Your Inner Fish first because it tells a great story about how Shubin and his colleagues used evolutionary theory and geology to predict where they should look for an intermediate fossil linking ancient fish and amphibians (a "transitional form") - and they went to that location, and found just such a fossil. This makes a great question for your creationist - given fossils are kind of rare, how the heck did he manage that? If evolution by natural selection is false, why does that kind of scientific prediction WORK? Is God a deceiver, trying to make it look exactly like evolution happens?? Or maybe, just maybe, the simpler explanation is true - that evolution actually occurs. (Then point out that many major Christian churches officially endorse evolution. They understand that the evidence is clear)
It's a good idea to read blogs like Panda's Thumb, Why Evolution Is True, Pharyngula, erv (old posts here) and so on, which regularly blog on new research that relates to evolution.
Make sure you know about the experiments by Lenski et al on evolution of new genes
Don't take "no proof" as an argument. The evidence is overwhelming.
> PhD scholars
I have a book full of essays by scientists, arguing in favor of creationism.
I keep it displayed on my bookcase to remind me that even those highly educated in fields I respect can believe stupid things.
I've said it here before, but Bill Nyes latest book Undeniable is great!
I wouldn't bother arguing with them. It's notoriously difficult to reason someone out of a position they didn't use reason to get into in the first place.
If you're interested in evolution, by all means learn more about it, but do it for yourself. You can start here for an overview:
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-evolution.html
http://evolutionfaq.com/
And these books will explain in more depth:
https://smile.amazon.com/Why-Evolution-True-Jerry-Coyne/dp/0143116649?sa-no-redirect=1
https://smile.amazon.com/Blind-Watchmaker-Evidence-Evolution-Universe/dp/0393351491?sa-no-redirect=1
https://smile.amazon.com/Selfish-Gene-Popular-Science/dp/0192860925?sa-no-redirect=1
> As far as I know there isn’t any real hard evidence for it.
For a nice overview of the plethora of evidence for evolution, read Jerry A. Coyne's Why Evolution is True. He gives lots, and lots, and LOTS of examples. It's easy to read.
Even if you believe in creationism, you should still read it. It's really important to look at the evidence that the other side presents so you can make an informed rebuttal.
Not a book, but the overviews on TalkOrigins.org are a good place to start. Just start at the top and work down. It addresses some common theological issues.
You can also look at an index to creationist claims on the site, which has short answers to many points creationists raise, including a section on philosophy and theology.
You also might look at the unrelated biologos and clergy letter project for more theological support for evolution.
As for book, someone already mentioned "Why Evolution is True". Your Inner Fish is also a good place to start. The Greatest Show on Earth is also supposed to be good although I haven't read it.
If you do become interested in debating, or if you just have questions, it would be better to head over to /r/DebateEvolution, which specializes in the issue and has a lot of people very knowledgeable about the subject.
Since it hasn't been mentioned yet, Your Inner Fish by Neil Shubin is a good one. It's short, and easy to read, the author has a very friendly, conversational tone. It is primarily focused on human evolution, rather than evolution in general, though.
I just began reading Your Inner Fish recently. It's pretty great so far. Definitely a focus on shubins experience with paleontology, but he does go a fair bit into molecular genetics as well.
Can't really say much else until I finish it.
Most of the books that people are recommending on here are great, especially Jerry Coyne's. If you're going to read Dawkins, his best for explaining the basics of evolution is Greatest Show on Earth. If you want to read a book by a devout Christian who does an outstanding job of explaining evolution, then explains how he reconciles his understanding of evolution with his religious beliefs, try Finding Darwin's God by Ken Miller. Good luck on your search, and I salute your hunger for knowledge!
Your Inner Fish is a fascinating book on the evolution of the human body.
There is a book called "The Counter Creationism Handbook". It was made by some scientists who were tired of hearing the same old arguments against evolution that had been debunked/disproven years ago. It will give a common argument made by YECs, then give a bunch of counter arguments that span direct evidence, simple reason, and even theology.
Edited: link
Chapters 13 and 14 of Why People Believe Weird Things discuss why people believe the Holocaust was a hoax and then why we know it is a historical fact.
The Greatest Show on Earth by Richard Dawkins is a good book that gives counter examples to creationists. It addresses radio-dating, plate tectonics, cool examples of animals, and missing links. Dawkins is a grumpy old atheist, so he may not be your cup of tea.
Take a look at Michael Shermer's Why People Believe Weird Things There's a chapter in there titled 'Why Smart People Believe Weird Things'
Philip Kitcher's Abusing Science, Michael Shermer's Why People Believe Weird Things and Massimo Pigliucci's Nonsense on Stilts are all great reads on this topic. I also highly recommend Naomi Oreskes' and Erik Conway's Merchants of Doubt as an examination of how scientific language can be abused to stymie public policy progress on certain issues.
This is certainly part of the philosophy of science. The problem of how to separate genuine science from pseudoscience is called the demarcation problem, and there's not really any generally accepted criteria that apply to all cases. Some people reject the idea that we ought to draw that kind of principled distinction in the first place. Nobel Prize-winning chemist Irving Langmuir has a great talk advocating for a notion of "pathological science" rather than pseduoscience that's worth reading through.
She has this Bermuda Triangle thing going on. Everyone loves to post the stories about how someone mysteriously disappears in the Bermuda Triangle. I think I read it in this book, but basically some guy started collecting all of these stories about people sailing in the Bermuda Triangle region and getting lost mysteriously. Newspapers would print up all these stories about the mysterious circumstances and how no one knows where these people are. The guy in the book basically called around to look for the people that went missing and found out that almost all of them were eventually found. He called the newspaper to ask them why they didn't print a correction to the original story and they basically said "corrections don't sell newspapers".
Walk around carrying a copy of the latest Bill Nye book.
http://www.amazon.com/Undeniable-Evolution-Creation-Bill-Nye/dp/1250007135
We know exactly how it did. We do it all the time with artificial selection.
If you want proof, look no further than your dog or an ear of corn.
Here are a couple of compelling examples:
http://www.nature.com/hdy/journal/v82/n1/full/6884120a.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1194281/Darwins-evolution-moth-changes-black-white-thanks-soot-free-skies.html
Really, I feel silly even arguing this.
I highly recommend Bill Nye's Undeniable:
http://www.amazon.com/Undeniable-Evolution-Creation-Bill-Nye/dp/1250074223/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1451618364&sr=8-3&keywords=bill+nye
Some here will disagree, yet I think your cause is a noble one.
My suggestion would be to keep encouraging her to be a freethinker, question everything, and learn all she can about science. If she can be at a point where she understands that "science is more than a body of knowledge, it is a way of thinking" (Carl Sagan), if she can fall in love with the wonders of the creation of the universe and the evolution of life on this world, then you'll be done, as those things will show any thinking person the absurdity of religion as a moral compass.
If she likes to read, here are some books you might consider getting for her:
Edit: grammar
Just gonna throw this out there - most of me and my wife's shelf breakers came from books or film that wouldn't traditionally be seen as related to mormonism. Our brains were just too wired to sniff that stuff out and reject it even if engaging with it. Instead I'd recommend two of the most powerful books I ever read and obiliterated my testimony without so much as a mention of Mormon history:
The Greatest Show On Earth by Richard Dawkins - Dawkins has a bit of a reputation as a vocal Atheist so your wife may already be biased. But if not - he is a wonderful writer, capable of relaying complex scientific principles in easy-to-understand layman's terms. So clear and levelheaded, it's essentially impossible to read this book and not have a minor stroke from the cognitive dissonance it throws on every concept of a divine creator that's ever existed.
Varieties of Scientific Experience by Carl Sagan - Carl Sagan was the original 'make science cool and accessible' superstar and in my mind he still hasn't been topped. This book is a supremely entertaining, mind expanding and FAIR mediation on science and belief from one of our generations greatest thinkers.
Hope this helps (cause reading mormon history books if she isn't ready sure as hell won't)
There are two books that I think would be good:
What Evolution Is
Why Evolution Is True
I liked both books. I am not sure how readable they are without a decent understanding of basic biology. Can you tell us how much background you have in biology? That may help with suggestions.
I second the recommendation for Jerry Coyne's Why Evolution Is True. Very very good and highly accessible. Then, if you want further detail, go to The Greatest Show on Earth.
But the coached creationist will say, "Macro has never been proven! No new species have been formed! No matter how much you selectively breed dogs, you still end up with a dog that can interbreed with other dogs!"
The proper answer, of course, is to shove Your Inner Fish down their throat... that or smile and back away slowly.
/used to be a well-coached creationist, so hopefully I'm still allowed to make fun of them... >.>
Are you talking about Dawkins or the FreeThought blogger? Read The Greatest Show on Earth, it has plenty of science and clear thinking.
Francis Collins, former head of the Humane Genome project.
http://www.amazon.com/The-Language-God-Scientist-Presents/dp/1416542744
Interesting book.
Here's another good one by the cell biologist Ken Miller.
http://www.amazon.com/Finding-Darwins-God-Scientists-Evolution/dp/0061233501/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1427248419&sr=1-1&keywords=finding+darwin%27s+god+by+kenneth+miller
He was also an expert witness in the Dover District school board trial where they tried to introduce Intelligent Design.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zi8FfMBYCkk
What convinced me of the truth of evolution was hearing a talk from Dr. Kenneth Miller, author of Finding Darwin’s God. He’s a Catholic biologist who not only soundly explains the science of evolution and refutes scientific explanations for creationism, but also believes that rather than conflicting faith, an understanding of evolution enhances faith.
> I feel like we're getting pretty close to the end game in this field
Not by a long shot. There were people saying the same thing five hundred years ago. It's incomprehensible how much remains to be learned. Our models of everything - the physical world, the functioning of biological systems, the nature of the universe - are fairly crude next to what actually goes on.
To put things in perspective, we learned what the pancreas does less than one hundred years ago.
We figured out how to fly a smidge longer ago than that.
We haven't even left our own solar system yet, and we (humans, not robots) have only ever been to one body other than the earth.
You carry computers in your pocket now that are about the thickness of a deck of cards and can accurately track your location to within a few feet, automatically order a sub sandwich for you at the touch of a button, and will allow you to place a telephone call to Shanghai. Ten years ago, that would have been witchcraft. Today it's commonplace.
In biology, astronomy, chemistry, physics, computing science, and a hundred other fields I'm too dumb to even know about... we're still learning.
>The synaptic structure of the brain does NOT explain the mind
Note that you're contradicting yourself here - you just said we're 'nearing the end game' and now you're launching in to how much we don't know.
The synaptic structure of the brain alone doesn't explain the mind. There are neurochemical and other factors to be considered.
It's a highly complex processor, and we don't know what we need to know to accurately model or reproduce it.. yet. But that doesn't mean it won't happen.
Be careful you don't fall into an argument from ignorance fallacy here.
>You trying to convince a christian that a quark behaves depending on whether or not its being observed is about as likely as them trying to convince you that you should act righteous because god is watching.
Are you saying people of faith can't be reasoned with? I'm sure there are a few examples, but by and large... I disagree.
>The only two choices are not science and faith, and I hate to break it to you, but all the arrogant little atheists on reddit come across just as closed minded as somebody who really believes the earth was created in 7 days.
I don't disagree that it's not a dichotomous choice. If you haven't read Ken Miller, I recommend this.
>We need to get faith and science back in bed together.
Erh, I don't think it's so much that as we need to recognize that they're independent and ought to remain as such.
Ken Miller wrote a book called Finding Darwin's God, where he does what you're looking for. He starts with young-earth creationism, moves onto old-earth creationism, and then to intelligent design. It's the best book on evolution I've read so far.
What the heck, I'm in the mood to toy with a troll on a Saturday night.
"People assume evolution is true because they say it's the most logical thing to believe, but I believe that intelligent design is more logical if you examine the evidence with no presuppositions."
First, scientists don't assume anything, and people who have gone to actual schools rather than Christian schools have learned the scientific method and possibly even proven evolution to themselves in a laboratory experiment (yes, it happens in the lab)
If you examine THE evidence? ... with no presuppositions? Funny. Because the Intelligent Design lie was invented by the Discovery Institute, whose mission is to prove that God is behind it all -- i.e. they are starting with a presupposition.
". Evolution has no proof. They have fossils and dating methods that they say is proof, but subjectively they must not truly be proof because if they were truly proof then there would be no intelligent people who believed in creation left"
hahahahhahaa that's a good one! They have thousands of fossils, and dating methods that have been proven... and when they dig where they expect to find certain kinds of fossils based on the theory of evolution, they find them! They have found fish that were able to walk on land, the transitional fossils between the hippo ancestor and the whale, etc.
The fallacy of appeal to authority is no kind of proof especially in this case because you're not appealing to biologists of the modern era, 99% of whom see evolution as the central defining theory of their life's work.
"Evolution has never, in human history, been observed. Their have been many cases of micro-evolution"
Caw! Caw! Caw! You, my friend, are a parrot. You are parroting Ken Ham, which is pretty funny. You obviously don't know that ALL evolution takes place with tiny steps -- i.e., there's no such thing as "macro evolution," so you and the people you parrot are demanding to see something that wouldn't fit the theory of evolution, then claiming that the theory is bunk because the experts haven't provided it. Guess what? That's a dishonest and shameful tactic. You should be ashamed of yourself for mindlessly parroting something so intellectually dishonest.
"3. Evolution goes against the law of entropy." That's just nonsense, again parroting Ken Ham and his ilk. Read this instead: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introduction_to_entropy Meanwhile, consider these points: A. How can crystals form if entropy governs everything and B. The sun sends radiation energy to the Earth, so the Earth is not a closed system - additional energy is added every day.
" it's more logical to believe that an all powerful God created everything than things evolving"
No, it's not more logical. Consider: A perfect God wouldn't have given us the appendix, the tailbone (and in some people actual tails), goosebumps, and other vestigial traits. These things are only logical in light of evolution.
So.. show me the proof? You have a computer. You can use google. You are literate. You can read a book. Why should random redditors be challenged to prove what you are too lazy and ignorant to discover for yourself? The evidence is not that hard to find. Try reading Jerry Coyne's book Why Evolution is True. http://www.amazon.com/Why-Evolution-True-Jerry-Coyne/dp/0143116649
Read up on fossils -- and not in Answers in Genesis or whatever source you parroted in your OP. Read up on how it's been true over and over and over that fossils are found in layers, in exactly the same order everywhere, and that you can predict which fossils you might find in a layer of ground based on evolutionary theory. Note, nobody has EVER found a fossil in a layer where it doesn't belong. A find like that would at the very least shake up one portion of the story that other fossils have told.
Evidence that points to evolution IS proof.
Look up "equivocation." This is a favorite trick of Ken Ham and his ilk. Don't do it! Stop it! Grow up and accept reality! You don't have to equivocate on words like that to learn science - you only have to do it to cling to the creator-god. The bronze age people who made up that story can't be faulted for believing it because they didn't have the scientific method, the technology to study the world like we do, or centuries of scientific findings that have told a much more interesting story.
But you are not a bronze age person, so let go of that fairy tale and embrace the real world.
Can you afford $10 - $15 for a nice present for him?
http://www.amazon.com/Why-Evolution-True-Jerry-Coyne/dp/0143116649/ref=sr_1_cc_1?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1318986789&sr=1-1-catcorr
> and that means it is the end of the discussion is vapid
No one said that is the end of the discussion. They said it answers the question asked.
> short sighted, and lacks serious contemplation of the issue
Again simply asserted and not argued for.
> On top of all of that, it is overly simplistic.
No its not. In fact, though I doubt you've ever seriously studied evolutionary theory, it is quite complicated.
> In other words, saying we do what we do because of evolution presupposes and begs so many answers and questions that it is often times not a respectable or acceptable answer for those seeking greater understanding...
I don't think you have any idea at all about which questions and or answers are presupposed by explaining any of this in terms of evolutionary theory. A few specific (non-metaphorical) examples would be nice.
Again, you need to be careful: No one is saying everything we do makes sense in direct evolutionary terms. Skydiving doesn't seem to make any sense in evolutionary terms. But excitement, adventure, and thrill seeking do.
> For instance, if I order a pizza and want to know where it came from, Pizza Hut, while a valid answer doesn't address the greater(possible) context.
Answering "pizza hut" answers the question you asked. If you would like to know more, you must ask different, better questions. You didn't ask "where does the dough in my pizza come from?" you asked "where did my pizza come from?". This is not lazy, unimaginative, or vapid, it is accurate to the question asked. If you have a better, more specific question, there are other answers that make perfect sense in terms of pizza hut.
> While some of the questions to which I ask may never be known, to assert them as unimportant or lacking in value shows a bias and a personal prejudice that could very well lead to ignorance.
First, this doesn't follow. Just wanted to call your attention to that. Examining a question to discover that it doesn't really mean anything requires some of the most careful thinking humans do, and no-one could properly show that a question doesn't have value without first understanding what that value or meaning seems to be. And no, doing this does not engender any kind of bias or prejudice, in fact quite the opposite, it requires complete, accurate understanding.
"What is the color of envy?" Certainly green. But wait, that question doesn't make any sense. Emotions don't have colors. The question "why have we culturally associated negative emotions with colors which in certain constituents (vomit, rot, defication) trigger disgust?" is a much better, more meaningful question. But envy doesn't actually have a color, it is an emotion.
Second, nice straw-man. I suspect you're carrying baggage over from previous conversations.
> While I am not directing this at any person here, I am saying that I've seen many atheists lack either the willingness or comprehension skills necessary to consider other arguments/evaluate their own.
Ah yes, baggage definitely carried over from previous conversations. Never mind that this assertion, completely out of left field, shows a pretty gross generalization, I doubt you look any more intellectually capable or willing to them.
> Simply put, claiming that the reason for us being here is because evolution "just is" blindly assumes too much.
Like what? Again, I don't think you have even the slightest idea.
> After all there is no proof of this such a position, and even more so then that, there are good possible arguments to be made to the very contrary.
Oh lordy here it comes.
Read a book. Seriously prove yourself to be not a hypocrite and go buy those two books right now. And read them in full, charitably, even if you're not a creationist.
> Regardless my main point is simply this, many people(atheists) who argue for evolution as an answer worthy of general acceptance within humanity (for our be all end all origins of existence) have given up on the serious consideration of other alternatives
Yes, because the alternatives have been so thoroughly trounced, debunked, and defeated which evolution has been so thoroughly explanatory, consistent, and supported.
> as such are generally not interested in a fruitful discussion but merely want to espouse their dogmatic world view.
"Fruitful discussion" isn't just discussion which includes totally erroneous, impossible things. Upon your asking about where your pizza came from, my suggesting that we pay serious attention to my hypothesis that it was pooped out exactly as is by a superhero I call Pizza Man three minutes ago would not be a means to fruitful discussion. Having a diverse discussion isn't having a fruitful one. A fruitful discussion proceeds toward truth, it doesn't include as many possibilities as possible for their own sake.
> It's a completely different thing to say that since evolution created us we should just believe that is the totality of our origins.
Again, the stench of baggage here is heavy. First, if evolution created us, evolution created us, that is the totality of our origins. The question you're trying desperately to beg includes evolution creating us by the hand of a sky wizard. If that were the case, it wouldn't be evolution creating us. It would be evolution and a sky wizard. No evidence of the sky wizard, no reason to think he created us through evolution. No reason to think he didn't either, but in order to think he did (and that's what were worried about, if he did), ya need evidence.
And again with the straw-man. No one is saying that since we understand our evolutionary origins necessarily and sufficiently, we must now never consider any further possibility or amendment at all, ever. Quite the opposite, science is constantly doing it's best to discover that evolution is wrong- this is part of the scientific method. It doesn't seem to be able to do a very good job to that end (indeed more and more support keeps showing up), and that's why we take evolution so seriously.
We we don't do is give every random suggestion or hypothesis automatic credence as equally likely to be true just because some guy thought of it. You must have evidence that your hypothesis is true, or it is tentatively, parsimoniously considered not true (not 'false' mind you, 'not true'- as in lacking established truth value).
The study of the origin of life is an ongoing process in the scientific community. A reddit comment is hardly the place to summarize an entire area of ongoing scientific study and research.
If you'd like to know more, wikipedia has a page on it which delves into the many competing and conjoining theories on the origin of life as we best understand it now.
There's also the Miller-Urey experiment concerning the so-called primordial soup specifically. That established the kind of conditions in which simpler organic compounds form more complex ones, and how that relates to early earth conditions. It's all really interesting to read about.
Also that's different than evolution. And if we're having an argument as to whether evolution is a real thing, I don't even know where to begin with that. The evidence for it, available from a wide variety of sources, is so voluminous that anyone wanting to seriously learn about the scientific study of the evolution of life can find an abundance of literature discussing evolution of creatures both small and large. Richard Dawkins discusses much of what that is in his book The Greatest Show on Earth.
If you'd like a source from a less controversial figure, Prof Jeffrey Coyne (an evolutionary geneticist at the University of Chicago) has a good book: Why Evolution is True.
I think Dawkins' The Ancestor's Tale is one of his best. It takes the traditional bacteria to human story of evolution and flips it on its head, escaping the sense of directed progress that so often occurs in evolutionary books. I would also second the suggestion for Shubin's Your Inner Fish.
Your inner fish.
Why People Believe Weird Things - Michael Shermer
Letter to a Christian Nation - Sam Harris
You may find the ideas of confirmation bias and motivated reasoning helpful. I also grew up very Christian (I once went to a camp where the whole purpose was to go minister to people on the streets for a week. Yikes.) and am now atheist AF. It was a struggle for me as well. You may also be interested in the TedTalk and book by Michael Shermer - Why People Believe Weird Things.
The most helpful way for me to think about it is that most religious people didn't come to religion because of reasons. They came to it either by default (raised in it) or by emotional need (tragedy strikes, they need purpose / stability / sympathy / to know things will be okay / etc.) My dad's wife told me that she believed in God because she couldn't stand the thought of not seeing her father again in Heaven. I told her that wasn't really a good foundation for a religion, and she didn't much like that. The real answer is that people believe because they want to believe.
Also, let's not pretend people are rational in other aspects of their life. Once I got into the workforce, I saw that people believed all kinds of silly things to protect themselves (their ego, really). They'll claim that such-and-such method is really the path forward, when it's very clearly not, just because it was their idea. They'll blame other people for their own mistakes. They'll hold down their subordinates because they don't want their employee to outshine them. And on and on it goes. I guess people do act largely "rationally" in these cases, it's just that the goal isn't to be right, it's to feel like they're right. People also really, really, really, really, really hate to admit that they were wrong, especially about something as foundational as religion - but also about anything else. Like, they really hate it.
Finally, there's no punishment for being wrong about this. People believe much more insane things, in the sense that they can easily be proven false - Obama was a secret Muslim bent on enacting Sharia law in the US, the Earth is flat, the Queen of England is a lizard-person, etc. - and nothing bad happens. Sometimes they may air their insanity in public and get laughed at but they go back to the previous paragraph and distort things to protect their vision of the world and themselves. It's not like you'll be sent to prison or fined for believing silly things. So they get a lot out of it (self-affirmation) and nothing bad happens to them (no fines for stupidity) and they don't have to admit they were wrong. They're going to keep on keepin' on.
To me, this is more a psychology problem than a philosophical one. It's more about how people think than what they think and the sad truth is, people aren't great at rigorous thinking. Our ability to argue rewards those who win arguments, not necessarily the people who are right. I can't tell you how many times I've been discussing something contentious with someone and they bring out a 'gotcha' kind of statement - something that people don't hear often so it's unexpected.
For instance, some Jehovah's Witnesses asked me the other day if I trust science. I saw where they were going with this (trying to equate my belief that science works with their faith in religion.) I told them that science is no more a collection of facts than a stack of bricks and wood is a house and that science is a process - it's really a verb, not a noun. Every fact we have is subject to updating given appropriate evidence, and that is where the true strength of science lies. That we don't try to be eternally right, but just the most correct we can be right now given the available evidence. This had obviously worked well for them before, but they abandoned this line of 'reasoning' before they even got to the question, because I'd already explained how they are misunderstanding my position in order to make that argument.
That's my brief explanation for why I, a layman, think this kind of thing happens. I'm no expert, but this is something I've gone through myself, and it's a rough journey, especially with your family and most friends shitting on your new beliefs (I don't know your experience, but that happened to me for a long time.) If you want to chat more about it, feel free to message me or continue the thread and I'll help however I can.
I went through almost the exact same thing. After leaving our main church, my wife and I stopped going all together. Several years later, after we moved because of jobs, we started going again. Needless to say, that didn't last long.
My wife and I both come from very strong Christian backgrounds; my wife's father was a Southern-Baptist minister for decades, and my dad went to Dallas Theological Seminary and taught church classes most of his life. So let's just say that leaving wasn't an easy thing.
However, my own search led me to realize the truth. Since my wife and I are very close, I talked with her about these things but was very careful about what I said. I'm still careful. I approach the discussions from the standpoint of "searching for answers" rather than declaring that I've already decided.
My mantra over the last few years has been "If it were possible to know the truth, and one of the possibilities was that God didn't exist, would you really want to know?" Well, my answer is yes. I don't want to be a blind-follower Christian. If God is real, then I want to know for sure!
I recommend approaching it like that. It let's your spouse see that you are truly searching for answers. The truth is all we really want, and we can't use a 3000 year-old book to do it. We need real answers, not mythology.
Be sure to talk about it a lot, and be open minded to your spouse's point of view. Let them know you still care for them deeply.
This sub-reddit has been so helpful and caring, so good job starting here. Also grab some books or find some web-sites that discus these things. Here are a few I recommend:
Sites
Books
Cheers
~Nate
This isn't exactly what you're looking for (it has much more to do with pollination and fertilization than it does germination), but the hammer orchid has a structure that looks like a certain insect. The orchid has evolved a part (the labellum) to look uncannily similar to the female Thynnid wasp (at least to the males). When the male Thynnid wasp tries to copulate with the labellum, the orchid swings the two backward, smashing the wasp against pollen packets, which stick to it. The wasp then flies away and is tricked again by a second orchid. This time, however, the pollen from the first flower enters the stigma of the second and fertilizes it.
I'm just a high school student, so professionals out there please correct me if I'm wrong. I apologize profusely for any errors or misconceptions.
Hope this helps!
I would highly highly recommend "The Greatest Show on Earth" by Richard Dawkins. It was actually used as a text book for a capstone evolution course at my university it explains the basic and very complex ideas of evolution in a very simple manner.
http://www.amazon.com/The-Greatest-Show-Earth-Evolution/dp/1416594795/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1374690719&sr=8-1&keywords=the+greatest+show+on+earth
"50 Reasons People Give for Believing in a God" is a great choice: http://www.amazon.com/Reasons-People-Give-Believing-God/dp/1591025672
There's a book about this, and it's wonderful.
I think the most common response I get after whittling away all the bullshit reasons people use to justify their beliefs is some variation on "Faith." Personal experience, feeling very strongly that something is true, wishful thinking, etc.
In debates, I give people one retreat to this answer for free. I point out how terrible it is as a path to truth, how indistinguishable faith is from gullibility, how just wanting something doesn't shape reality, and so on. The second time they do it, I point it out and close the conversation. There's no more progress to be made at that point.
>I tried to intergrate into this rotten western society but I failed. I lost my faith after learning about the looks theory and darwinism.
https://www.amazon.com/Darwins-Doubt-Explosive-Origin-Intelligent-ebook/dp/B0089LOM5G
This book utterly annihilates Neo Darwinism.
Its probably the most important book written in the last 100 years imo.
Here are some other good books not included in the Bible.
https://www.amazon.com/Bible-Unearthed-Archaeologys-Vision-Ancient/dp/0684869136/ref=nodl_
https://www.amazon.com/How-Jesus-Became-God-Exaltation/dp/0061778192/ref=mp_s_a_1_2_nodl?crid=9RMC18R4FOG4&keywords=misquoting+jesus+by+bart+ehrman&qid=1554250427&s=gateway&sprefix=bart+ehrman&sr=8-2
https://www.amazon.com/Greatest-Show-Earth-Evidence-Evolution/dp/1416594795/ref=mp_s_a_1_3_nodl?crid=35QQAVAV7QDZC&keywords=richard+dawkins&qid=1554250354&s=gateway&sprefix=richard+dawkins&sr=8-3
https://www.amazon.com/God-Delusion-Richard-Dawkins-ebook/dp/B003JTHWJQ/ref=mp_s_a_1_2_nodl?crid=35QQAVAV7QDZC&keywords=richard+dawkins&qid=1554250354&s=gateway&sprefix=richard+dawkins&sr=8-2
https://www.amazon.com/Foundation-Isaac-Asimov-ebook/dp/B000FC1PWA/ref=mp_s_a_1_2?crid=12RC9CDG804CS&keywords=isaac+asimov&qid=1554250561&s=gateway&sprefix=isaac+asimov&sr=8-2
https://www.amazon.com/Gone-Girl-Gillian-Flynn/dp/0307588378/ref=mp_s_a_1_2?crid=3CFDSBUJ5BQBR&keywords=gone+girl&qid=1554250625&s=gateway&sprefix=gone+giel&sr=8-2
https://www.amazon.com/Green-Eggs-Ham-Dr-Seuss/dp/0394800168/ref=nodl_
50 Reasons People Give for Believing in a God is good, and broken up in such a way that you can read the objections to your own reasoning.
You might also want to check out r/Atheism's FAQ's. They have a lot of good book recommendations and a nice summary of common questions.
50 Reasons People Give for Believing In a God is a good book that explains different reasons people believe and while it doesn't tell them they are wrong, gets people to critically think about if that reason is a good reason or not.
Big Bang Theory and Evolution are not really related, so I don't think you'll find a book with both, but, to answer your question:
The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution by Richard Dawkins is a great book on evolution.
EDIT: You wated the Kindle version KINDLE VERSION
You've heard everything that the religious have to say. And, like most Christians, you've heard the critics being grossly misrepresented through apologetics.
I suggest that you start to study what the critics of Christianity have to say in their own words.
Here's a few to get you started:
As they say, knowledge is power. Understanding why Christianity is wrong will help greatly with purging it from your mind.
Why Evolution is True -Great intro to evolution
The Blind Watchmaker- Dawkins' best introduction to evolution book. If it intrigues you have a look at his other works.
Definitely watch this. One of the best and most simple lecture series on Evolution. By none other than Dawkins himself. Very basic in presentation and entertaining series:
Growing up in the Universe
Why dont you take a university class on Evolution? Or just take a bio 101 class which is going to teach evolution briefly in 1-2 lectures.
I just stumbled upon this course. Which is a evolution course at Yale Open Courses that you might want to check out:
http://oyc.yale.edu/ecology-and-evolutionary-biology/principles-of-evolution-ecology-and-behavior/
>methodically state the case for why creation is most likely and/or why evolution is unlikely.
You will find lots and lots of the latter. Very little of the former.
>I'd also be happy to read GOOD anti-creation books as well, provided they meet the above criterion of not being mocking.
Those would just be science books based on the academic literature, wouldn't they?
Here is my reading list form the past few months. These would be pro-evolution (a.k.a science). Creationism is mentioned in a few of them, but almost in passing because Creationism is simply not a factor in legitimate scientific research, so it gets pretty much no consideration.
Knock yourself out. ;)
http://www.amazon.com/Your-Inner-Fish-Journey-3-5-Billion-Year/dp/0307277453
Yup, pretty much.
If you are interested in learning more about this then I recommend two books:
That is exactly what I am interested in doing! So since I have spent quite a lot of time thinking about this I believe I can help. As for what to read: I started with Your Inner Fish because it brings human evolution back to when we first got out of the water and explains very, very early brain evolution and development of the brain in utero. Also an easy read. Next I have been tackling "Evolution of the Human Brain" by Lieberman (can't find an amazon link for it, sorry). I'll admit it is not an easy read and it is not impeccably edited but I believe all the facts are there and it is very comprehensive. You can learn a lot from this book. I will also suggest The Brain. Now, I can't speak to the quality of this one because it has just come out, but the guys who wrote it are incredibly smart and I expect nothing but great material from them.
As for schools: you must know now that it really all depends on the person you want to work with. They could be anywhere in the world. I mentioned before, this is my thing, so I can tell you that the schools I have interest in because they have one or more people researching this area are: UC San Diego, George Washington U, possibly NYU if you can tie it into neuroscience and work with the medical center, then there are people abroad as well if that's something you would consider.
Hope that helps.
edit: the book is called "Evolution of the Human Head" not Brain.
I Recommend Your Inner Fish
If you're looking for a "smaller" book, I can recommend Jerry Coyne's Why Evolution is True. The main portion of the text is only a little over 200 pages so it's easy to do a quick first read. It also has a glossary so there are clear definitions of terms that may be unfamiliar. Coyne has a much gentler presentation than many, so for a first book on evolution it has much to recommend it.
> we don't see science as the enemy, we may deny things that are not proven definitively (i.e. evolution,darwinism)
Are you sure that you are not denying things that you do not WANT to be proven definitively (ie. evolution, darwinism)? If evolution was proven as "definitively" as germs causing disease or the earth being round, would you then stop denying it?
All of modern biology (aka. science) is based on evolution, how is that not seeing science as an enemy, if you deny basic modern science?
These resources may help you understand what has been "definitively" proven:
Ken Miller on Human Evolution
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zi8FfMBYCkk
Why Evolution is True: Jerry Coyne
https://www.amazon.com/Why-Evolution-True-Jerry-Coyne/dp/0143116649/
I've heard Your inner fish is good. They did a the part show on the book for PBS. I've only seen the first part so far, but it was really good. I don't remember any mention of religion although it's possible I missed it. You could watch it together.
Edit : [Here] ( http://www.pbs.org/your-inner-fish/home/) is a link to the show.
Edit 2 : [The book.] ( http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0307277453?pc_redir=1408253690&robot_redir=1)
Edit 3 : I also highly recommend DHW as illusive atheist mentioned. Great book for the pros of science and skepticism.
AFAIK there is no dinosaur focused book that has been written to specifically counter creationist claims - it would be a worth endeavor. I would point to the Counter-Creationism Handbook. It's pretty thoroughly dismantles most creationist claims - including those related to paleontology.
On the question of people and their blind spots, I recommend going to the library and borrowing a copy of Michael Shermer's Why People Believe Weird Things. (I'd be remiss if I didn't specifically call out chapter 18, "Why Smart People Believe Weird Things" in the revised edition.)
This book is decent It also has a chapter on Ayn Rand objectivism as a cult.
Also see another book:
http://www.amazon.com/The-Believing-Brain-Conspiracies-How-Construct/dp/1250008808/ref=pd_sim_b_1?ie=UTF8&refRID=128C3144EKDPV7SQPYRY
Among the Truthers is also not bad.
http://www.amazon.com/Undeniable-Evolution-Creation-Bill-Nye/dp/1250007135
Haven't read, but if you want some insight particularly into intelligent design/creationism and their agenda in the schools I would definitely take a look at NOVA's "Judgment Day" (poor quality YT link). Ken Miller was involved in the Dover case and gave a rather informative lecture regarding it. If you're looking at the scientific side of things you might check out Bill Nye's new book, although he muddles it up with some controversial personal views towards the end in my opinion.
Maybe you should read his book Undeniable.
https://www.amazon.com/Undeniable-Evolution-Creation-Bill-Nye/dp/1250074223
Buy her a copy of The Greatest Show on Earth.
"The Greatest Show on Earth" by Richard Dawkins. It is a very easy to follow book about evolution, how it works, and why we know it's fact.
Your Inner Fish by Neil Shubin
Closing the glottis to prevent water from entering the lungs while breathing with gills in amphibious development. Gill breathing can be blocked by carbon dioxide, just like holding your breath to convert air to CO2 usually dissipates the hiccup gill response.
There are two great books that talk about exactly this.
In Your Inner Fish -- one of the best general audience science books I've read in a year or more --author Neil Shubin describes how he and his team predicted where a particular "transitional" fossil might be found, travelled there, and indeed found the fossils they were looking for. It's an interesting story, and the book as a whole is excellent at not only explaining evolution from various perspectives but fostering a sense of connection with all life (well, that's how it struck me, anyway).
I did not see him try to shut you up. He tried to clarify your question and then suggested where an answer had already been given.
If you are genuinely interested in the thinking behind the theory, rather than just being rude to those you disagree with, I suggest reading "Your Inner Fish" by Neil Shubin, the discoverer of the Tiktaalik fossil. It is a well written accessible account of how the fossil record and our physiology show a clear evolutionary route from earlier body plans such as fish to the body plan of mammals (including humans). He is especially good on this point of how we have inherited this strange wiring plan for our nerves.
Read it if you like. Then try and take apart the actual detailed argument rather than attacking a snapshot from a TV show.
Is this the one: https://www.amazon.com/Evolution-Dummies-Greg-Krukonis/dp/0470117737
Just buy him a copy of The Greatest Show on Earth.
Or failing that, Mayr's What Evolution Is, Dennet's Darwin's Dangerous Idea (a bit heavy), or finally if all else fails, this
Why People Believe Weird Things: Pseudoscience, Superstition, and Other Confusions of Our Time
This has a great later chapter that explains why intelligent people are susceptible to superstition and religious dogma.
Humans are imperfect animals and our senses often fail us. Even the smartest among us can have beliefs that are completely irrational. Everyone is susceptible of cognitive dissonance, regardless of political affiliation. Michael Shermer's book digs into this subject, if you're interested.
You should read the chapter in Why People Believe Weird Things where Michael Shermer described how he was abducted by aliens. Then read the rest of the chapter and you will get your answer.
There is a book about this
Bad Science by Ben Goldacre, Demon Haunted World by Carl Sagan for general science.
Stuff by James Randi, Michael Shermer for general stuff about new age crap.
The Panic Virus by Seth Mnookin and Deadly Choices by Paul Offit on the Anti-Vaccination movement.
Damned Lies and Statistics by Joel Best and How to Lie with Statistics by Darrell Huff (Also see How to Lie with Maps by Mark Monomonier for a similar subject) for questioning stats and graphics used in the news.
Is there anything specifically you're interested in?
If you're looking for a good book on skepticism and critical thinking I suggest "Why People Believe Weird Things," by Michael Shermer.
Frightening. I have book suggestion for you:
http://www.amazon.com/People-Believe-Weird-Things-Pseudoscience/dp/0805070893
>(in this case uncovering the truths behind pizzagate)
The likelihood that there are any "truths" behind pizzagate is really, really, really low. Your evidence is waaaaay more easily explained as a classic case of a well-known psychological phenomena called apophenia.
If you're interested in learning about what's happening surrounding pizzagate (or any conspiracy theory), I'd suggest Michael Shermer's "Why People Believe Weird Things". It's not a rigidly academic book by any means, but it's a good one for us regular folk, and it's a fairly quick, entertaining read.
If you don't have time for that, you could just watch the Ted Talk, too.
This really cool dude also gave some good tips to avoid this kind of stuff in the future.
There are numerous psychological reasons for her acting the way she did. Blaming herself for not being able to improve her boyfriend, seeking control by being able to push you away, clinging to the illusion of stability of having a boyfriend...
I don't know if any of those reasons are the same for why people defend God, but if some are I also think there are many other reasons that have to do with some of the things Michael Shermer brings up in his book "Why People Believe Weird Things".
I just started reading Bill Nye's book - Undeniable: Evolution and the Science of Creation.
It's quite good so far and Bill Nye's quirky personality comes through in his writing so it's not a dry read.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/1250007135?pc_redir=1413087316&robot_redir=1
I'm sorry to say it, but your arguments are based on ignorance. Please take physics/biology/chemistry classes. Anyway (I'm going to quote you, because there are multiple questions per point):
> the big bang theory. as it states, it is a theory, yet people take it as truth.
Yes, and with reason. There is scientific evidence for the big-bang theory. Please note that 'theory' and 'theory' are two completely different words.
> In no way has it explained how, from "nothingness" became everything.
No it hasn't. Does your god explain it? I don't think so. And although science can't explain what exactly causes nothing to be something, we do observe it. Remember: the total energy of the universe is zero.
> if a big bang really did occurr, why is the matter in the universe clumpy, not evenly distributed?
Matter pulls matter together. Please take a physics class or read this.
>why haven't the laws kept on evolving?
Why should it?
> no-one has ever been able to produce heavier elements,
Of course we have. Please see the periodic table.
> to make the heavier elements you need incredible heat and pressure(stars) but to make the stars you need heavier elements.
No, stars are made up of Hydrogen which fuses into Helium. You don't need heavy elements to form stars. As a matter of fact, stars only form when light elements gather. When stars die, heavier elements form. These explosions are called supernovas.
> nobody has any idea how you would create a star, not even the slightest.
Again, ignorance. See this page.
> if it were any older, it would have been so close to almost touch the earth.
Sunday school fairy tales. The moon moves away from us with a speed of 3.8 cm a year and is positioned 363,345 km (minimum) from us. Thus, it could be 10 billion years old. And no, we're not sure how the moon formed, current theories seem very unlikely. Anyway, this isn't a reason to believe in a genocidal deity.
> jupiter has moons that rotate both ways, right-hand and left-hand. nobody has any idea why is it like that.
Evidence, please.
> life started from nonorganic materials and somehow became living. no-one has ever observed this happen, neither have they ever been able to reproduce the aminoacids(building blocks of life) needed to build life in a laboratory.
That has nothing to do with evolution. Next.
> species start having offspring that are not like the parents. have you ever seen a dog produce a non-dog? sure there are different dogs, but in the end they are dogs. it has never been observed that birds start suddenly hatching lizards.
You're trolling, right? Please, read The Greatest Show on Earth by Richard Dawkins.
Oh, and btw; I'm sorry for my fellow-atheists are calling you names. Please, not all of us are like that.
> Here dy'd their Parents' hopes and feares
> Once all their joy, now all their teares.
Wow. See, if the epitaph had been trite or overly-euphemistic in order to preserve the reader's comfort, a link would be broken here. I'm glad the author didn't do it. History like this connects us to our basic humanity and thus back to each other, I think.
Or even beyond humanity. Richard Dawkins pauses to eulogize an Australopithecus child and its mother (they were early homonids) in one of his books. The child was eaten by an eagle:
> “Poor little Taung Child, shrieking on the wind as you were borne aloft by the aquiline fury, you would have found no comfort in your destined fame, two and a half million years on, as the type specimen of Australopithecus africanus. Poor Taung mother, weeping in the Pliocene.”
Check out the Foundational Falsehoods of Creationism.
Check out a copy of the books The Greatest Show on Earth or Why Evolution is True from a library. You can also get one of them for free on Audible, but you will miss out on the citations and diagrams.
See if you can watch or read The Grand Design by Stephen Hawking. I watched the miniseries, it's pretty good. It used to be on Netflix but no longer is.
Cosmos is great, and is on Netflix. If you want to watch videos about Cosmology just type in one of the popular physicist's names, Brian Greene, Neil deGrasse Tyson, Lawrence Krauss (his Universe from Nothing book is really great, so are his lectures about it), Sean Carroll etc.
Let me know if you want to talk, I'm always up for it.
Definitely check out these books. If you haven’t read it, I highly recommend “Why Evolution Is True” by Jerry Coyne
It’s may not go as deep as some others but it’s an easy read book that keeps you engaged and is totally worth your time. I love this book so much because it’s very approachable for anyone. It’s filled with easy to understand examples, and I find that it’s a great refresher for myself every now and then. It’s also a great book to give or recommend to others who may not know much about the subject.
As others have mentioned, Darwin’s book is more of a piece of history than anything else. It was absolutely groundbreaking at the time but we know so much more now. Plus, the way it was written definitely shows it’s age and makes it a kind of a hard read.
Natural selection is not defined as "survival of the fittest," that's just a colloquialism to help people understand the basic idea. The basic idea is that there is some process by which organisms who are more fit than others will reproduce more often, outcompeting those who are less fit. Natural selection is simply the mechanism that takes genetic mutation and environmental conditions and outputs organisms that succeed. It also outputs organisms that don't, hence the idea of 'out competing.'
I'm on mobile, so here's an ugly link to a good definition and high level overview:
https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_25
The phrase "survival of the fittest" reduces the idea down by trimming away the details to make a nice, intuitive catch phrase. However, that loss of information does lead people to misunderstand what natural selection really is.
As for your link, I'll respond with one of my own, if you're interested. I'm not an expert and don't keep the details of evolution handy. The book "Why Evolution is True" by Jerry Coyne goes into great detail about why the Theory of Evolution does make predictions and that those predictions are testable and verifiable. That will suffice as my rebuttal to Dr. Henry Peters' forced "tautology." After all, wouldn't you rather hear it from an expert than some internet stranger?
There are plenty of other books like Dr. Coyne's that would do just as well, however. I was able to check out his book for free at my local library, but here is the Amazon link ($14), so you have the details:
https://www.amazon.com/Why-Evolution-True-Jerry-Coyne/dp/0143116649
No problem. Keep in mind this was a process over 4-5 years.
> What was your initial reaction when you discovered that your beliefs didn't hold up to scrutiny?
Denial, basically.
My story in (very) short: I started learning about skeptical ideas and concepts around other ideas (ufos, bigfoot, esp, dowsing), then made the sudden connection: how do I know I'm not making the same mistakes (confirmation bias, hindsight bias, counting the hits and ignoring the misses, motivated reasoning, etc.) about my own belief about intercessory prayer? So my initial plan was to research and examine individual beliefs within Christianity one at a time; after all I could still be a Christian (of some variety) even if some of the Evangelical/Pentecostal-specific beliefs didn't prove out.
I even went as far as designing some very detailed statistical dice-rolling tests as a way to evaluate prayer (like a "fleece test", see Judges chapter 6).
But then I found atheist authors like Greta Christina who had writing so clear and to the point that, in a way, it cut the Gordian Knot of my big list of beliefs to investigate: if God didn't actually exist, then none of the rest of these details matter.
Even after that, I still clung to one thin thread of hope: Biblical Creationism. If the only reason we are here at all is because of God, then he can't just not exist, right? Well, about 3 chapters into Why Evolution is True by Jerry Coyne, I was an atheist.
> How should one go about trying to show evangelicals that their beliefs aren't worth keeping?
I think that would be a counter-productive approach. You can't convince someone their belief isn't worth keeping if they still believe it is true.
I was an Evangelical for 40 years because I believed it was true. I believe that the stories in the Old and New Testament were literally factual. I believed that I was a sinner that was in need of redemption, and had been saved by grace by Jesus' sacrifice on the cross. I believe that I had a real, personal relationship with Jesus Christ. I believed that I felt the real presence of a spiritual being in the church sanctuary during worship services.
In fact, my (stated) commitment to truth is a big part of why I felt that my investigation into my beliefs would surely confirm everything I already knew. But it also fortunately meant I was open to learning the truth, if I was wrong.
My only strategy is to ask a question shamelessly stolen from some of the witnessing material we studied in church: if what you believe were not true, would you want to know?
To many believers, the answer will be a clear and unashamed no. They're not interested in hearing anything that could even hypothetically change their mind. For them, even considering questions of doubt is "opening themselves up to the devil". For them, there is nothing you can say.
For those that are willing, I encourage them to research these kinds topics using materials from outside their Evangelical circle (even mainstream Christian scholars who are not Evangelicals). I have a Bible degree from an Evangelical university, and (you probably wouldn't be surprised to hear), we were only allowed to use materials from "Bible-believing" authors (ie, other Evangelicals). So even in college I never really studied these things from all sides, just from what Evangelicals set up as the straw man of what the other side said.
> What views of yours changed (e.g. on gay marriage, sex ed, abortion, etc., anything like that) when you discovered your beliefs didn't hold up to scrutiny?
Once I discovered I was wrong about the most important thing I believed about the universe, yes, the obvious follow-up was: well, what else might I be wrong about?
In short: everything.
I was a Rush Limbaugh listening, straight-ticket Republican voting, abortion and gay rights-opposing stereotypical member of the "religious right". As a teenager I was an enthusiastic volunteer on Pat Robertson's 1988 Presidential campaign.
I'm now a no-apology liberal, and am addicted to Rachel Maddow on MSNBC. I consider myself a (still learning) feminist, and am supportive of LGBT rights, BLM and other social justice causes. I have changed my mind about abortion, although I've found having conversations about that with my (still believing) wife or other family/friends simply is never productive.
I thought this book did a great job of listing big, high-level evidence for evolution.
http://www.amazon.com/Why-Evolution-True-Jerry-Coyne/dp/0143116649
I would echo the other commenters' advice about keeping your sanity and surviving the next few years.
My addition to this discussion is book recommendations. If you want to learn more about evolution, check out the books Why Evolution Is True by Jerry Coyne, The Greatest Show On Earth: The Evidence for Evolution by Richard Dawkins, and Your Inner Fish: A Journey into the 3.5 Billion Year History of the Human Body by Neil Shubin.
Reading these books will pretty much inoculate you against creationist bullshit (pardon the vaccination pun), and give you a great foundation in understanding one of the most basic facts of science --- evolution.
We all wish you the best as you navigate these difficult years. Please use this sub as much as you need! :)
That's right, yeah. There are tons of transitional fossils. Every fossil is a transitional fossil, technically :) But the big ones they always want to see are the ones between what we would now consider major species groups, like "land mammals" vs "whales". And yes, there are plenty of those.
It turns out that fossilization only happens in incredibly rare conditions. The critter generally has to have the right level of hard tissues, fall in one of the right kind of sediment, not get scavenged, etc. It's pretty amazing that we have as many as we do, if you think about it. So yes, we would expect a 'gappy' picture to connect the dots through, but there are MORE than enough dots to have a pretty good picture of what the whole tree looks like. (Even more data is now available with the advent of DNA sequencing, and it turns out to map generally pretty well to how the picture looked from only having fossils.) If you want more on this Why Evolution Is True is a good, not too intimidating read.
Others have great answers, but I think I can add a bit more.
The adage "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" applies more often than you might expect for evolutionary traits. The reason why most species have a similar body plan is because we all share a single common ancestor that lived in the ocean over 350 million years ago. This is the tetrapod body plan. Their body plan, for whatever reason, is the body plan that won out over all the other options of that time period. From the fossil record we know that there were a bunch of different kinds of fish living, some with really strange body plans (like 10 digits on each limb). For whatever reason, the body plan that one out was very successful can gave rise to all the tetrapod animals you see today. Why that body plan was special we may never know. We can't know exactly for sure what pressures were placed upon that animal that it developed that body plan in the first place and then subsequently why that body plan made it so successful.
We have two front limbs, two hind limbs, two kidneys, one liver, one heart, two lungs, two eyes, two ears, two nostrils, one brain, five digits in each hand because thats the way the tetrapods looked like all those millions of years ago. We are what we are because thats how they were. Ichthyostegais an example of a fossil species that had this body plan, the body plan that would rule above all others, and would dominate the landscape until this very day. Of course various modifications have been made over the millennia - snakes have lost their limbs, some have developed unique traits like antlers, feathers, or scales and still others have developed pouches for carrying around babies or uteruses to grow them...no matter, underlying it all, deep at all their cores, including ours, is this singular body plan. If you look closely enough you can begin to see the shared characteristics that have been conserved through the hundreds of thousands of generations of all vertebrate (and then tetrapod) animal species on the planet today.
You may enjoy the book Your Inner Fish which explores why the way we are the way we are based on shared and conserved traits from our distant fish ancestors. It was also made into a PBS documentary.
This fun song about Tiktaalik, an early ancestor to tetrapods is relevant as well.
Neil Shubin - Your Inner Fish: A Journey Into the 3.5 Billion Year History of the Human Body
If you like science, this one specifically talks about the authors discovery of Tiktaalik and it's association with our human bodies of today
http://www.amazon.com/Your-Inner-Fish-Journey-3-5-Billion-Year/dp/0307277453
OK, folks may call me a nut, but you might want to try Evolution by Loxton. It's for younger readers, but you could literally jumpstart yourself in an hour.
Then, read Why Evolution is True by Jerry Coyne as well as The Greatest Show on Earth by Dawkins.
Honorable mention goes to Dawkins' An Ancestor's Tale.
Right here is a good place to start.
I know a lot of people will send you to read Dawkins and Harris..ect. But I found The 50 reasons people give for believing in god to a really good starter book. It's very simply laid out. Each chapter is one reason someone gives to believing in God, and why that reason doesn't hold up to logic/facts/reasoning ect. That way if you parents ask you a specific question about why you don't believe you can give them an answer!
Not sure how you can try atheism seeing how beliefs are involuntary — you're either convinced of something or you're not.
But if it's just reading atheist literature, then tell him to take a glance at this:
https://www.amazon.com/Reasons-People-Give-Believing-God/dp/1591025672
or
http://www.kyroot.com/?p=8#jesusseminar
I haven't read it personally, but I heard that 50 Reasons People Give for Believing in a God is good because it's specifically written to be non-offensive and in your face.
Just so you know, evolution isn't as clear cut as its made out to be. There are lots of issues recognized within the high ranks of evolutionary biologists that just don't get transmitted to the public. Such as the missing fossils before the Cambrian explosion and the ridiculously small probability of new and viable protein folds which are needed for creatures to have new functionality.
Scientists have been calling into question the creative power darwinian evolution. I'd suggest checking out the book Darwin's Doubt. Warning it is extremely science heavy which makes it difficult to understand parts, but that is exactly the point. Half the book are just the citations!
Finding Darwin's God is a book by a Brown University cell biologist who's unapologetically Christian.
I suggest you do what you're telling others: follow the evidence and educate yourself. In particular, I would recommend Finding Darwin's God" by Kenneth R. Miller. He's a scientist as well as a Christian and does an excellent job of explaining the details which seem to trouble you.
'------------
TL;DR Sorry about the book review. Check out the linked book if you're interested in a rational and well-thought out exploration of the absurd implications of new earth/creationist theories on the nature of God.
'------------
For anyone interested in further reading on this topic, check out the book "Finding Darwin's God" by Kenneth Miller. (www.amazon.com/dp/0061233501/ref=cm_sw_r_sms_c_api_9o7szbXJJD182).
The author -- a practicing Catholic -- goes through several popular new earth/creationist theories and summarily dismantles them as being inconsistent with any notions of the Christian God's character. A chapter titled "God the Charlatan" addresses the theory that God created the earth 6,000 years ago and intentionally left behind false evidence (I.e., fossils, carbon dating, light particles from galaxies not yet created but still placed midway between their apparent point of origin and the earth, etc.) solely for the purpose of hiding his role in the creation.
This book became an early shelf item for me when it was assigned as required reading in my Biology 110 class at BYU. Like most TBMs, I "knew" that evolution was nothing more than a theory created by mankind to explain away God, but I had never stopped to think through the ramifications of worshiping such a deceitful God.
The author ultimately comes to a "faithful" conclusion that leaves the door open to the existence of a divine being by applying a "God of the gaps" approach to the apparent unpredictability of sub-atomic particles. Although I can't say I'm ready to endorse his theory, my agnostic-but-not-quite-atheist self can at least acknowledge that it is a lot less crazy of a theory than anything else I've ever heard.
Edit: fixed formatting
Absolutely. Actually, the correct way to say this is “Is it possible to be a Christian and accept evolution?” We don’t “believe” scientific theories; we accept as (provisionally) true based on the evidence.
Most Christians do accept evolution. (and it is “most” in that the number of Christians who accept evolution is > 50%) Here is a list of statements by various Christian denominations accepting evolution: Statements from Religious Organizations, http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/vie...
The way that this is done is very simple and was summarized back in 1890:
"Christians should look on evolution simply as the method by which God works." Rev. James McCosh, theologian and President of Princeton, The Religious Aspect of Evolution, 2d ed. 1890, pg 68.
Christians have always held that God has two books: scripture and Creation.
"To conclude, therefore, let no man out of a weak conceit of sobriety, or an ill-applied moderation, think or maintain, that a man can search too far or be too well studied in the book of God's word, or in the book of God's works; divinity or philosophy [science]; but rather let men endeavour an endless progress or proficience in both." Bacon: Advancement of Learning
So what happens when there is an apparent conflict between the two books? Christians decided that in 1832:
British evangelicals wrote in the 1830s that "If sound science appears to contradict the Bible, we may be sure that it is our interpretation of the Bible that is at fault." Christian Observer, 1832, pg. 437
What we have today are some people insisting that their interpretation of the Bible must be paramount. IOW, unless you accept their interpretation and reject evolution, then you can’t be Christian. That’s not the core belief of Christianity. Those core beliefs can be found in the Nicene and Apostle’s Creeds. Nicene Creed - Wikipedia .
They state “We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, maker heaven and earth” or (Apostle’s) “I believe in God, the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth;” Apostles’ Creed: Traditional and Ecumenical Versions - The United Methodist Church
Those statements of belief do not specify how heaven and earth was made. Thus, as Rev McCosh has pointed out, evolution is simply how God made the diversity of life on the planet.
So the issue becomes: do Christians want some current people to require an additional belief —a belief in their interpretation of scripture contrary to God’s Creation — in order to be “Christian”?
​
Several of the most famous evolutionary biologists, who made significant contributions and additions to the theory of evolution were religious.
For example Theodosius Dobzhansky (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/...), who actually is one of the fathers of the modern synthesis (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/...) and who coined the phrase "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution". Dobzhansky believed in a personal God who had created though the means of evolution.
Another famous evolutionary biologist was paleontologist Pierre Theilard de Chardin (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/...). He participated in the discovery of Homo erectus in Asia. He was not only religious, he was a Jesuit priest.
Francis Collins, who lead the Human Genome Project at the NIH, and is fervent evangelical Christian, thinks God chose evolution as the mechanism to generate life's diversity, and speaks against Young Earth creationism.
These are just some examples. The erroneous view that religion and the theory of evolution are incompatible views largely stem from a particular flavor of Christianity present in some communities in the USA
But in principle, nothing prevents biologists from believing in God, and there is nothing special about the theory of evolution that denies the existence of God.
I also suggest the following books: Finding Darwin’s God by Kenneth Miller. A Christian (Catholic) and a biologist. Finding Darwin's God: A Scientist's Search for Common Ground Between God and Evolution (P.S.): Kenneth R. Miller: 9780061233500: Amazon.com: Books
and Can a Darwinian be a Christian?: The Relationship between Science and Religion - Kindle edition by Michael Ruse. Religion & Spirituality Kindle eBooks @ Amazon.com. Michael Ruse is an agnostic, therefore his analysis is more objective and more critical. But his result is the same: absolutely a Christian can accept evolution.
https://www.amazon.com/Faith-Versus-Fact-Religion-Incompatible/dp/0143108263/ref=pd_sim_14_2?_encoding=UTF8&pd_rd_i=0143108263&pd_rd_r=RBSYGCN2TFMSJG9N9A5N&pd_rd_w=dyrKf&pd_rd_wg=ZCWLt&psc=1&refRID=RBSYGCN2TFMSJG9N9A5N
Faith Versus Fact: Why Science and Religion Are Incompatible by Jerry A. Coyne
“Faith Versus Fact" is an excellent book that presents the persuasive argument that while faith and science compete to describe reality; science is the best tool to find out what is true about our universe. Evolutionary geneticist Jerry A. Coyne follows up his masterpiece of Why Evolution Is True, with an outstanding book of its own that clearly separates science from religion. This persuasive 336-page book includes the following five chapters: 1. The Problem, 2. What’s Incompatible?, 3. Why Accommodationism Fails, 4. Faith Strikes Back, and 5. Why Does It Matter?
Positives:
Negatives:
In summary, a book worthy of five stars. Sure it’s not the masterpiece that I Why Evolution Is True but it’s a book that needed to be written and is another great contribution to society. Religion fails to accurately describe the universe as it really is and in fact has impeded progress. Coyne makes the persuasive case that science is the best method to find the truths about his world and you will not get any disagreement for yours truly. An excellent book, I highly recommend it!
Further suggestions: “Why Evolution Is True” by the same author, “Undeniable” by Bill Nye, “God and the Multiverse” by Victor J. Stenger, “Science and Religion” by Daniel C. Dennett, “Why People Believe Weird Things” by Michael Shermer, “Atheism for Dummies” by Dale McGowan, “The Soul Fallacy” by Julien Musolino, “Why Are You Atheists So Angry?: 99 Things That Piss Off the Godless” by Greta Christina, “A Manual for Creating Atheists” by Peter Boghosian, “God Is Not Great” by Christopher Hitchens, “The God Virus” by Darrel Ray, “Moral Combat” by Sikivu Hutchinson, “Infidel” by Ayaan Hirsi Ali, “Nonbeliever Nation” by David Niose, “Freethinkers” by Susan Jacoby, “Nailed” by David Fitzgerald, and “Think” by Guy P. Harrison.
Maybe read this after reading Why Evolution is True? Have you bought the book yet?
Why evolution is true by Jerry Coyne is concise, and keeps the bashing of creationists to a minimum, if I recall correctly.
I'm late to see your comment, but you may find this interesting:
Coral produces annual rings and daily rings. If you add up the number of daily rings between annual rings, then you can figure out how many days were in that year.
Radioisotope dating showed that some fossilized coral that had been found was about 380 million years old.
Now, 380 million years ago, days were shorter, about 22 hours long. So there were more of them in a year.
To find out whether the day really was 22 hours long when the coral lived, they just counted the rings (or made a grad student do it).
Turns out that there were 400 daily rings between each annual ring, which correlates to 21.9 hours a day.
21.9 is close enough to 22 to feel pretty good about it. A great example of different parts of science coming together to verify each other.
Source: Why Evolution is True, by Jerry Coyne
Apart from highschool (No one should count highschool lol) I've had two years of science studies, both from classes from biology to chemistry so I know a bit about both. I also regularly talk to science teachers I've had as well as frequent science forums when I can. For fun I read things such as
“Finding Darwin's God: A Scientist's Search for Common Ground Between God and Evolution”
http://www.amazon.com/Finding-Darwins-God.../dp/0061233501
This was written by a scientist who is a Christian.
To:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/B001QEQRJW/ref=redir_mdp_mobile
Why Evolution is True By Jerry A. Coyne
& then I also peruse news networks because every so often people make claims about evolution which leads me down the path of looking at their sources and how they reached that conclusion :)
So I'm stupid but not THAT stupid lol I just have honest questions that confuse me :)
I assume the evangelist in question interviewed leading evo-biologists for their views on the subject?
I gather that philosopher Stephen Meyer's Signature in the Cell is the most advanced case to come from the "intelligent design" crowd (it certainly has caught Thomas Nagel's attention), and I also gather that the evo-bio crowd thinks he just gets a lot of the science mistaken, perhaps subtly, perhaps glaringly. What I think is needed for this debate are proponents/opponents who specialize in both philosophy and biology, so as to sift the noise from the signals. Unfortunately, tons and tons of noise is being fed into the mainstream public debate. It's like people debating political philosophy with no one reading Rawls and Nozick; i.e., the pitiful state of political "dialogue" in mainstream America today. :-(
> That's really implausible. What makes you think any of it is true?
That's a great question! I believe in Christianity for reasons including personal experience, the lack of cogent arguments against it (an area I've studied for some time, and that's not meant as a challenge against you or anything, though I'm happy to answer your questions and objections), the historicity of the Biblical documents (archeologically, especially those of the New Testament and the evidence for the resurrection of Jesus Nazareth), the remarkable ability of theism to best explain a wide range of the data in human experience (such as the possibility of our having reliable cognitive faculties and their deliverances, the beginning of the universe, the existence of objective moral values and duties, the "fine tuning" of the initial conditions of the universe for the development of intelligent life and our exorbitant means of observing the world around us, the fact of widespread religious experience, the implausibility of the development of conscious agents from inorganic matter, the irreducibly of certain instantiations of biological complexity to any naturalistic incremental evolutionary mechanism, the existence of regularity and a bias in nature towards simplicity and aesthetic features (which I am happy to elaborate on), the possibility of change (the actualization of potentials and the nature of hierarchical causal series), and a great deal more that space does not permit me to detail).
> It's also a very anthropocentric way of looking at the universe, which has been around billions of years longer than we have.
I don't think so; rather, I think it is a very God-centric way of looking at the universe. I don't believe we were the entire reason God created the universe, and I do believe that it exists for His glory.
> You're suggesting that God created the universe so that we would come into existence on one planet in it,
No, the creation of the cosmos was not entirely done just so that human beings would wind up in it--that would make it a rather inefficient means of creating us. Rather, God has no shortage of paint, and He exercised His creative power here for a lot more than just humans. Luckily for us, we get to be a part of it and observe the living painting He made and praise Him for it.
> for a tiny fraction of the time, so he could save us from punishments he devised?
This is a caricature of Christian theology. God didn't create everything just so He could "save us from punishments he devised". I commend you to read the Gospels and C.S. Lewis's Mere Christianity for a better understanding of the Christian system of thought, because the understanding you've presented is in fact confused in many ways.
God created mankind not so that we could be punished, but rather so that we could participate in the wonderful thing that is life and bring glory to Him by living for Him and enjoying Him and His creation. However, we rebelled and continue to rebel against Him and this purpose and bring evil into the world each and every day--perversions to His creation. It is this evil that warrants punishment, punishment which God has done everything in His power to try and save us from by living a human life in the person of Christ and brutally and tortuously dying after resisting all temptation so that we could be vicariously redeemed through Him. By living a perfect life, He did what no man has ever done and so further warrants the right to say what should happen to those of us (all of us) who fail to do the same (which He, by virtue of living perfectly, demonstrated is possible)--and yet His choice, when given even more right to condemn us, is to show us mercy and save us by allowing us redemption before Himself! Hence, His sacrifice and offer of salvation is the greatest example of mercy and love mankind has ever known.
And so He allows us to choose Him, and loves us enough to respect our choice to reject Him and live apart from Him if we so choose (which is what hell is--separation from Him that is chosen by the individual).
> I don't. Thomas Aquinas died 800 years ago and knew nothing about modern neuroscience or psychology. We have a natural tendency to believe whatever we're taught growing up.
I think it's more than just a "tendency to believe whatever we're taught growing up", because virtually all human beings throughout history and in the modern day have believed God exists. And, when you ask them, they will explicitly adduce to you reasons for their believing in His existence--so attributions of human belief in God to uncritical acts of will or psychoanalytic theses seem to me implausible and uncritically formulated or accepted themselves, for they are conceived of without making any account of the individual's reasoning with respect to the question they purport to answer. And Aquinas's sentiment has been repeated throughout the history of philosophy by the most eminent atheists and theist thinkers alike up until the modern day--not that I think that we should reject the ideas of people in the past out of what philosophers call "chronological snobbery", an uncritical bias in favor of contemporary thought by virtue of its being contemporary.
Thanks for the exchange so far, I hope I've helped you understand what I believe and why a bit more. Please note that I do not intend in writing this to sound condescending, so if it comes off that way my apologies.
Jerry Coyne is a good 'go to person' for religion versus science questions.
I don't remember the specific details, but he has a lecture on youtube where he says he looked into the creationist peer-reviewed articles for a specific number of years compared with scientific peer-reviewed articles. The creationists had zero. The scientific had 1200, and that was only for the scientists who's last name began with an A. (Something to that effect.)
I'm convinced that creationists are either blatantly dishonest or willfully ignorant. I cannot see how anyone with a desire to know the truth is unable to be convinced that evolution is a correct understanding of how life functions on our planet.
Faith Versus Fact: Why Science and Religion are Incompatible
I'm not sure how safe you are to assume that all missionaries will need an education about evolution, but I'm sure you could spare two or three copies of Why Evolution Is True or Only a Theory.
First, I'd start with PBS's Nova and their fantastic documentary on the Kitzmiller vs Dover Area School in which Michael Behe was a prominent witness for the Defense. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/evolution/intelligent-design-trial.html
Behe's claims are destroyed by Kenneth Miller (a biology professor, Catholic, and outspoken critic of Creationism): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenneth_R._Miller and he even wrote a book about it: http://www.amazon.com/Only-Theory-Evolution-Battle-Americas/dp/0143115669/ref=lp_B001JSEEXQ_1_5?ie=UTF8&qid=1335384565&sr=1-5
Next, read Judge Jones' final ruling which covers why Behe's claims are NOT science and clearly support a "Creationist" agenda to influence public education under the support and guidance of The Discovery Institute. This case is a fantastic primer for folks interested in a condensed lesson on evolution vs creationism.
http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/kitzmiller/kitzmiller_342.pdf
Enjoy!
Why Evolution is True
The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark
Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality (free online!)
Guns, Germs, Steel
The God Delusion
Misquoting Jesus (Conceptional this is very compatible with Mormonism--the Bible not being translated correctly so we need the BoM!--but the specifics about what got mistranslated are devastating as Mormonism doubled down on the mistranslated parts. oops.)
Don't even both learning anything more about Mormonism. Just be widely read and you'll soon see that the Mormon version of history is in incongruent with reality. This will cause cognitive dissonance and when you're ready to resolve it, go back and read independent sources about Mormonism and it will be very obvious that the narrative they indoctrinated into you as a child doesn't stand up to scrutiny.
Go read Why Evolution is True by Jerry Coyne. It's an excellent book that answers every single one of your objections, with plenty of citations that you can actually go look up for yourself.
edit: See also, the Nova special on the Dover Intelligent Design trial in which, more or less, proponents of creationism put up their best defense and are crushed.
A good popular science type book laying out the evidence for evolution is Jerry Coyne's Why Evolution is True
Many things can be explained better with evolution. Evolution is a theory, in the scientific sense, and that means it's veracity is tested by current and emerging evidence. If it didn't have the explanatory power for most of the evidence then it wouldn't be so popular. So it certainly doesn't explain everything, it just explains the data we have so far. There are countless things we simply don't know yet.
If you're open to understanding the core aspects of Evolution, please read:
Genome: The Autobiography of a Species in 23 Chapters
The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution
Why Evolution Is True
As for freewill, it depends on the atheist. Some believe in free will, while others don't think we actually posses it.
How about "Why evolution is true" by evolutionary biologist Jerry Coyne? It's meant to be accessible to pretty much everyone.
In what sense do you consider Dawkins "biased" such that any other writer on the topic of evolution wouldn't be? The Selfish Gene is quite probably the best introduction there is to evolutionary concepts for someone at your stated level of education, and any beliefs or positions that Dawkins might hold that you may consider "bias" will be held by just about any other author on this topic. It's just that he's the loudest, so that's why you've heard of him.
That said, I have heard very good things about Jerry Coyne's Why Evolution is True, although I have not read it myself.
This is also a good option
If you feel you don’t know enough about biology, you might be interested in reading:
Your inner fish
Why Evolutions is True
Personally, I find the subject of Evolution fascinating. Almost no subject causes more disagreement in our society today, yet at it's core it extremely simple and almost trivial to understand the basics. People go out of their way to misunderstand it, which is amazing considering just how simple it really is.
There are lots of great books on the subject, but I personally recommend the book Why Evolution is True by Jerry Coyne. It is easy and clear, and presents all the overwhelming evidence in a straightforward manner.
This is a great resource: Why Evolution is True, Jerry A. Coyne
The easiest way to do this is to present the data with some really great examples in this book, and to argue that it at least looks like life on earth has evolved from a common ancestor.
If you can get them there, then most of the work is done.
LeAgente answered things better than I could. Also I was thinking of checking out these books that relate to your first question:
Why Darwin matters: the case against intelligent design
why evolution is true
I haven't read them, but took note to maybe read them (probably through this subreddit I heard of one). It seems like they're geared towards people who were raised without much education on evolution or from YEC backgrounds. Reviews said they laid things out well. You may be interested.
Also...if anyone has read these...what'd you think? Any other recommendations?
Lots of comments here trying to argue that you're "doing Judiasm wrong" or "not hard enough" ("Of course mitzvos aren't fun... that's the point!") so I'll offer the kofer perspective.
Write:
Do:
Here's a bunch of stuff I've found informative in my personal journey:
Skeptic reading:
Skeptic viewing:
Skeptic Listening:
Why Evolution is True by Jerry A. Coyne is an excellent explanation of evolution in contrast with creationism by an expert in the field. I just finished reading it a couple of weeks ago.
Don't assume that when creationists claim to have done their own research that they have done anything more than to consider sources that confirm their biases. You'll know this is the case if you suggest credible scientific sources and they dismiss them without reading, watching, or listening to them as being somehow biased.
You might ask him to explain how after the flood the fossils that have been found all sorted themselves into the layers we find them in. You might also ask him to explain how there are human archaeological artifacts that date to before creationism's estimate of when Adam and Eve lived. While he's at it, ask him to explain why a single human pair fails to explain the diversity in human DNA that we find today. And why is it that we find species of plants and animals that are now extinct and present species of plants and animals that previously did not exist if God's creation was so perfect.
I think you'll have a harder time arguing that accepting evolution will not necessarily have an impact on his beliefs of a higher power. Think about it. If evolution is true, then the story of the garden of Eden cannot be true. It means that there was no Adam and Eve, no garden, no tree of the knowledge of good and evil, no serpent, and no transgression that is referred to as original sin. Without original sin there is no need for salvation, which makes Christ's sacrifice on the cross pointless. It undermines the entire foundation of Christianity.
But be careful. He is likely to conflate evolution with abiogenesis, which is a theory of the origin of life. Evolution is the theory of the origin of the diversity of species, not of how life itself began.
He is also likely to say that evolution is "just a theory," revealing his ignorance of basic scientific process and terminology. In the end, he may simply refuse to accept it no matter how convincing the evidence may be. It may be completely pointless to even talk to him.
> That whole 'evolution' thing is ridiculous!
>
>
>
> How anyone can believe that is beyond me. They let science make it up as they go along from the flimsiest and unsupported evidence.
That just tells me you do not understand the science. There are heaps and heaps of evidence for evolution. You should read up on it, so you at least understand what you are criticizing.
Some recommendations:
If you're going to hand these books over to others, you might want to go with something a little less technical as a first introduction. I highly recommend these books:
By Neil Shubin: Neil is a paleo-ichthyologist (he studies ancient fish) who discovered Tiktaalik. The link between modern humans and ancient fish are very well-known.
Your Inner Fish: A Journey into the 3.5-Billion-Year History of the Human Body
And for the link between organic and inorganic materials:
The Universe Within: The Deep History of the Human Body: Discovering the Common History of Rocks, Planets and People
And by Jerry Coyne
Why Evolution is True
And for a more detailed technical book, on a level for graduate school, this one by Jerry Coyne and H. Allen Orr:
Speciation
I hope these serve you well.
I actually preferred Jerry Coyne's Why Evolution is True. Both this and Greatest Show on Earth lay out the evidence for evolutionary theory for general audiences. I just happen to think Coyne's is a bit more compelling. This is a bit surprising as I generally find Dawkins' writing excellent and compelling. You might want to check out the Coyne for yourself sometime, though, as it is excellent indeed!
A lot of people have suggesting The Selfish Gene by Dawkins. I personally find him really annoying, but Why Evolution is True by Jerry Coyne is a great book on the subject
Should we force Christians to read this?
I've read most of Why Evolution is True by Jerry Coyne. I'm no expert but I thought it was good.
http://www.amazon.com/Why-Evolution-True-Jerry-Coyne/dp/0143116649/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1420359680&sr=8-1&keywords=why+evolution+is+true
That's not how evolution works, and you can't make it our job to "prove it" to you.
If you're honestly interested, there is an entire scientific consensus out there if you're really as educated as you claim to be.
Here's a good place to start: https://www.amazon.com/Why-Evolution-True-Jerry-Coyne/dp/0143116649/ref=tmm_pap_title_0?ie=UTF8&qid=1424195684&sr=1-1
Either that, or I'm starting to think you are one of the best trolls ever.
Hello there,
As an evolutionary biologist, I'd like to extend to you a list of beginner-friendly books regarding evolutionary biology. The first I'd recommend is The Blind Watchmaker . I bring this one up first because the complexity of life astonishes you. Although life is truly complex, this can be explained by diversity-generating processes (e.g. mutation) coupled with non-random replicative success (natural selection). I also understand Dawkins is an acquired taste, personality/TV wise. His science writing is more palatable.
The second book I'd recommend is Why Evolution is True . This book succinctly covers the basics of evolution and gives notable examples.
The last book I'd recommend is a bit nerdy and mathy, but it is a good intro into evolution and genetics. That book is A Primer of Population Genetics (if you do buy it, but it used).
If you really want to nerd out, there are open source (free to read) journals online. One is Ecology and Evolution . This journal is more niche; the other is PLoS ONE which is more general. The provided link will direct you to papers binned under 'evolution'.
Hope this helps.
Cheers.
Please educate yourself about the theory of evolution.
Why Evolution is True by Jerry Coyne
The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution by Richard Dawkins
Kent Hovind received his "masters" and "doctorate" in "Christian Education" by correspondence by a non-accredited school. Hovind has no formal scientific training, no research credentials, no worthwhile understanding of the basics of biology and certainly not even the most rudimentary understanding of developmental biology. This article ranges from complete nonsense to outright lying. Bringing this article in here and suggesting that it points out holes in evolution ought to be embarrassing for you. If it isn't, then you are too uneducated on the subject to even bother taking seriously and a sufficient answer is we are as certain about evolution as we are that the earth goes around the sun despite what "Dr. Dino" says.
Yes, we're fish! Classifications are nested, and they reflect evolutionary relationships. This puts organisms in a context that shows how things are related to each other by descent from a common ancestor. Think of it as an Euler diagram rather than one taxonomic classification precluding another.
We are nested within the clade Osteichthyes (bony fish) -> Sarcopterygii (lobe-finned fish) -> Tetrapoda (four-legged animals) -> Amniota (laying hard-shelled eggs) -> Synapsida (mammals and "mammal-like reptiles" defined by skull characteristics) -> Mammalia (hair, milk, etc.) -> Primates (nails instead of claws, and other stuff) -> Hominidae (great apes) -> Homo (humans and other closely related taxa) -> H. sapiens (us!)
There's a whole book about it.
You may find this book called your inner fish: a journey into the 3.5-Billion-Year History of the Human Body very interesting. It is a really fascinating and, quick read.
Tetrapods include amphibians, reptiles, birds, turtles and mammals. All tetrapods have a single common ancestor, that was as you describe "the first fish dude who jumped out of the water". Really, that is the best way I have heard it described and youre not wrong! We don't know which species is the first, but we do have several transitional fossils from water to land. These species are collectively known as tetrapodomorphs which basically means "kind of like a tetrapod - kind of like fish". This picture gives you a good idea of some of the different species alive around that time. Tiktaalik is one of my favourites, mostly because the name is fun to say. This species lived about ~375 million years ago, during the Denovian. Here is another example of the limbs of those transitional species from fin to limb!
Acanthostega (~365 million years ago) and Itchthyostega (~360 million years ago) are two species of tetrapods that lived after Tiktaalik, and they are better suited for life on land. They likely lived in swampy areas but were still tied to the water.
After the first tetrapods established themselves on land they evolved or radiated into many different groups. This is a good and simplified family tree of tetrapods. There are the amphibians, the turtles, the mammals and the reptiles. This is another family tree which depicts some extinct groups. Notice that the birds are placed firmly with the other dinosaurs and are now the only living representatives of that lineage. And that early mammal ancestors (therapsids) stem from a distant synapsid ancestor which evolved quite early on.
The reptiles are a bit of a funny group because they contain a lot of extinct species and this confuses people as to what actually is a reptile. Simply put reptiles include the living turtles, crocodilians, snakes, lizards, and tuatara and many other extinct species including the dinosaurs, the extinct flying reptiles like the pterosuars and the extinct aquatic reptiles like ichthyosaurs. Another cool fact is that crocodiles and birds are more closely related to each other than they are to the other reptiles (turtles, snakes, lizards and tuatara).
Your Inner Fish: A Journey into the 3.5-Billion-Year History of the Human Body
Protip: Keep a copy or two of Your Inner Fish or Greatest Show on Earth (or your preferred book on evolution) to lend to any creationist you are trying to convince.
A bit more on evolution. Your Inner Fish: A Journey into the 3.5-Billion-Year History of the Human Body. To quote a review on Amazon:
>He explains what evolutionary science, i.e. paleontology, comparative anatomy, genetics, embryology and developmental biology have to tell us about the human body, and how it came to be the way it is. Examples include the evolutionary history of limb bones in fossil tetrapods, developmental control genes found in almost all animals today, the evolutionary history of mammalian teeth, the origin of basic "body-plans," genetic comparisons of genes important for our senses of smell and vision, and the history of the mammalian inner ear.
Here's 3:
"Your Inner Fish" - Neil Shubin
"Why Geology Matters" - Doug MacDougall
"A Short History of Nearly Everything" - Bill Bryson
I really enjoyed "Rocks Don't Lie: A Geologist Investigates Noah's Flood", which I don't think I've ever seen mentioned here (I only heard about it myself because it was a local author).
It's been a while since I read it, but what I remember enjoying was how the religious beliefs of our earliest geologists influenced their understanding of what they were discovering in the field. The early explorers set out to find evidence for Noah's flood, so it was amusing seeing them trying to wrap their heads around things like finding mammoths in Siberia, that were obviously washed away in the deluge!
I've not read it myself, but I really enjoyed the Your Inner Fish documentary series and have been reading to pick this one up.
>Not familiar as I probably ought to be. I know that there were other homo species -possibly at the same time as humans. I think I heard something about interbreeding at some point, but maybe that was just speculation?
To be honest, I'm not exactly an expert on the specifics. However, Wikipedia provides as always - If the article and the numerous citations are to be believed, they're considered separate species as mitochondria genetic data (that I could explain further if you like) shows little significant breeding. However, there is indeed some evidence of limited interbreeding.
>This is fascinating stuff!
I'm glad you like it!
>To clarify: do all the primates share the same mutation which is different from the mutation in other creatures, ex. guinea pigs?'
Precisely! Mind you, I believe there are a few changes which have accumulated since divergence (since if they don't need the gene once it's "off", further mutations won't be selected against), but the crucial changes are indeed the same within primates - and those within guinea pigs are the same within guinea pigs and their nearby relatives (I believe), but different from those from simians. Amusingly, because mutations occur at a generally steady rate, the number of further divergences between the pseudogenes (no-longer-functional genes which resemble working copies in other organisms) in different species will give hints at how long ago those species had a common ancestor (this, and related calculations, are termed the "genetic clock").
Nifty, isn't it?
>I guess I don't see why it would be demeaning to be patterned after other homo species which were adapted to the environment we would inhabit. Maybe I'm way off here, but it seems like the case for common ancestry could also point to a common creator. (obviously it is outside the bounds of science to consider that possibility, but philosophically, it might have merit?)
I have indeed heard that before; the suggestion of a common creator as opposed to common descent is a fairly common suggestion, pardon the pun. The typical arguments against fall first to traits which can be considered "poor design" in pure engineering terms, even if they're traits that are now needed. I can point to the genetic baggage of the human eye compared to that of the cephelopod (nerve fibers over vs. under the retina), or the human back (not great for walking upright), or further traits along those lines which suggest that we're still closer to our origins. Indeed, we can also look at things like the pseudogene involved with vitamin C above as unnecessary addons; genetic artifacts which hint at our descent.
While this additional argument, I will grant, is better at addressing general creation then special human creation, we can also look at repeated motifs. For example, the same bones that form our hand also form a bird's wing, a whale's flipper, a dog's paw, a horse's hoof, and all the other mammalian, reptile, and avian forelimbs - though sometimes you need to go to the embryo before you see the similarity. When taken alone, that may suggest either evolution or design; it would make sense for a creator to reuse traits. It becomes more stark when you consider examples that should be similar - for example, the wings of the bat, bird, and pterodactyl, despite using the same bones, have vastly different structures, despite all being used for the same purpose (that is, flight).
The way that my evolutionary biology professor phrased this is that "design can explain this, but cannot predict it; evolution both explains and predicts." This idea - that natural observations may be explained or excused (begging your pardon) in a creation model, but are what are expected from an evolutionary model - is the major point I wish to make in this regard. And, I shall admit, perhaps as close as I can get to "disproving" special creation; it tends to approach unfalsifiability, if I understand it correctly.
>If I recall correctly, this is the position of Francis Collins / BioLogos. It's possible, but I have a few concerns. The first being that I think animals do have souls. If that's correct, ensoulment doesn't help make sense of the theology.
Yup; ensoulment as special is less compatible in that case.
>It would also mean that (at least at some point) there were other creatures who were genetically equal to human beings, but didn't have souls. Cue slave trade and nazi propaganda -they're human, but they aren't people. It would have been possible (probable?) that ensouled humans would breed with the soulless humans -and that just seems . . . squicky.
Point taken; even if you were to claim ensoulment for all humans existing at a specific point and thereafter, there can be...negative connotations.
>So, for now, it's a possibility, but it seems to be more problematic than special creation.
To be perfectly frank, I'm not really equipped to argue otherwise. As an atheist, my tendency is to end up arguing against ensoulment, as it's not something we can really draw a line at either. Still, I figured I'd put it out there; I'm a little delighted at your dissection of it honestly, as you brought up things I'd not yet considered.
>Like I said, the genetics is fascinating, and I am naive to much of it. Short of becoming a geneticist, could you recommend a good book on the subject of human genetics and common descent? I took basic genetics in college, so I was able to follow the discussion about chromosomes, telomeres, etc. But I would like to know more about the discoveries that have been made.
Oooh, that's a rough question. Don't get me wrong, it's a wonderful question, but I rarely read books aimed at laymen dealing with my specialty; most of my information comes from text books, papers, and profs, if you take my meaning. Which in the end is a way for me to provide my disclaimer: I can provide recommendations, but I've generally not read them myself; sorry.
Having said that, I'm not about to discourage your curiosity - indeed, I cannot laud it highly enough! - and so I shall do what I can:
I think I'll hold off there for the moment. The latter two are focused more on humans, while the former is about evolution in general. I'm sure there are more books I could recommend - Dawkin's The Greatest Show on Earth has been lauded, for example. I tried to stick with texts which were at a slightly higher level, not merely addressing the basics but delving a little deeper, as you noted you have a measure of familiarity already, and those which were related to humans. I hope they help!
It's not an alternative to books, but Wikipedia does have a fair article on the topic (which I linked near the very top as well). And believe it or not, I do enjoy this sort of thing; you are more then welcome to ask more questions if and when they occur to you.
Oh boy, great questions but the answers can be really long and (again) belong under science moreso than philosophy. I think I'll link some resources and you can read at your leisure.
TL;DR - Biologists document lots of awkward features that develop in a tedious or haphazard manner that no sane designer would ever bother, plus we're missing tons of obvious features that any competent designer would probably include (hello, drowning sucks, gills would be nice). And their work is strongly supported by genetics and its underlying chemistry.
I just start reading Written In Stone by Brian Switek, so far I'm really enjoying it. It's about paleontology, evolution, and how that relates to humans. Another amazing book in a similar vain is Your Inner Fish by Neil Shubin, inspired a tattoo for me.
The you may really enjoy Daniel Lieberman's The Story of the Human Body: Evolution, Health, and Disease. Here. I'm enjoying it immensely.
You should pick up a copy of Your Inner Fish by Neil Shubin, the guy who found Tiktaalik.
It's a fantastic read.
EDIT: What the fuck, no Velociraptor or Archaeopteryx? Tiktaalik is new, and super-transitional and all, but unless your a paleoichthyologist or something, I fail to see how it garners "Best Extinct Vertebrate".
Follow that up with Your Inner Fish by Neil Shubin.
Go read Neil Shubin's Your Inner Fish. It's a great story how he helped discover Tiktaalik exactly where they predicted it would be. He also does a tremendous job at explaining transitional fossils and vestigial organs.
OP, please suggest this book to them, it is an excellent introduction to skepticism.
In light of their creationist tract, you could also consider Your Inner Fish.
It is just willful ignorance at this point. Google exists. Fuck me, this exists!
https://www.amazon.com/Evolution-Dummies-Greg-Krukonis/dp/0470117737
I admit that it is complicated, but you can learn this stuff if you allow yourself to. Why not bother to learn about the thing you're shitting all over?
It’s Thursday (in the states), plan a hike to look at nature for Sunday morning. Go look at some rocks and plants, and just let it sink in.
Check this book out, it’s great!
Also available in book (
and e-bookI got it as an ebook a while back, but apparently it's not available anymore) from from the same author:http://www.amazon.com/Counter-Creationism-Handbook-Mark-Isaak/dp/0520249267/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1301585749&sr=8-1
If you like to have something to page through on a flight/coffee shop/grandma's house.
You've just seen the Gish Gallop!
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gish_Gallop
It is a sign of laziness. It usually results from copying and pasting/paraphrasing.
I own this book (http://www.amazon.com/Counter-Creationism-Handbook-Mark-Isaak/dp/0520249267) and it makes refuting nonsense easy. None of the arguments made are new or original so referencing this book is always helpful; they will all be in there.
I am not a biologist.
The Counter-Creationism Handbook might be something like what you're looking for, though it does branch into non-evolutionary topics. It is a compilation of questions/arguments from talk.origins (usenet) that are discussed for a paragraph or two with lots of sources cited. Check out the reviews on Amazon. Really recommend this one.
What Evolution Is was a good introduction to evolution. I've read several, and I feel that this was the best. He also talks in passing about what evolution is not. Standard kind of non-fiction book.
Evolution is supposedly the reference textbook of atheists. There is a newer edition out, or you can pick up this one for about $15 (USD).
Here
A brief search on Amazon brought up these:
http://www.amazon.com/How-Know-What-Isnt-Fallibility/dp/0029117062/ref=cm_lmf_tit_1
http://www.amazon.com/People-Believe-Weird-Things-Pseudoscience/dp/0805070893/ref=pd_cp_b_2
What do you think?
And I must say, I like your approach: First teach him critical thinking, and then, if necessary, point out to him that religion is one of the fields where he should apply the rules of scepticism. If he's not too deluded (which I'd expect since he wasn't indoctrinated as a child), he will probably come to the only reasonable conclusion.
Maybe this one …?
The last chapter of Michael Shermer's book has an illuminating chapter on this topic:
http://www.amazon.com/People-Believe-Weird-Things-Pseudoscience/dp/0805070893/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1299190518&sr=8-1
His book (Link to Amazon) by the same name is really good.
A descent selection so far from the other comments. I'll throw in a few, as well:
​
​
Some of the above is specifically related to atheism, while others I've used to help shape and inform my understanding and my worldview. Out of the entire list, the Carl Sagan book and the Sean Carroll book rank highest, for me, in level of importance. Those books didn't just change what I think, they changed how I think, and I am forever indebted to them.
The book list just keeps growing in so many different directions that it's hard to identify which I want to tackle next (I also have a tendency to take meticulous notes while I read and that slows the process down even further!). Some of the topics I intend to read about once I'm done with the books mentioned:
Plus a bunch of books by Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, Carl Sagan, and others. There are way too many. And all the fiction books I want to read too! It's not that I didn't read books before, but my faith transition has sparked an intense desire to study and learn far greater than I ever experienced before.
Did you know that the sidebar contains a link to recommended reading? https://www.reddit.com/r/atheism/wiki/recommended/reading There are a couple of good Bertrand Russell books listed there, though the titles are a bit obvious. Nevertheless, they're easy to read (Russell was the recipient of the 1950 Nobel Prize for Literature).
​
You didn't state anything about creationism vs. evolution; Nathan Lents' Human Errors pretty much demolishes any idea about so-called "intelligent design". Adam Rutherford's A Brief History of Everyone Who Ever Lived is another one. Both are available via Amazon Prime Reading.
​
As far as MAGA, etc., there are the classic "George Orwell" (pseudonym for Eric Arthur Blair) books 1984 and Animal Farm. A combined volume is also available on Amazon Prime Reading.
​
A. C. Grayling has a number of books: some with obvious titles, some not so obvious.
​
You can also find a plethora of books on critical thinking, which isn't directly related to religion or politics, but which can lead people away from blind allegiance to religious dogma and political rhetoric. A good easy-to-read classic is Schick and Vaughn's How to Think About Weird Things, but it can be pricey unless you can find a used edition or older edition in good condition. [And you could underline passages and annotate them with the word THINK :-)] A similar sounding, less expensive but lighter-on-principles book is Michael Shermer's Why People Believe Weird Things.
​
Addendum:
>Google is of no help, it mostly suggests pro-Christian books (and the big names like Harris/Dawkins/Nietzsche).
You need to train Google: start with https://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&q=critical+thinking and https://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&q=debunking+christianity (Andrew Seidel's The Founding Myth should show up there) and https://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&q=humanism. Follow lots of relevant links, and after a while Goggle will start showing more relevant suggestions.
Why People Believe Weird Things is up next on my reading list.
"Why People Believe Weird Things" debunks these nonsensical claims and explores the very human reasons people find otherworldly phenomena, conspiracy theories, and cults so appealing."
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Why-People-Believe-Weird-Things/dp/0805070893
Humans have a talent for self deception. Yeah, there are a lot of phonies out there who want to make money. But the only reason they get any attention are the regular joes who believe or are open to the idea (almost believe) in the subject.
I know way too many people that honestly believe in ghosts, astrology, and UFOs, that are hilariously deluded. They think they are keeping an open mind. I think their mind is so open it fell on the ground.
Edit: There's a great book ["Why People Believe Weird Things"](http://www.amazon.com/People-Believe-Weird-Things-Pseudoscience/dp/0805070893/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1342445382&sr=8-
1&keywords=why+people+believe+weird+things)
You should check it out.
I'm going to take what you wrote on face value and answer honestly:
Some places don't deserve it. I'll use the example of a book I was given, and why I chose to apply what you're claiming is a genetic fallacy.
I got given a book about why creationist science is true and evolution is actually a religious belief. https://www.amazon.com/Six-Days-Scientists-Believe-Creation/dp/0890513414
Thing is I'd looked at the subject quite a bit already, and just doubted it was worth my time. But I opened it up all the same, flicked through a couple of pages, and quickly found an argument that I'd seen disproven many times before. I also saw lots of claims, and arguments, that I hadn't seen before.
It takes work to disprove these things, propaganda from the KKK or anti-vax or even (something probably much less harmful) like Flat Earthers, is actually pretty hard to pull it apart bit by bit. Their arguments/propaganda can be really refined, really subtle, really damn time-consuming. Insidious. Just saying "only idiots believe it" is way over valuing our intelligence.
That example from the book? It was a claim that I'd spent an hour or so reading about previously. I didn't have the time, or desire, to fact check every claim the book would make.
So I came to this conclusion "this is the sort of book which publishes lies." and I chose not to read the book.
> You know there's this book?
This book?
Oh the new Bill Nye book that just came out would be absolutely perfect on that case. (the audio book is even better, it's narrated by Bill Nye humself)
http://www.amazon.com/Undeniable-Evolution-Creation-Bill-Nye/dp/1250007135
I would highly recommend Bill Nye's new book, "Undeniable: Evolution and the Science of Creation." I don't know if you watched Bill Nye growing up but he is extremely smart and relatable.. just an all around great guy.
http://www.amazon.com/Undeniable-Evolution-Creation-Bill-Nye/dp/1250007135/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1420471445&sr=8-1&keywords=bill+nye
In this book he explains why what science has to say about our understanding of where we came from is so critically important to our place in the world, and also just why hostile attitudes against these facts are very dangerous. Welcome to our subreddit! Come by often, you are always welcome :)
Had the same problem (although, I went to Christian boarding school, not home schooled).
Learning about evolution and why we know it is true taught me a lot about the scientific method and epistemology - that there are things we can /really/ know and not just believe them because of our "gut" or because someone told us.
A couple videos that helped on my journey:
Our Origins Made Easy : The scientific method and the need for evidence is especially well presented.
Foundational Falsehoods of Creation
There are many good books on the subject also ("The greatest show on earth" by Richard Dawkins).
You will be amazed.
​
Edit: Start with the videos. As you get the basics, move on to talkorigins, books, and other things - your interest will fuel the search. The biggest thing you will gain is that 'how to think' is more important than 'what to think'. It's one thing to take someone's word for it that evolution is true. It is completely different to learn why it is true. This will change the way you think about many things.
Richard Dawkins's latest book covers this in detail: The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution.
I went through the same sort of thing as you. All I can really say is to keep pursuing the facts and the evidence. People will try to discourage you for one reason or another, but don't let them. If the Christian god exists, you've done nothing wrong by asking questions because he values the truth.
Since you mentioned your friends and family being YECs, I strongly recommend reading the Talk Origins archive if you haven't seen it yet. It has a great list of Creationist claims and the evidence against them. If you're interested in learning more about Evolution, I'd also recommend The Greatest Show on Earth by Richard Dawkins. It's the book that made me start questioning Christianity and to this day it remains one of my favourites.
For my part, I'd believe that Santa Claus was real if I could objectively, scientifically, and reliably demonstrate such a claim. I'd believe that Vishnu, Horus, Odin, or Zeus were real for the same reasons. In fact, I can conjure up any number of fanciful scenarios in which strange, supernatural claims could be verified and "believed" by atheists, because that's how we operate: we believe in reality, however strange it may be. Just because such a fanciful scenario can be imagined, however, doesn't give that scenario any sort of validity. Your claims are as baseless as someone that wants me to believe they have an invisible and undetectable dragon in their garage that will burn my invisible and undetectable spirit FOR ETERNITY if I don't fork over 10% of my income and obey their every incomprehensible and often immoral edict. So put yourself in the position that you so "cleverly" thought you'd put us in: what would change your mind?
Oh, wait ... you don't even want to question your "faith"? That's what I thought.
edit: Watch this, pause, and reflect on your beliefs.
> We have eye witness testimonies.
We supposedly have eye witness testimonies, because almost none of the witnesses (besides the apostles) are named, nor are they alive, and their "testimonies" were recorded many decades after Christ's supposed ascension. Besides that, witness testimonies are not enough to prove that supernatural events are even possible.
> There was a detective who works cold cases, and would convict people of crimes based on people's testimonies. He was an Atheist investigating the case for Christ. He found that the people's testimonies lined up, and he would consider them as viable evidence in court, and he came to the conclusion that it was all real.
There are many authors like this one, who think they have the silver bullet that will prove their religion, be it Christianity or Islam, who eventually engage in all sorts of fallacies and provide nothing of substance. I haven't read this guy's book to be honest (Cold-Case Christianity: A Homicide Detective Investigates the Claims of the Gospels), but I have read other books by Christians who claim that they can prove the "truth" of Christianity. Short summary: they haven't.
The fact of the matter is that these books do not stand to scrutiny. Have you ever read anything written by Bart Ehrman, or other real scholars? They would vehemently disagree with that guy's conclusions.
Bart Denton Ehrman is an American professor and scholar, currently the James A. Gray Distinguished Professor of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. He is one of North America's leading scholars in his field, having written and edited 30 books, including three college textbooks. He has also achieved acclaim at the popular level, authoring five New York Times bestsellers. Ehrman's work focuses on textual criticism of the New Testament, the historical Jesus, and the development of early Christianity.
-- from WikiPedia
You should also read stuff by:
and other scientists if you want to see what science actually has to say about reality and about how grossly wrong the Bible is when it tries to make pronouncements on our physical reality.
> Why do you not believe in the gospel accounts? They were hand written accounts by people who witnessed an event, or people who spoke to those people.
That's the claim, not the evidence. It's people claiming to have witnessed supernatural events for which they have no evidence, and even more than that, all these witnesses are long dead. We have nothing but third hand accounts of people from 2000 years ago claiming to have seen or heard wildly fantastical things for which we don't have any evidence that they are even possible.
Heck, we literally have millions of people still alive who swear that they have encountered aliens or have been abducted by aliens - this is a much better evidence than your supposed witnesses who are long dead by now - and it's still not nearly enough to prove that these aliens actually exist and that they have indeed been abducting people.
> Some of the things Jesus spoke about is verifiable today. As I have pointed out about the Holy Spirit guiding people, and people being able to heal and cast out demons in Jesus' name.
Many of Buddha's teachings are verifiable and valid today, yet that does nothing to prove Buddha's claims of the supernatural. Besides, you first have to demonstrate that there are such things as demons before even making a claim of being able to cast them out. Bring one of these "demons" into a research facility and then we'll talk. Otherwise, you're no different than the alien abduction people or the Bigfoot hunters.
The Lenski experiment is my favorite example. For more, read The Greatest Show on Earth.
Dawkins: The Greatest Show on Earth
http://www.amazon.com/dp/1416594795
I tend to agree with your assessment. In Richard Dawkins book Greatest Show on Earth He talked about a Fox breeding experiment that was attempted. Foxes that show the most affection and acceptance to humans where graded on a scaled of 1-4 or something like that. Foxes that where the most accepting of humans, where subsequently breeded with other foxes of the same trait. What was shown that the offspring carried more of this trait, till eventually several generations in, almost all the offspring where completely accepting of humans, and show no defensive or natural fear of humans.
Another interesting outcome of this experiment, was that the more docile the fox offspring where, the more floppy their ears got. It seems that docileness gene is directly related a gene that determines the rigidity of the ear, in foxes.
There are definatly genes in domesticated dogs that make them more accepting of humans, that's not to say Wolfs cannot be trained to be domesticated, but the acceptance from birth, was the purpouse of this experiment.
Evolutionary Biology is fucking awesome.
If you find you like reading Dawkins ... and you're curious to read some awesome layman biology I would also recommend "The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution" - Richard Dawkins.
It is mind blowing. I had no idea how really developed and nuanced the evidences for biological evolution are. And how misunderstood it is by the general public. Great book!
If I may make a suggestion? Ask her to read 50 Reason People Give for Believing in a God. I'm currently reading it to see how well it's arguments are presented compared to The God Delusion. I wanted to find a book to give to my "devout" Catholic wife to read, but I found God Delusion to be too confrontational and condescending (at least to a faithhead's point of view). 50 Reasons is written in a much more understanding and placating tone, and so has a much better chance of sparking doubt than any other piece of atheist literature that I've read so far.
I used sarcasm quotes for "devout" because even though my wife considers herself Catholic, she holds many social values that go completely against the church's official doctrine. She supports gay marriage, safe sex before marriage, and the use of condoms. She knows that she is married to an Atheist, and she's ok with that- even though if the church found out about that she would be excommunicated.
All she needs is a spark of doubt, and I can open her eyes to reason and she'll see that holding on to her faith is a vice, not a virtue- 50 Reasons, I hope, will be an eye-opening read for her.
Try perhaps 50 Reasons People Give for Believing in a God.
Or just link to the Evid3nce youtube series.
Related repost;
50 Reasons People Give for Believing in a God - by Guy P. Harrison
This is the gentlest book I've read on the subject:
http://www.amazon.com/Reasons-People-Give-Believing-God/dp/1591025672
This is backwards thinking. Lack of evidence against something in no way is evidence for it, and in some cases can even be the opposite (lack of bigfoot skeletons is evidence towards them not existing, for example). Prove there is no X, and suppose that it's reasonable to accept X if it remains unproven but not disproven, is a way to think that leads to accepting false beliefs.
Let's apply the methodology to other ideas. Prove that fairies don't exist. Prove that the flying spaghetti monster doesn't exist. Prove that Zeus doesn't exist. Prove that socialism is bad. Prove that capitalism is bad.
The burden of proof is on the person with the positive claim... that these things exist, or that we should switch to X system, or whatever.
God does not exist is a positive claim, as is that claim that a god exists. The default position should be, if you want to believe as many true things and also not believe as many false things as you can, to not accept either claim until given sufficient evidence.
To the OP, have you read 50 Reasons People Give for Believing in a God? It's an excellent list of reasons people have to believe in a god.
Take a look at The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design.
and anti-evolution BS in the Science section. Books-A-Million does this and it pisses me off.
This link should explain:
http://skeptico.blogs.com/skeptico/2006/06/equivocation.html
There's also the PRATT list by AronRa (specifically the second one, fallacy of false equivalence)
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLXJ4dsU0oGMKnaxEzgOPup9WKlNPZwiJN
And, if you want more depth and arguments against religion in general i'd recommend : The foundational falsehoods of creationism :
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL126AFB53A6F002CC
(also available in book form)
https://www.amazon.com/Foundational-Falsehoods-Creationism-Aron-Ra/dp/1634310780
First, it's ok that you aren't up to speed. It isn't your fault.
The book I recommend is Foundational Falsehoods of Creationism by Aron Ra. He explains what evolution really is and why/how creationists get it wrong. I listened to it on audiobook and it was superb.
Moon Knight. I like System of a Down, Tool, and Primus
And my item!
One reason centipedes can't evolve into dogs is because dogs already exist. Over enough time, centipedes might evolve into dog-like creatures, but they'd be unrelated to dogs as we know them today, no matter how similar they looked. The same applies to all the other examples provided.
For a good book on how evolution works, check out The Greatest Show on Earth.
This is a decent overview of human evolution, though a physical anthropology course is going to cover human evolution in much more depth and with a greater focus on the evidence and methods.
For evolution in general I don't think there is a better resource for the layman than The Greatest Show on Earth.
You should pick up a copy of The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution, by Richard Dawkins. The chapter where Dawkins talks about dogs should help you understand better so that you can easily explain to your friend in terms he can understand.
my advice is to buy your mother-in-law one or all of these books:
• jason rosenhouse's among the creationists
• richard dawkin's the greatest show on earth
• jerry a. coyne's why evolution is true
• bill nye's undeniable: evolution and the science of creation
edit: a word.
"My teacher said something about even though evolution is widely accepted it has not been fully proven yet."
Your teacher is moron. Evolution is not "widely accepted," it's a scientific theory that is supported by overwhelming evidence and data. He might as well say gravity is "widely accepted."
Do not respect someone who is knowingly trying to deceive you. You are an adult, and you have a right to question and judge whatever anyone says to you. There are libraries filled with book on evolution, however, there is always this book
http://www.amazon.com/Greatest-Show-Earth-Evidence-Evolution/dp/1416594795/ref=sr_1_10?ie=UTF8&qid=1425511291&sr=8-10&keywords=Evolutionary+Theory
I honestly get frustrated with this. People don't seem to grasp that without evolutionary theory, simple things we take for granted would not exist. We would all be dead much, much earlier without modern medicine, which only exists because of our understanding and application of evolutionary theory.
For evolution I recommend The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution. Awesome book imo!
sigh
I'll just leave this here. Enjoy.
http://www.amazon.com/Why-Evolution-True-Jerry-Coyne/dp/0143116649/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1348352250&sr=8-1&keywords=jerry+coyne+why+evolution+is+true
http://www.amazon.com/Greatest-Show-Earth-Evidence-Evolution/dp/1416594795/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1348352282&sr=1-1&keywords=the+greatest+show+on+earth
Here are some cool videos for you(not really informative about the makeup of cells but nonetheless might interest you enough to read the amazing books that I've listed below! The microcosmos really is a whole 'nother world!):
Kinesin Walking Narrated Version:
http://youtu.be/YAva4g3Pk6k
This is a better model. Notice how the 'legs' shake around violently until it snaps into place. Sometimes the random motion of the jiggling atoms(these aren't shown. Imagine the Kinesin molecules shown in a sea of water molecules, all jiggling about ferociously. The 'invisible' water molecules are bumping up against the Kinesin, and it's evolved to work with the random motions) makes it step backwards! But the ATP/ADP process makes it more likely to step forward than backwards(an evolved process). This is explained well in the book Life's Ratchet below.
Molecular Motor Kinesin Walks Like a Drunk Man:
http://youtu.be/JckOUrl3aes
Here are some amazing book to read. Seriously read all of these, preferably in the order listed to get the best understanding. They will blow your mind many times over. Many, if not all, may be at your local library.
QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0691125759
Quarks: The Stuff of Matter
http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0465067816
Thermodynamics:A Very Short Introduction
http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0199572194
Life's Ratchet:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0465022537/
The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution
http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/1416594795
The Drunkard's Walk: How Randomness Rules Our Lives
http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0307275175p
I would also recommend taking a biology and maybe a chemistry class at your local community college, if possible. My biology class started with the smallest stuff, atoms(technically not the smallest, but whatever), and worked its way up through the chain of sizes up to the biosphere. It was very informative and there were a few people in their 40s(a guess) that really enjoyed the class. So you can do it, too!
Why Evolution is True by Jerry Coyne (a professor in biology), and The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution by Richard Dawkins (an evolutionary biologist too) outline the evidence for evolution in a clear and easy to understand way, and explain the basics of evolution as well.
You need to learn the theory of evolution as well and not just the evidence for it. The University of Berkley has a great online Evolution 101 short course that you can view here.
Once you understand evolution and see the evidence we have for it, you'll be able to educate your dad on it in an enthusiastic way, and not in a confrontational one.
I am a father to boys, also. And ex-Christian, due in part to the atheism of my sons. And I still have trouble talking to them even though we're supposedly on the same wavelength now. And it kills me.
Keep it at. Keep asking. Keep listening. Don't know if I can be of any further help but PM me if you want.
I haven't read it myself, but from what I've heard, 50 Reasons People Give for Believing in a God is informative and has the sort of gentle tone that would keep religious people from getting angry and rejecting its points out of hand.
Questions like...
e.g.
http://www.whywontgodhealamputees.com
http://www.amazon.com/Reasons-People-Give-Believing-God/dp/1591025672/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&qid=1405435669&sr=8-5&keywords=Guy+P.+Harrison
http://www.amazon.com/50-Simple-Questions-Every-Christian/dp/161614727X/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1405435669&sr=8-3&keywords=Guy+P.+Harrison
I'm sorry for the lack of formatting, I am on my mobile device
If you do have him read a book of your choosing, I recommend Guy P Harrison's 50 Reasons People Give for Believing in a God. It's not as combative as Hitchens and Dawkins, but it addresses a lot of points...50, actually. ;) If you haven't read it, I recommend it whether or not you ask your dad to read it, but I think if you do ask him to read a book of your choosing, make sure it's one you've read, so you know what you're giving him!
Although I doubt either one of you will change the other's mind, I hope that your dad's vitriol calms down and you can find a way to at least just drop the subject until you are able to move out.
Not by a Horseman, but during my deconversion I found 50 Reasons People Give for Believing in a God by Guy P. Harrison to be helpful. Since you've already read The God Delusion and God is Not Great you may not find anything new in it, but for someone wanting a gateway book toward more militant literature, it's a good one. In it the author gently refutes common theistic reasoning. It might be a good one to recommend to budding atheist friends.
As to your question about whether God Delusion is thoroughly critical of religion, I feel that yes, it is--I think Dawkins spends a good deal of time explaining why we should be intolerant of religious thinking.
Oh, also there's a very interesting book called 50 Reasons People Give for Believing in God.
https://smile.amazon.com/dp/1591025672/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_awdb_t1_1NzYBbN5B4KY4
It puts many issues into a clear cut form.
By her the book 50 Reasons People Give for Believing in God
You may be able to get a pirated pdf online if you don't want to spend the money.
I recommend this one as well. It's not extremely in depth but it points out almost everything briefly "50 reasons people give for believing in a God"
SECTION | CONTENT
:--|:--
Title | Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design | Jonathan Wells, PhD
Description | Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism - Jonathan Wells talked about his book The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design, published by Regnery Publishing. After his presentation he responded to audience members' questions. Buy Wells' books here: The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design: https://www.amazon.com/Politically-Incorrect-Darwinism-Intelligent-Design/dp/1596980133 Icons of Evolution: Science or Myth? Why Much of What We Teach About...
Length | 0:27:21
****
^(I am a bot, this is an auto-generated reply | )^Info ^| ^Feedback ^| ^(Reply STOP to opt out permanently)
Isn't this the politically correct guide? Advocating a positive/neutral understanding of socialism is more of a taboo in more anglophone western contexts. Politically incorrect isn't about being conservative. It is about being offensive or taboo on a politically or socially sensitive topic.
Looks like yet another hack job by someone who doesn't understand the topic. Just like "The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design", from the same series, advocating intelligent design (or their book suggesting a climate change conspiracy). Neither is offensive or taboo. Just a poor showing of apparently conservative values.
https://www.amazon.com/Politically-Incorrect-Darwinism-Intelligent-Design/dp/1596980133
>Why Darwinism—like Marxism and Freudianism before it—is headed for extinction
I would start with the classic Some mistakes of Moses, by Robert Ingersoll.
There is a short book called Why There Is No God: Simple Responses to 20 Common Arguments for the Existence of God, by Armin Navabi, that is also a nice read.
One that I recently finished reading and enjoyed very much is The Foundational Falsehoods of Creationism, by Aron Ra. The book is not exactly about atheism; it's Aron's rebuttal to many creationist arguments, but Aron is a widely known atheist activist, and the book is very enjoyable.
I usually listen to The Thinking Atheist podcast, from Seth Andrews (a podcast I highly recommend, by the way). There are some book he suggested in his podcast that I haven't read yet, but which I included in my to-read list:
The Greatest Show on Earth! Sunflower!
I would love this ebook! I love Richard Dawkings, but seeing as I live with my religious mother, keeping hard copies of books by Dawkins (and other outspoken atheist authors) is a recipe for disaster.
How is it practically August? Seriously, this is ridiculous.
Thanks for the contest!
I would love this book by Richard Dawkins. It's actually already on my wishlist. I love yummy shabu shabu!
This book on mindfulness would really help me out! If this is too expensive, my backup book. Thank you!!!
>but she still shook her head and explained how she doesn't understand how monkeys just popped up from the big bang.
The same process you used applies here, monkeys didn't just "pop" up, they came from an ancestor. Perhaps a visual like this can help.
> but then she said "What about diseases that are still around, why aren't we at the point where we are immune to everything?
Evolution doesn't 'finish' its an ongoing process. Additionally while some mutations are beneficial and help survival, others just 'come along for the ride' which may ultimately the cause of certain diseases/disorders/etc.
I'm no expert on additional readings, but i did enjoy The Greatest Show on Earth
Why Evolution is True. Originally started as a book I had to read for class, but it turned out to be pretty interesting. The only downside is there's a kind of subtle militant atheism to it. I'm an atheist myself, but in the book, there's kind of a "This is right and Special Creation is stupid." Granted, it could be the author holding special creationism to the same standard evolution endures. He never blatantly attacks any particular religion. Pretty cheap on Amazon if anyone is interested. It's kind of a light read.
Next, I'll be reading Your Inner Fish. Looking forward to that one.
Generally speaking, when portions of a species live apart long enough, through genetic drift alone, they become different. Leave them apart long enough and they become incompatible, which then creates a new species. There are absolutely some exceptions to this, but that's largely where the line is drawn.
Look at humans. We came out of Africa dark-skinned, but through subtle changes became Caucasoid and Mongoloid as well. Given hundreds of thousands or millions of years of isolation, these very well could've produced three distinct species of human, but because none of these populations were isolated - and we can now go around the world quickly - humans can never really become a new species despite how diverse we've become.
Think of language. Settlers came to what is now the British Isles with French and German and the result is modern British English. Twist it a bit further, isolate it, and you get American English and subsets like Ebonics. French and German are derived from their own sources as well.
If you'd love to know more, check out Jerry Coyne's excellent book "Why Evolution Is True". http://www.amazon.com/Why-Evolution-True-Jerry-Coyne/dp/0143116649
Awesome, it's great you're so proud of her!
Haha knowledge that leads to everlasting boredom! Book studies were the worst, I always felt super obligated to study extra hard because there were so few people that often nobody would answer!
Don't be so sure that your family will keep abandoning you, it's possible sure, but there's always hope! Often they're surprised that you can leave the witnesses and live a normal, or even better than normal life (of course there's always the "blessed by satan" get out clause) but they do expect people who leave to get aids and die from a heroin overdose.
It's easy to prove them wrong! Either way though, you have your own family to look out for and you can learn what not to do!
On to the suggested reading. I've mentioned many on here before but I don't expect everyone to be aware of it all so here goes:
Reading (I have a kindle and love reading, but they're all available for ebook and in paperback)
Web
Pocasts
(all on iTunes etc, i like them because I can listen at work or download to my phone)
That's about it for now, if you soak all that in / want more / have suggestions let me know, and I'd love to hear what you think! :)
https://www.amazon.com/Why-Evolution-True-Jerry-Coyne/dp/0143116649
Dr. Coyne is amazing. Highly recommend.
Did you know Amazon will donate a portion of every purchase if you shop by going to smile.amazon.com instead? Over $50,000,000 has been raised for charity - all you need to do is change the URL!
Here are your smile-ified links:
The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark
Why Evolution Is True
The Skeptic's Annotated Bible
Why There Is No God
Jesus, Interrupted
The God Argument
Deconverted: A Journey from Religion to Reason
---
^^i'm ^^a ^^friendly bot
Take the acceptance she gives you and appreciate it. Don't seek to change her. If she has questions, she'll come to you.
On evolution, if she ever did want to challenge her position, I found that "Why Evolution is True" to be a good read.
I would go with this one http://www.amazon.com/Why-Evolution-True-Jerry-Coyne/dp/0143116649
Try this or a Dawkins book. Darwin's works are of historical interest only at this point.
Or better yet, put "For rectal use only" stickers on the merchandise.
Why evolution is true
Hey, I just want you to know that if it's just a hobby you are looking at a ton of information to process. What you are refering to is called taxonomy, You can check out Zoology books that are meant for the university, I think it's quite friendly to people who haven't had that much biology before, but some knowledge is adviced. Check out "integrated principles of zoology" by McGraw Hill.
http://www.amazon.com/Integrated-Principles-Zoology-Cleveland-Hickman/dp/0073524212
If you want popular science I can recommend:
1- A very easy and straightforward approach to evolution is "Why Evolution is true" by Jerry A Coyne. http://www.amazon.com/Why-Evolution-True-Jerry-Coyne/dp/0143116649
2- Richard Dawkins has a book that is dedicated to the evolution of humans, it's called "The ancestors tale" http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/17977.The_Ancestor_s_Tale (I haven't read it, but I'm told it's very good). A lot of people don't like him, I think he can be a bit obnoxious and unapologetic in religious debates, but if you are interested in evolution you should be able to filter past that.
Happy reading!
I went to Alpha when I was still a Christian, but when doubts were starting to form. They invite you in by sharing a meal together, watching Gumbel's presentation, and having discussion. The video segments are made up of the same old arguments stating that people are basically bad and need to be made right by the blood of Jesus. It's an effective tool on those who aren't able to or aren't trained in logical/cognitive fallacies.
> I've tried to respectfully challenge her on a couple of things, but she feels that I'm attacking her new found faith.
IMO this is a red flag. Being defensive usually doesn't allow for an open mind. Be wary.
> Are there any good books which help explain non-literalist Christian beliefs to someone who came from a literalist background?
I wouldn't keep pointing in the direction of belief, but rather point in the direction of truth (Plus, we were taught to hate Rob Bell in church):
Pointing in the direction of religion, yields more bad philosophy.
Get this book and learn why.
Don't be offended, but for the sake of a congruent discussion I'm going to reply to your response in sections. Some people find it annoying or pompous, but I assure you that is not the case.
>Well I've probably read the same texts you have in school, it's not like I was home-schooled in Alabama or anything,
I didn't actually have my "intellectual awakening" until I was out of High School. And not in the "took Philosophy 101 and now I think I understand the world" kind of way. I just didn't really look deeper into the world around me until I was 19 or 20. I was a very shallow person for a long time.
> I've found the atheist model of looking at reality intellectually wanting.
I question what exactly the "atheist model" you mention is. Atheism isn't a religion and has no dogma or tenants to follow. It simply means that I do not believe that there is a god or gods. More specifically, I am agnostic atheist, meaning that though I do not believe in any gods, I do not claim it to be definitive. Merely that there isn't evidence to support the claim of any god(s). You're theist, I'm atheist. If we drill down into each other's beliefs, there would be more specific terms like Christianity or Darwinism, for instance, but those are not synonyms for (a)theism.
>I was considered bright and well-read in college if that helps distance you from some prejudice you may have in your mind.
I push myself to not judge someone from a couple internet comments. I don't think you're dumb, or anything like that. Perhaps misinformed, but certainly not unintelligent.
>When you say "proud not to know" it makes me question if that's your true attitude towards any theist or just the radical U.S. "GOP", evangelical version of it.
Certainly not. I associate with a very diverse set of people. There are some very angry, ignorant atheists, just like there are very smart, kind theists. And it has nothing to do with a political party in my eyes. Individuals need to be treated as such. Everyone knows and thinks differently.
>There are arguments out there that strongly challenge the hypothesis of macro-evolution (for example) that I HIGHLY doubt many in this generation are familiar with
Before I get into the meat of this part, I'll say that while there are many ignorant people of all beliefs, it's not beneficial to discussion to narrow it down to any generation, young or old. It insults many without cause.
This here, however, is a definite sticking point with me. No other theory "strongly" challenges the mountain of evidence for evolution. There is truly no reason to divide this into macro/micro. It's the exact same mechanism under both terms, and those who wish to argue against evolution were the ones to introduce this separation of concept. The only real difference between them is the length of time evolution acts across, and I will admit that trying to wrap one's head around the hundreds of millions of years that this process has been acting is daunting. Here is where I would make my first book recommendation, "Why Evolution Is True" by Jerry Coyne. I know the tile is a little on the nose, but the reason I choose this is because the author presents the overwhelming evidence for evolution in a digestible, logic driven manner. It responds to nearly every common objection raised by those who doubt the scientific theory, and uses clear, concise wording to accomplish it.
>so sometimes I just get a little annoyed when I see another "all believers are idiots" types of posts when their own personal understanding of the science(s) involved is often threadbare at best.
I am in absolute agreement with you here. All believers are assuredly NOT idiots, and Religion and the idea of higher powers persists for many reasons, but among the most prevalent is that of comfort. It is a tough world out there and answers can be hard to come by. Things happen(good and bad), often without a clear explanation. Believing in a god means shifting these uncertainties off one's own thoughts so that he/she can keep moving forward with life. (Obviously there's more to it than that, just an example).
>Especially because you can spout that all day but let someone fire a salvo back and watch the censors get busy. Such a double-standard but that's not your fault.
I assure you I am willing to hear all ideas on belief without censor, but one of my personal favorite quotes applies, and that is "That can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence." Burden of proof is a key concept to understand.
>You're basically putting yourself in a position where everyone who believes they've had a genuine spiritual experience is either stupid or a liar. If that's not ignorance or pride I don't know what is.
What qualifies as a spiritual experience in your eyes?
>You're right that most religion tends towards a lot of negativity, but that's as much a sign that spiritual warfare exists as it is for arguing it doesn't.
I realize I'm guilty of it as well in this meandering reply, but if you wish to have a healthy discourse, try to keep your topics more narrow. Religion in general is a much larger can of worms than evolution or theism/atheism, and requires a much broader set of ideas to be exchanged.
---
Okay, sorry that took so long, and about the length of the text. I spent a lot of my day thinking on your words.
I have heard great things about KhanAcademy. As far as books go, for Humans, the course I co-teach uses Human Evolutionary Genetics: Origins, Peoples & Disease (ISBN 0-8153-4183), but I would definitely brush up on basics before reading that one -its definitely a text book, but a great reference. A more general book might be Why Evolution is True , and I like 'Survival of The Sickest' for some general knowledge on why some diseases tend to stick around (which you would think would go away...). I hope that helps, that's about all I can think of off the top of my head right now. PM me if you have any questions too, I love talking about genetics. :)
Two books, one link:
Dawkins: Greatest Show on Earth
Coyne: Why Evolution is True
LMGTFY: Evidence of Evolution by Natural Selection
If you really become interested in this subject, a really good, easy to read book I enjoyed is Why Evolution is True by Jerry Koyne.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0143116649/ref=mp_s_a_1_1?qid=1453066607&sr=8-1&pi=AC_SX110_SY165_QL70&keywords=why+evolution+is+true+by+jerry+coyne
Why Evolution is True
That book talks about all the things Kiwi mentions, and has a list of sources.
It's a good read too.
Edit: if you don't want to waste time and money reading a whole book, here's an article by the author summarizing his book
Forbes -Why Evolution is True
Confirm...Neil Shubin is awesome, the book is good too.
> Science does not "work differently in different countries". Science is the scientific method.
I LOLed at the ignorance, I really did! Oh dear, what a sheltered little life you must lead. Don't get me wrong, I wish research funding fell out of the sky with no political agenda or strings attached, but sadly that is not the reality. Of course if you knew anything about scientific research, I wouldn't have to explain this to you like you were a child.
> I'm agnostic.
If you're agnostic and you're accusing scientists like myself - people who have reviewed the mountain of evidence in support of the theory of evolution by natural selection that converges from dozens of different disciplines and concluded that it is a fact - of being a cult member, then you are either fantastically ignorant or fantastically stupid. Or both.
As it happens, there are several superb books that explain all of the evidence for evolution in ways that are reasonable accessible to educationally deprived individuals such as yourself. Perhaps a little less Fox News for you, and a little more reading, hmm?
http://www.amazon.com/Why-Evolution-True-Jerry-Coyne/dp/0143116649/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1319155823&sr=8-1
http://www.amazon.com/Evolution-What-Fossils-Say-Matters/dp/0231139624/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1319155823&sr=8-2
http://www.amazon.com/Your-Inner-Fish-Journey-3-5-Billion-Year/dp/0307277453/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1319155823&sr=8-3
http://www.amazon.com/Greatest-Show-Earth-Evidence-Evolution/dp/1416594787/ref=sr_1_7?ie=UTF8&qid=1319155823&sr=8-7
Your Inner Fish
How to Teach Physics to Your Dog
The Universe and Dr. Einstein
The Code Book: The Science of Secrecy from Ancient Egypt to Quantum Cryptography
Books are better than videos for this. I liked Shubin's Your Inner Fish a lot (better than the TV series, which leaves out too much detail).
The book, Your Inner Fish, by Neil Shubin, also a very good PBS documentary based on the book.
I have Your Inner Fish . It was a very good read. Any random chance you have Ender's Game ?
This week we're talking about the science of pets.
Show notes:
This is awesome and goes into it at some length:
http://www.amazon.com/Your-Inner-Fish-Journey-3-5-Billion-Year/dp/0307277453/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1293751873&sr=8-1
I gave my wife Women without Superstition, Your Inner Fish, Agora, and Power, Sex, Suicide: Mitochondria and the Meaning of Life.
Here's a good start.
There's also a great book called Your Inner Fish that covers this topic well. Here's an excerpt that covers the origins of some human traits like hernias, hiccups, and snoring.
You can trace the history of any human trait through comparative anatomy. In this phylogeny, you can see that the evolutionary order of appearance of mammal traits was vertebrae>jaws>lungs>4 legs>Amniotic egg>milk.
I read a book this summer called "Your Inner Fish", by Neil Shubin. He discovered fossils of a fish with legs that would be very close to the first time that fish left the water and started walking on land. One of the coolest parts of the book was about how they decided where to look:
They knew from known fossils that animals first walked on land somewhere between 360 and 390 million years ago. They had already found a small bone near a highway cut in Pennsylvania which looked promising, and wanted to find a complete fossil. They knew that ~375 million years ago that part of Pennsylvania had been a shallow river delta which buried fossils in layers of sediment that became rock, so they went to a geology textbook to find locations with exposed sedimentary rock that was ~375 million years old that had been part of the same historic coastline. That textbook had a chart showing that Greenland and Ellesmere Island (in the Canadian Arctic) were geologically similar to the part of Catskills where they had found the first fossil.
There had already been several expeditions to Greenland that hadn't found anything, whereas Ellesmere Island was inaccessible most of the year and untouched by paleontologists. Their first expedition found similar bones, and ten expeditions later they found a complete fossil.
Hey, well I would expect them to biased towards the Bible, as people who believe the Bible want to support it :) Just as atheists want to tear it down. Do you think an atheist would want to explain the contradictions in the Bible? Of course not, they want to find theories that will discredit it. (confirmation bias, we all have it, I know atheists say they don't but I can see how mad often they are at God, that is a bias in itself.) Perhaps the Bible is just mankind's way of trying to understand God, by assigning him human qualities.
I think this is a pretty comprehensive summary of the contradictions:
http://www.biblicalcatholic.com/apologetics/bible.htm
http://www.comereason.org/bible-contradictions-explained.asp
Ok, I wish I could address all of this but I am pretty new to the subject myself! I just try to keep an open mind and I am always reading and researching. I don't 100% believe the Bible is true, I think I will always have questions, but right now God makes a lot more sense to me than that the universe came into being out of nowhere. I too have trouble comprehending the evil and suffering in the world, but the fact that there IS evil doesn't mean that there isn't a God. A God who can create all this knows a lot more than we do, and maybe he has a much better plan than we can comprehend. I recommend The Privileged Planet (book and DVD) which describes the extreme fine tuning of our planet and our universe.
Finding Darwin's God by Ken Miller is on my (ever growing) to read list.
https://www.amazon.com/Finding-Darwins-God-Scientists-Evolution/dp/0061233501/ref=pd_sim_14_1?_encoding=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=8MWM3P3QW7V54VQ94S6F
https://www.amazon.com/Only-Theory-Evolution-Battle-Americas/dp/0143115669
Here is a good interview, make sure you read page 4 where he talks about the Bible.
http://www.godofevolution.com/interview-with-biologist-ken-miller-part-1/
I really do recommend John Lennox also
https://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss_2?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=john+lennox
Have you attended any churches? I've found them to be so very different from the Kingdom hall. It gives you an entirely different idea of what it is to be a Christian and worship God (I find church enjoyable, uplifting and encouraging).
If you are interested in a religion friendly review of evolution that is 100% on board with the scientific consensus on evolution, I highly recommend Kenneth Miller's "Finding Darwin's God: A Scientist's Search for Common Ground Between God and Evolution"
He is a devout catholic, molecular biologist, and textbook author. He spends the first half of the book explaining why scientific consensus views evolution as a fact, and why they are right about that. He spends the second half of the book explaining why that shouldn't threaten anyone's belief in God.
I read Dawkins' book on evolution, "The Greatest Show on Earth" and liked it, but I think Miller is actually more convincing and intelligible on the truth of evolution in probably a third of the space. He also has the added benefit of not being an evangelical atheist or a retarded young earth creationist.
I can't add much to what has been said by others in this thread, but I had similar experiences and feelings to you for a long time from a young age and did eventually get over them. I feel like you need to develop a more sophisticated understanding of both Catholic doctrine and the arguments for it and praxis - let me tell you, Christian praxis goes well beyond "being a decent person" to a wholesome life-view that strengthens you as an individual, as a member of your community, and in relation to God, and is inexorably linked with sound, devout doctrine. I would advise reading some Catholic apologetics or theology to start. Since you're trained in Biology you may find Kenneth Miller's Finding Darwin's God a good starting point. Also, if you're not already, make a sincere effort to attend Mass at least weekly, go to Confession regularly, and following the Church's moral and spiritual guidelines even if they don't seem to be directly related to "being a decent person". It may feel like you're only "going through the motions," but you never know what benefit you might find! The final author I'd recommend is Søren Kierkegaard - let me be clear, his books aren't easy reads and I take issue with a lot he says, but I found his presentation of Christian praxis and ethics (particularly Either/Or) one of the most beautiful I've ever read and I credit him with giving the death knell to my doubts. I don't have the link handy, but Julia Watkin's book on him in the Outstanding Christian Thinkers Series is an excellent place to start if you find him interesting.
> Creating technology is a biological thing.
>My beard example is by definition an adaptation. You adapt to a cold environment by growing your beard.
"Adaptation, in biology, process by which an animal or plant species becomes fitted to its environment; it is the result of natural selection’s acting upon heritable variation."
It is not the relevant definition of adaption though. You are equivocating. Using 1 word but different definitions of it to muddy the waters. Adapting with technology or growing beards is NOT the evolutionary examples you read in here that you dismissed as mere adaption and you damn well know that.
>The entire reason evolution was latched onto was because people wanted a way to explain life without the need for a super natural Creator.
Another lie, the vast majority of Christians accept evolution.
Even within the religion creationism is a minority position. The evidence led to evolution.
>People want to feel like they don’t have to answer to a higher power like God.
Accepting reality has absolutely nothing to do with this.
https://www.amazon.com/Finding-Darwins-God-Scientists-Evolution/dp/0061233501
A Christian Biologist wrote that. The entire point is that the ToE is compatible with gods and I assume specifically the Christian god.(note: I've never actually read it. [Edit: but I have seen it recommended to people who couldn't reconcile the two]. It wasn't until after I left Christianity and theism altogether that I first discovered people actually rejected the ToE for a literal reading of two contradicting stories in Genesis, so I never had a reason to) On his wikipedia page it lists "Criticism of creationism" as what he's known for.
>You said that there are tons of examples of “missing links.” What are they? As far as I’m aware there are like 2 somewhat viable organisms
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils
It's been a long while since I've read this book, but I remember this subject being at least a major part of it:
http://smile.amazon.com/Finding-Darwins-God-Scientists-Evolution/dp/0061233501
As a science-loving Christian, this is the book I had always wanted to write before realizing someone already had. There's a lot of speculation, of course, but I remember it provoking a lot of thought, at the very least.
Finding Darwin's God is an introduction to evolution by a Christian scientist. It's a great option.
Richard Dawkins is also very good. He's a militant atheist, but his writings on evolution are wonderful, clear, and beautiful. The Selfish Gene or The Greatest Show on Earth are both very good options.
Also this:
http://www.amazon.com/Finding-Darwins-God-Scientists-Evolution/dp/0061233501
Was it this one?
Logged comment posted by /u/ThisIsMyRedditLogin at 08/22/13 13:11:51:
> > or how even now basic science education is decried as sinful by many sects.
>
> All this does is cause kids to leave Christianity once they start reading about science on the internet. The evolution deniers are losing their most precious resource - it's young people - by continuing to argue that evolution is wrong. The exodus of young Evangelicals is already starting to leave many Churches looking like old folks homes.
... in response to comment posted by /u/GreyWulfen at 08/22/13 03:52:57:
> Its a nice read and is factual, regarding the beginnings of science. However, as science has pulled back the curtain, and explained more and more of what was supernatural, religion has had to ceed more and more ground.
>
> Lightning rods were against God's power, not they are normal. Earthquakes and plagues were God's punishment. Now they are moving plates and bacteria/viruses.
>
> Look how the claim that AIDS was a plague from God, or how even now basic science education is decried as sinful by many sects.
____
Logged comment posted by /u/ThisIsMyRedditLogin at 08/22/13 13:16:12:
> Was it this one?
... in response to comment posted by /u/namer98 at 08/22/13 13:06:11:
> I don't remember. :(
>
> Not a textbook. It was for a "science and religion" class.
I think you should watch this lecture by Ken Miller, who also wrote the book Finding Darwins God: A Scientist's Search for Common Ground Between God and Evolution
In the first place, I don't need to demonstrate design of the hands of a deity, all I need to do is demonstrate that there is a rebuttable presumption of design, and at that point, there would be hard evidence for the notion that the existence of a designer is possible, which may or may not be a deity. Goodbye atheism, hello agnosticism. If the design hypothesis is not refuted, that is the only explanation we are left with, through a process of elimination. Once the design hypothesis is shown to be plausible, we can then go into scientific evidence extant for further confirmation that would exclude any other hypothesis (some of which is in the PDF; see Challenge 16), and once that is done, the identity of that designer. But first things first!!
Yes, it is easy to conclude the appearance of design, Richard Dawkins himself has done that, which is the entire point of my video. The whole idea of the "blind watchmaker" thesis is that biology is constantly providing the appearance of design, which of course leads to a design inference. This is a rebuttable presumption of course, and that is the point of Dawkins' book, that he is able to rebut the presumption. Unfortunately, he confines himself to one level of the argument, evolution, and even though he fails there, he barely attempts to address the origin of life problem, which is in fact the sole locus of the problem, if you accept the notion of the universal common ancestor.
There are even more peer-reviewed articles, and if you want them put together, check out the Meyers book:
http://www.amazon.com/Signature-Cell-Evidence-Intelligent-Design/dp/0061472794/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1421927648&sr=8-1&keywords=signature+cell
Here is the bibliography from the book, you'll find lots of peer-reviewed articles there!!
https://www.scribd.com/doc/253395869/Signature-Bibliography
The problem with atheists is that they spend so much time reading the works of other atheists and only conversing with other atheists, that they don't spend the time they need to get the facts of the matter that have been developed in the last decade.
How about the Bible?
Signature in the Cell: DNA and the evidence for intelligent design
What would make you believe in God?
God or Atheism - Which is more rational?
If Good and Evil Exist, God Exists
https://www.amazon.com/Faith-Versus-Fact-Religion-Incompatible/dp/0143108263
I'm shocked this is even still a debate in schools... There is no competing theory that does anything close to explaining the natural world as well as evolution.
The debate should be framed not on "pro versus anti evolution" but rather is there any competing theory that can be presented which debunks evolution or better describes the natural world. There isn't, but if there were evolution would be replaced with that theory.
That being said the opposition presumably will advocate for Intelligent Design (I.D.) which is not scientific in the slightest and should be easily debunked with a bit of research. If you have time read this book, it does a wonderful job explaining the nuance of the debate. I read it in college and loved it; never had a second thought about evolution again.
https://www.amazon.com/Only-Theory-Evolution-Battle-Americas/dp/0143115669
If you don't have time these are a couple examples of evidence supporting the theory of evolution I didn't see posted below. Or maybe you could find a synopsis of the book I mentioned.
https://thehumanevolutionblog.com/2014/09/13/why-humans-must-eat-vitamin-c/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolution_experiment
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_vestigiality
Science isn't a pro vs anti debate; if that's the debate it's just an excuse to let religion into the classroom. The theory with the most credible evidence which best helps us understand natural phenomena should be the leading Theory. I.D. is not that theory.
Neat, it is on sale
https://www.amazon.com/Why-Evolution-True-Jerry-Coyne/dp/0143116649
How about this one
This isn't heavily science-y and a bit journalized, but I really enjoyed Stiff: The Curious Life of Human Cadaver's by Mary Roach. I also like Why Evolution is True by Jerry Coyne. There's a lot of overlap with what he teaches at his UChicago Eco & Evo course. Bad Science by Ben Goldacre is also wonderful, but will likely make you angry. Yet another interesting read is The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks.
I think you may just be overlooking the data. For example, how can you say that, "All I see there is talking about a species adapting. Not inter-species evolution." with clear examples such as cetacean evolution?
It is also important to note that even if we had no fossils evidence (which we have plenty of) genetic sequencing has more than confirmed common descent.
One thing I will say is the thread that started this is idiotic. The fact that Dinosaur bones exist is not a refutation of creationism. There are plenty of good reasons to believe that a creator is not necessary to explain anything and then without sufficient evidence should be rejected.
Finally, never forget that even if the theory evolution were refuted today that would not make intelligent design, young earth creationism or any other theory correct. It is not an either or situation. None of these theories have any credible evidence. On the other hand there are mountains of evidence for evolution.
Here are some options for further reading.
Why Evolution is True
This is a really good book for people new to the theory.
Evolution by Douglas J. Futuyma
This text book gets into the meat and potatoes of the issue. A very fun read.
Most of my in-depth knowledge came from university courses, but there are lots of good books out there. I've read this one and would definitely recommend it, it doesn't require any prior knowledge of the topic.
I'm 38 now, but I woke up when I was almost 30. I felt the same way; that I had to start over again on a worldview. When I went back to college, I took every single class I could think of that the Watchtower Society would frown upon. For science, I took anthropology (emphasis on human biological evolution), astronomy, biology, geology, and earth history; lecture and lab for all classes. I also took anthropology of religion, magic, and witchcraft. I took an advanced upper level English course with an emphasis of ancient mythology. I took four philosophy classes, intro to philosophy, logic in practice, critical thinking and composition, and philosophy of religion. All of this served as a foundation for a secular worldview.
First and foremost, you need to learn how to think and not what to think. This is where philosophy comes in. An Introductory Philosophy class at a local community college is a great start. Logic, particularly informal logic and logical fallacies should be learned first. Identifying logical fallacies is what will help you differentiate between good information and bad information. The reason the Watchtower Society admonishes against higher education, is because a critical thinking component is generally a standard part of a General Education guideline. A first year college freshman will learn the intellectual tools necessary to recognize the logical fallacies, rhetoric, and deceptive tactics used by politicians, advertisers, and religious authorities, such as Watchtower. If you can't take a philosophy class, search YouTube for "Philosophy for beginners" and then search "informal logic for beginners". Once you have a full understanding of logical fallacies (which is part of informal logic), you will become dismayed of how much Watchtower uses them, and how JWs are oblivious to this. You'll see it in politics and union propaganda as well, so there are other benefits too. On a side note, this video was shown in my Introductory Philosophy and Philosophy of Religion classes: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=69F7GhASOdM There are striking parallels to waking up from the JW religion and Plato's Allegory of the Cave. Going back into the cave is not an option.
With the background of learning how to think, topics in science, and everything else comes a lot easier. Although courses in anthropology, biology, and earth history (which includes history of life on earth) do teach evolution, the basics of biological evolution can be found on YouTube by searching "evolution for dummies". Once you understand what it is, then look at the evidence for evolution. This is an important second step, because unlike Creationism, there are tons of evidence for evolution. This is where the "aha" moments comes from. I recommend this article by the Khan Academy: https://www.khanacademy.org/science/biology/her/evolution-and-natural-selection/a/lines-of-evidence-for-evolution I also recommend the book Why Evolution is True by Jerry Coyne. He goes into detail the five pillars of evidence for evolution; comparative anatomy, genetics, biogeography, and embryology. This book is found in most public libraries, so you can check it out for free get it on Amazon: https://www.amazon.com/Why-Evolution-True-Jerry-Coyne/dp/0143116649 Also, check out the Foundational Falsehoods of Creationism series on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KnJX68ELbAY&list=PL126AFB53A6F002CC
Understand that learning all of this is not easy. It takes time and patience. But the payoff in the end is well worth it. It's not like going to a meeting and hearing the same recycled drivel over and over again. I'm still not refined on a political position. All I can say is that I do not identify with any party because doing so obligates me to defend that platform. I like certain things from each party, and I vote accordingly. However, you can take an online "what political party am I quiz" to get a sense of where you are.
> Science has always been a way to understand God better for Christians.
has it? Or have Christians been forcing their 'worldview' on others for 2,000 years claiming to have special knowledge about the mysteries of existence and life after death with no other evidence than a book and their own personal 'revelations'. For most of that time, their claim to absolute truth was absolute and unchallengeable. The advancement of sciences in the areas of physics, biology, astronomy and chemistry, especially in the last 200 years, have been able to explain many of the mysteries that confounded our ancestors, and have transformed our lives in tangibly positive ways. Take leprosy: People in Biblical times thought leprosy was a sign of sin against God, and so you were 'unclean'. Of course nobody believes that anymore (to his credit, it seems Jesus didn't buy into it either). According to wikipedia: In the past 20 years, 15 million people worldwide have been cured of leprosy, which is caused by the bacteria Mycobacterium leprae. It's one example but I'm sure you can think of many more. The church has lost so much ground to science that there are only a few little islands of mystery from which to they try to claim authority and justification for their philosophies, such as:
> the Bible is kind of like an ethical cheat sheet, from an omniscient God who actually knows the answers
> even those who didn't hear about God know what's right & wrong
and you have your own theory:
> God started things off, realized natural selection was a great way to set up a diverse planet, and probably intervened a bit in the ape -> human transition.
Now, you are basically saying that the differences we perceive between a human and a chimpanzee are actually the direct result of a deliberate intervention, at a specific time in the past, by a creator god (from outer space), who engineered the development of our culture, giving us laws, clothing, marriage, and possibly music and mathematics. It's an interesting theory, but whats the motivation?
> man is different from the animals
This is the central issue. Logically, if we are animals than either animals have souls (and we should all be vegetarians, or burn as murderers), or humans do not have souls (and there is no eternal life for believers). This is a catch-22 for a bible believing christians and meat-eaters. Maybe you can say animals do have souls, but God said we can eat them so its OK. This is kind of like saying God is an asshole who arbitrarily makes up the rules as he goes along (which is a solid theological position - just ask Job: the Lord giveth, the Lord taketh away).
I think to separate ourselves from the animals is to deny the truth of what science has shown us about ourselves. For Christians, science may be just a way to understand God better, but for the rest of us it is a way to understand reality better. Of course Christians want there to be no conflict between faith in the Bible and reality because no philosophy can exist without being rooted to some degree in reality; otherwise it is just a fantasy.
Let me back up a second. You said you believe the Bible is true and historically accurate, and I won't ask you what evidence you have for believing that. I used to believe as you did, that the Bible is true, and so is evolution but that somehow there is no conflict and the two work together - that somehow there in the whole mix of life evolving naturally, God intervened and sent Jesus to fulfill his mysterious plan so that we can all live forever in heaven. I just didn't want to accept that all those people (including my family) could be wrong; they are obviously sincere in their beliefs. For several years I found various ways to explain it all without accepting a 'naturalistic worldview', and all that implies including a very high probability of there being no life after death. I might still believe in the Bible if I hadn't started reading science books and watching BBC documentaries... yep Attenborough offered me the red pill and i took it.
If you can pretend for a moment you were born in Africa or Asia, in some remote tribe with no written language. You wouldn't have any reason to trust in a book you could not read; everything you know about the universe has been explained to you by those around you, those who came before, those who were close in the beginning. This is the same experience as any animal that learns how to hunt or fly or build nests from their parents.
The book I mentioned, Our Inner Ape documents the social behavior and societies of bonobos and chimpanzees, written by noted primatologist Frans de Waal who has studied these unique primates for decades. It's a fascinating read and may surprise you to see how many behaviors people tend to think of as uniquely 'human' are, in fact, shared by our closely-related ape cousins. In fact, de Waal shows, all major traits are shared, including language, toolmaking, and the full range of emotional states. Within the ape societies, the apes have their own standards of 'right' and 'wrong' behavior that they enforce in the same ways we do: shunning some, rewarding others, punishing the worst offenders. They learn from each other, and pass on skills to their offspring.
Evolution, as I understand it, is the theory that explains how more efficient/adapted forms emerge from the natural processes of entropy and diffusion. The theory explains how natural processes have driven our biological development, and also why men have nipples. Biological evolution is a special case; Evolution itself is a law of Nature, at a more elementary level, in the realm of Physics or Math.
All of our languages, customs, art, music, and every other thinking pattern has evolved through these same natural processes. Basically, I'm describing Memes. Have you ever thought about Christianity as a Meme? Of the Catholic Church as an organism whose main goal is to ensure its own survival? We have been and continue to evolve, quite rapidly, both biologically and culturally. Every individual and every idea wants to survive, but not everything gets successfully passed to the next generation. Every meme and species is only one generation away from becoming extinct. Adapt or die. This is why the mainstream church is becoming warmer to the idea of evolution, why the Vatican apologized for Galileo - survival of the religion is more important than orthodoxy.
The line between science and philosophy and religion get blurred with evolution because it answers, quite elegantly, the 'big' question: where did we come from? For this reason, it is a threat to all memes based on the idea of a 'creator god' because it nullifies this concept directly. Indirectly, it has the potential to erode the foundations underneath many religions. But I don't think the ideas of evolution are really a threat to you, me, our standards of morality, our way of life or anything else. The victims are a literal interpretation of the Bible and belief in a 'creator god'. Why not let it go? If you had never read the Bible, would you really be a less moral person? really? If not for that one book all people would know nothing but evil and be totally selfish to each other? Is this one book worth deliberately lobotomizing yourself? You'll go crazy trying to reconcile it; do you want to end up like Ray Comfort or Ken Ham?
A couple other interesting books you might enjoy if you feel like taking the red pill:
Kluge: The Haphazard Construction of the Human Mind
Your Inner Fish
Sorry for the novel, kind got caught up in it :)
"Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman"
"Your Inner Fish: A Journey into the 3.5-Billion-Year History of the Human Body"
"Bones, Rocks and Stars: The Science of When Things Happened"
My personal favourite is 'Your Inner Fish' by Neil Shubin. I found it entertaining and very informative. It deals with the transition of life underwater to life on land, and what we still share with our fishy ancestors. Here is the amazon link to read some reviews and here is an already given presentation by the author if you do pick it to help you with ideas.
Your Inner Fish is a very enjoyable read.
This is referring back to:
Genesis 1:26
Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground."
I do not believe I was created; therefore, I find the evolutionary progress of all life astounding. Instead of thinking that god put animals here for my amusement or consumption, I take the time to appreciate life’s ability to survive the ages.
You should read this book: Your Inner Fish!
Check out the book by Daniel E. Lieberman, a Harvard evolutionary biologist. The Story of the Human Body: Evolution, Health, and Disease. I read it in there originally.
https://www.amazon.com/Story-Human-Body-Evolution-Disease/dp/030774180X
https://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/27/health/27well.html?_r=0
You can also look at how we've evolved physiologically, with regards to our bodies and how they're adapted for persistence hunting techniques. We have several other adaptations that aid running, big buttock muscles that only really engage fully when running, the pinch in the hip only seen in later Homo sp to help balance when running, and tendons like the Achilles are adapted for running, evolution of the nuchal ligament etc. We have little body hair, and far more sweat glands than any other primate to prevent hyperthermia. Our bodies have pigmentation (we were totally black during our evolution, even up until 10k years ago - first Britons were black) that is universal, which would protect us in heat of the day from skin cancers, etc. We "exchanged" our ability to climb trees, for the ability to run long distance, something no other primate can do. People like to say “we cant hunt, go and hunt a rabbit and see” – Not all animals hunt in the same fashion. https://youtu.be/826HMLoiE_o Running prey down over long distance - humans are the best long distance runners on the planet. No animal can match us. Some might say, isn't our ability to run for running away from predators? No. We do not have fast acceleration like a gazelle, we couldn't outrun an ensuing predator at all – they’re fast over short distances.
Our shoulder also evolved for throwing, throwing that would've been used for throwing weapons/spears. Not for throwing paper airplanes.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1y__4xX8xp8&t=62s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I_bYlY6AHew&t=1s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-zb2wsgYNwk&t=5s
We can generate far greater throwing speeds than any other primate. As can be read here: https://scholar.harvard.edu/ntroach/evolution-throwing
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3785139/
Even our teeth. There are other primates with huge canines, but there is a significant (lots of differences, not just this one) difference between us and other primates, behaviour. We do not display our teeth for defensive, or mating purposes. Male gorilla's will often show their canines as a show of dominance, thus it is evolutionary advantageous for them to have bigger canines - not only for a show of dominance, but also to win over impressionable females. Similar to how stags with largest antlers are the most attractive to females. Our canines existence is purely for the tearing or ripping through tough fibrous material like meat. Why are they so small? Our canines have gradually been getting smaller, along with our teeth in general (and jaw) from the early Australopiths. Basically down to tool use, extra processing outside of the mouth meant that it wasn't necessary to have big powerful jaws or huge flat molars like in earlier species, or massive canines. If you look at our teeth in more detail - our teeth became smaller and our enamel became thinner which allows for microscopic breakages creating sharp edges, both which aid shearing of meat. Even our molars are very adept at slicing through meat, which you wouldn't think at first. There is plenty of shearing action in our jaw motion. This is demonstrated by this video: https://youtu.be/hdBQG8lKszk
To say meat consumption was sparse or only in small amounts, is wrong and misleading, the above points and more clearly point towards a significant increase in meat intake and it was vital to get us to the point we are at today. Haven't got the time to sit here and explain it in even more detail, but I can recommend these books as a starting point if you're at all genuinely interested in the subject.
https://www.amazon.com/Processes-Human-Evolution-hominins-Neanderthals/dp/0198739915/ref=mp_s_a_1_5?ie=UTF8&qid=1530356167&sr=8-5&pi=AC_SX236_SY340_QL65&keywords=Human+evolution&dpPl=1&dpID=51ihhNFeyIL&ref=plSrch
https://www.amazon.com/Story-Human-Body-Evolution-Disease/dp/030774180X/ref=mp_s_a_1_6?ie=UTF8&qid=1530356167&sr=8-6&pi=AC_SX236_SY340_QL65&keywords=Human+evolution&dpPl=1&dpID=41oZy7BlFpL&ref=plSrch
https://www.amazon.com/Evolutions-Bite-Story-Teeth-Origins/dp/0691160538/ref=mp_s_a_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1530356353&sr=8-1&pi=AC_SX236_SY340_QL65&keywords=Teeth+evolution&dpPl=1&dpID=51m-p9AT1CL&ref=plSrch
https://www.amazon.com/Mammal-Teeth-Origin-Evolution-Diversity/dp/0801896681/ref=mp_s_a_1_4?ie=UTF8&qid=1530356386&sr=8-4&pi=AC_SX236_SY340_QL65&keywords=Teeth+evolution&dpPl=1&dpID=51hDV7cQ%2B6L&ref=plSrch
I'd be interested in this topic as well.
I did however read a book called the the story of the human body
https://www.amazon.com/Story-Human-Body-Evolution-Disease/dp/030774180X
Pretty great read. It explains where we came from and what caused us to evolve to the current state we are in.
I'm actually not done with it unfortunately but I'm in the process still.
This book is really interesting and it brings exactly this subject: https://www.amazon.com/Story-Human-Body-Evolution-Disease/dp/030774180X
http://www.amazon.com/Your-Inner-Fish-Journey-3-5-Billion-Year/dp/0375424474
If you've never read this book, you definitely should.
http://www.amazon.com/Your-Inner-Fish-Journey-3-5-Billion-Year/dp/0375424474
This will make up for that day.
If you can't tell her yourself, let Neil Shubin do it in one of my favorite books, Your Inner Fish: A Journey into the 3.5-Billion-Year History of the Human Body. This book talks about said "missing links" and about Tiktaalik, the missing link between fish and amphibians. He talks about the genetic similarities between every living vertebrate, but explained very well for scientists, but also put very simply for people who don't fully understand all the terminology. He talks about fossils, and he talks about his own personal experience and makes it a very fun read. He also talks about experiments that have been done to stop genes from expressing or forcing them to express to see what will happen as a result, and have even gone as far as to take genes from chickens and replace them with shark counterparts to see the results. Very surprising, very interesting, and most certainly an extremely worth-while read, especially for a creationist.
Also, I simply don't understand how she could be studying micro and/or medicine and deny evolution when evolution is the basis of micro. Ask her what she thinks of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) which is essentially staphylococci which have adapted as a response to antibiotics to become resistant to antibiotic treatments. Ask her what she thinks of the AIDS virus (or any retro-virus at that) and why we can't cure it. Or ask her why there is no cure for the flu, and why vaccines for the flu only work for the strain that effects us that year. Ask her what a strain is, if it's not an evolved or adapted form of a different strain. Ask her where H1N1 (swine flu) came from and what is the difference between H1N5 (bird flu).
You can literally observe mutation and evolution over only a few generations in micro. Viruses in particular, and since they replicate so fast and so frequently and in such great numbers, the chances of mutation increases, and a bunch of mutations increase the chance of one of them being viable and successful. AIDS mutates so quickly that it changes entirely throughout your body before anything can be created to cure it.
I saw another commenter linked to talkorigins.org. Check that it, it is an invaluable resource.
I would like to point out that evolution DOES NOT explain the origin of life, but the diversity of it. The science concerned with that is called Abiogenesis.
Now, on evolution I started with this one.
I also recommend: The Coiled Spring: How Life Begins,
Seven Clues to the Origin of Life, Life Evolving - Molecules, Mind And Meaning. And of course, Darwin's Origin Of Species.
https://www.amazon.com/Evolution-Dummies-Greg-Krukonis/dp/0470117737/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1491435119&sr=8-2&keywords=Evolutionary+Biology+for+dummies
I'd recommend you put Evolutionary Analysis and The Counter Creationism Handbook on your reading lists. You really should do that before you start trying to get into these debates at all.
How to teach intelligent design:
1 Teach evolution.
2 Declare that an invisible wizard did it.
This book might help a bit.
It really depends on their line of argument. If they are sceptical of convential science, it may help to point out how pratically everyone was a creationist in the beginning of the 19th century, until, little by little, the evidence convinced almost every one. E.g. a great part of modern geology was founded by creationists .
If you are really involved, you may find this book helpful: http://www.amazon.com/Counter-Creationism-Handbook-Mark-Isaak/dp/0520249267/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1217250530&sr=8-1
It is the tree-ware version of this site http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html#CH on ww.talkorigins.org which was already pointed to before. It features both scientific and theological points. E.g. there are people who believe the world is flat "because the bible says so", so there cannot be such a thing as literalism, you always need interpretation. Also the bible mentions four-legged grasshoppers among other flaws http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH101.html.
Probably not what you meant but this is a good read. The 20 logical fallacies should be taught to all students.
https://www.amazon.com/People-Believe-Weird-Things-Pseudoscience/dp/0805070893/ref=mp_s_a_1_1?keywords=why+people+believe+weird+things&qid=1564878644&s=gateway&sr=8-1
I know you did not say it. It was the link you posted that said it.
What you did say was that if you did not have someone singing then were simply doing it wrong. Which sounds very much like a fact, but is in fact a statement which is very objective. But you forgot to mention that it was your personal opinion.
But I am certain a lot of people has had a very profound and pleasant experience drinking ayahuasca without any shaman songs or songs of any kind around.
What triggers me is this elitist bullshit "well you know.. that's not how the shamans do it..."
The proper way of doing it? What does that even mean? Proper according to who? If someone did it first, then they have the copyright on how do ingest something? That's a great way to never find a better way of doing something.
And they know exactly what they are doing? So in their mind all they do is set the mood with some songs? They don't call out the good spirits and keep the bad ones at bay? In my mind there might be some contradictions going on there, but what do I know? I am uneducated on the subject.
While we are on the topic of books, here are some great ones.
"Science Fiction" is a pretty big umbrella -- The Giver is actually sci-fi, if it's the first one in the search results! Doesn't have to be all spaceships and technology to qualify. You might find The Electric Church interesting; the blurb doesn't really do it justice.
Easy reads, hmm. Dragonsong is very readable as straight fantasy, and if you like it there're a lot of books in the series. You might like Pollotta's Bureau 13 series; light, fast-paced action adventure with supernatural and magic elements. Or Elrod's Vampire Files -- the adventures of an undead detective in the thirties.
For straight action-mysteries, I'm going to suggest Travis McGee because one, I love it, and two, it gets progressively more difficult as you go through the series. You could also try Rex Stout.
For non-fiction, Why People Believe Weird Things.
As far as developing reading as a hobby, well, I think the key is to be as eclectic as possible. Read a book. Read a book by an author who has a blurb on the cover of the first book. Read a book you see linked to at the bottom of the page on the second author's book's Amazon page. Hit used bookstores and spend $10 on a bunch of books out of the quarter pile. The only rule is "you don't have to finish it, but at least try it".
At least that's how I grew my collection into what it is today.
(Edit to fix a link and add one)
Why People Believe Weird Things is a book that might interest you. One of the main points of the book is how otherwise smart and rational people become creationists, holocaust deniers, etc.
okay, sorry, let's take a step back:
> I believe, Hope is the purpose. Anyone at that level (speaking of Q) certainly doesn't need any research we give them, they already have it all.
So, by this you mean a hypothetical 'Q entity' that has some high level military intelligence possition wouldn't need info from the citezenry? But asking them for it, is a service to them to provide them hope?
But maybe there is really no Q, just the internet ghost that's been constructed on the various chans and here and taken on some life of its own or propigated by folks that maybe believe in the Hope mission or for other nefarious reasons?
Feel free to cut this off anytime, I'm really fascinated by this stuff though. But more in a Why do people believe weird things kind of way. Which I know may be insulting to you.
Here are two excellent books in this very subject:
The Believing Brain and Why People Believe Weird Things both by Michael Shermer, the head of the skeptic's society.
There is one passage which describes what you are talking about to a "T"
>In 1620 English philosopher and scientist Francis Bacon offered his own Easy Answer to the Hard Question:
>The human understanding when it has once adopted an opinion (either as being the received opinion or as being agreeable to itself) draws all things else to support and agree with it. And though there be a greater number and weight of instances to be found on the other side, yet these it either neglects and despises, or else by some distinction sets aside and rejects; in order that by this great and pernicious predetermination the authority of its former conclusions may remain inviolate … And such is the way of all superstitions, whether in astrology, dreams, omens, divine judgments, or the like; wherein men, having a delight in such vanities, mark the events where they are fulfilled, but where they fail, although this happened much oftener, neglect and pass them by.52
>Why do smart people believe weird things? Because, to restate my thesis in light of Bacon’s insight, smart people believe weird things because they are skilled at defending beliefs they arrived at for non-smart reasons.
From: http://www.michaelshermer.com/weird-things/excerpt/
and
From: http://www.michaelshermer.com/2002/09/smart-people-believe-weird-things/
Alanzo
Why People Believe Weird Things by Shermer.
It's not a book about atheism but it's a book that teaches you how to be skeptical and think rationally. When you do that atheism just makes sense.
Have you read Michael Shermer's book "Why People Believe Weird Things." He discusses this topic and others like it at great length. Such as 9/11, Bigfoot, Alien abduction and many more. He cites sources, explains exactly why these conspiracies exist, and even gives their arguments some extra validity (steel-manning rather than straw manning) before explaining the reality of the situation.
https://www.amazon.com/People-Believe-Weird-Things-Pseudoscience/dp/0805070893
Not necessarily. Being educated doesn't mean you're not indoctrinated by nonsense, or possess critical thinking skills. Educated people are quite capable of believing in nonsense. I think it's more complicated than just education - it's when and how you educate the person, who they are surrounded by, what culture they grew up in, etc.
There's a great book called "Why People Believe Weird Things" that addresses the issue. My favorite book on the subject of belief is probably "How We Know What Isn't So". If you're interested in epistemology, or how beliefs are shaped, these two books give interesting insight.
This is a good book on the topic: https://www.amazon.ca/People-Believe-Weird-Things-Pseudoscience/dp/0805070893
A very, very small minority of people are vegetarian for legitimate health reasons (lysinuric protein intolerance, etc.)
The rest either believe it is better for their health, which is not true, or that animals are intrinsically the intellectual or spiritual equivalent of humans, which is also not true
Some believe that being vegetarian will save the world, and while there's an argument to be made there, it's a pretty poor one and it seems more likely that their diet has more to do with narcissism than altruism
Vegetarians tend to also believe in other related new age naturalism, vitalism, pseudoscience type beliefs (acupuncture, spiritual energy, healing crystals, reincarnation, homeopathy, etc.)
>Heck, what are your methods?
Science! :) The Scientific Method approach and the peer review process has proven, time and again, that it is extremely effective at preventing us from fooling ourselves based on intuition or wishful thinking. It also has built-in error checking, in that every scientist, by the very nature of science, is interested in disproving claims made by other scientists. If they can't, then it's (temporarily) true. Additionally, no scientist is going to submit information for peer review that they haven't checked and re-checked and re-re-checked, because the peer review process can be brutal and humiliating. The process is also extremely effective at discovering things about our universe that we are unable to detect with our five senses (example: the electromagnetic spectrum, which has changed our lives completely). Speculation and hypothesis are how ideas get started. I am very appreciative that we have these methods to test these speculations and hypotheses in order to sort the gold from the pyrite.
>Show me conflicting evidence against those cases - the ones that even the government acknowledges they had to put in their "This is a UFO" pile - and then one's skepticism might be grounded. [...] Some cases absolutely defy any attempt to classify the phenomenon as anything other than extraterrestrial.
Which ones?
>the practical entirety of the field [...] of science in general [...] is bridled by special interests (often very powerful financial interests) with agendas that prevent the challenging of long-held, long-standing, and established beliefs
This is why you've chosen the opinion of authors over the evidence presented by ancient historians and archaeologists? What do you mean by "field of science"? Science isn't housed in Science Headquarters in the Science Skyscraper in Scienceopolis. Science is just a word that describes a methodology for learning more about the world, and anyone can do it.
>even if those long-held beliefs are actually WRONG and debilitating - you're going to find that even valid research that has not been debunked or proven wrong will absolutely get put aside and shut down if it challenges the established system as it stands. [...] With this in mind, many of these ancient historians and archaeologists are more interested in making sure and simply "towing the party line" and perpetuating the established system
Are you speculating? Or are you claiming that this is true? If the latter, does that mean that you believe there's a conspiracy/cover-up scenario going on within the world of science, because they aren't allowed to finally say that there has been extraterrestrial visitation or advanced technologies? If that's the case, then why are they being censored? Why do you believe that your statement is true?
>lacking as that system may be
What is it that science hasn't discovered so far, or has discovered so far, that makes you find the system "lacking"? Is it lacking because science disagrees with some of your speculations? Our life expectancy is through the roof, comparatively. We've landed on other celestial bodies. We have a cures for terrible afflictions like polio and tuberculosis. We can use x-ray machines to see through our bodies. We have night-vision goggles, and telephones, and the internet, and wireless communication, and hearing aids, and prosthetic limbs, and mechanical hearts, and medicine that actually works, and on and on and on. I don't understand?
>the reason why the collective expertise of those in an established academic community is challenged (and far from "carelessly dismissed") is because the evidence simply points to that "expertise" being lacking and considerably limited.
What is the evidence that points to a lacking expertise in the established academic community? What is it that you're referring to? What is it that science has or hasn't done that has caused you to lose (or never have) confidence in the process?
>What - do you think that the knowledge that humans have garnered up to this point is, somehow, infallible and incapable of being wrong?
I never said that or implied it. I've stated that just because there are known gaps in our knowledge of how the world works doesn't mean we get to fill in those gaps of knowledge with speculation, and then claim that speculation to be true.
>the staunch effort that has often been made by the scientific and archaeological community to squelch certain areas of inquiry
Can you list a few examples?
>Much of the establishment, as a definite point of fact, has certainly shown itself to NOT allow many to be inspired by it. They actually kill the type of inspiration that can lead to real discoveries if that inspiration strays too far away from the set and established line of traditional inquiry.
Because this is a definite point of fact, can you list a few examples?
>There are many things we are very, very ignorant of on this planet.
Agreed! But that doesn't mean that Edgar Cayce had psychic powers (source #1, #2). There is an excellent book by Michael Shermer titled Why People Believe Weird Things: Pseudoscience, Superstition, and Other Confusions of Our Time, and he dedicates an entire chapter to Edgar Cayce. It's extremely informative, interesting, and (most importantly!) sourced. This list of 25 Reasons People Believe Weird Things is sort of a quick blueprint of Shermer's book, but with far less information, of course.
Smart people can believe weird things.
https://www.amazon.com/People-Believe-Weird-Things-Pseudoscience/dp/0805070893
Smart people are vulnerable to certain biases and mental traps. And because they are smart they are really good at defending their thinking.
I think one of the hardest humps to get over is the fact that the majority of scientists believe in the theory of evolution. But are still a very significant number who don't. 1 Same thing with global warming. Many scientists do not subscribe to it and of course they are ridiculed and many lose their careers. It is incredibly difficult and strange to say that something that seems so supported by a consensus could potentially be wrong. It's in line with being a conspiracy theorist, someone who says that corporations are the real controllers of America, and that the top 1% have their interests ahead of everyone else. It's as strange as saying that the global intellectual elite believe that the earth is overpopulated and that if we do not drastically reduce the population, the human race would destroy itself and become extinct, and that as a result, they must choose the lesser of two evils, and do all that they can to reduce population, even if the methods seem less than humane. All these things would be simply insane to say. How can it be possible that the majority is wrong?
Matthew 7:13 Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:
Matthew 7:14 Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.
How can thousands of geologists and paleontologists and doctors and scientists simply be wrong? I think that is the largest hurdle to get over. If there were more of a debate for instance, and evolution were not the status quo, more would be willing to consider the opposite side of the coin. In a sense, it is somewhat like the story of the emperor who wore no clothes. These men claimed to be dressing the king with outrageously beautiful clothes, and no one could see them, but they dare not spoke lest they be ridiculed and laughed at. And it was not until a child in the crowd yelled that the emperorer was naked, that all the rest of the crowd stepped in, and spoke up, and laughed. A bystander effect in a sense. It is a difficult bias to overcome, and requires an open, thoughtful mind. Even if you listen to the other side just to ridicule and laugh at them, at least you hear their case before giving them judgment. Most who learn in academia never hear the other side.
But consider the evidence. Watch creationists and evolutionists debate in a civil, friendly, respectful manner on youtube. Scrutinize every detail. But don't prejudge until you consider the evidence. Both sides have the same evidence, the same fossils. Here's some written stuff if you prefer it, but I highly recommend the videos: 2
Seems like a lot of these comments are anti-young earth creationism. So I figure I'll chime in.
First, thanks for being respectful in your approach! I see so many people just being cruel or dismissive when it comes to talking about creationism.
I suppose there are a few ways to approach the subject. I'll go through my reasons.
- The book of Genesis is written as factual, not poetic like the psalms, or prophetic like revelations. I believe it should be read as such.
- When God creates the world, he says 'It is very good', as the world was without sin before the fall. If the world was created over billions of years, with millions of years of death, plague and disaster, it would not have been sinless or 'very good' as God proclaimed.
- The world is made of things that require multiple components to exist simultaneously to function. Complex mechanisms are necessary to support life, DNA, RNA and proteins all require complex mechanisms and each other to function. Cells require that oxygen be distributed effectively and safely around inside the cell membrane to where it is needed without damaging the cell. Simply put, life is complex and requires interdependent parts to function, and as such, would need to be formed simultaneously.
- When it comes to dating methods, evolutionist often make assumptions about the starting conditions of the object they are dating. Potasium-Argon dating, for example, suffers from the flaw of assuming that there was no initial argon trapped in volcanic rocks at the time of their solidification.
- Fossils are found as we would expect them to be had the Flood happened. In fact, the fact that we don't find intermediate forms between creatures in the fossil record certainly lends credence to creationism. Darwin was aware of this and mentioned it as the biggest challenge to his theory, but put it down to the fact that the fossil record was not fully complete. Since then, we have expanded that record significantly and the same problem persists.
- Honestly, the flood is heavily tied in with a lot of stuff about fossils and geology. There are some really interesting books I'll pop at the end that you could read.
- Methods of estimating the the age of the earth or the universe apply assumptions about processes and rates that extend into the distant past, especially with erosion. General assumptions applied universally may seem reasonable but don't really make sense. Catastrophic events and processes can have a massive effect on how 'old' a landscape seems. For example, when mt st hellens erupted, it created an almost scale model of the grand canyon with sediment layers being deposited then suddenly eroded by pyroclastic steam, water and mud flows. The canyon walls now resemble those that are assumed to be of great age, even though we know them to be quite young.
​
Believing in young earth creationism isn't fundamental to faith in God. There are plenty christians out there who disagree with me on this subject and yet I still believe them to be true christians. I do think that believing Genesis as being literal is quite important to faith. The origin of sin and the fall of man are laid out clearly there, and things start to get shaky when you dismiss it.
​
Some reading material:
In six days
A bunch of stuff from answers in genesis
You used the terms "zero" and "in it's entirety". They are absolute terms. No exceptions. So if I provide one exception to each will essentially make your facts faulty. No matter what you are debating, absolutes are extremely difficult to support, and you can't support your assertions.
You asserted two things using absolute statements:
1.) “…there is ZERO evidence of genesis being literal …”
2.) “… the entirety of science is in complete opposition to it.”
Statement 1.) You may say there is zero evidence you accept, but you cannot say there is zero evidence. Zero is an absolute, but with a simple Google, you will easily have a list of organizations and websites dedicated to offering evidence that Genesis is literal. (Yes, I understand you consider the evidence: horrible, weak, wrong, bad and circumstantial – but you cannot say it isn’t evidence.)
To support statement #1, you must unequivocally demonstrate that there is ZERO evidence. You can’t do it. There is in the very least one piece of evidence. (Yes, I understand you consider the evidence: horrible, weak, wrong, bad and circumstantial – but you cannot say it isn’t evidence.) You can’t support the absolute term “zero”.
Statement 2.) To prove this statement faulty, all I have to do is provide one example of science not opposing a literal Genesis:
Scientist alive today who accept the biblical account of creation.
Scientists at Answers in Genesis
Why Fifty Scientists Choose to Believe in Creation
"Hey, I got you a great book that's all about Creationism!"
Dr. Jay L. Wile: Review of Bill Nye's Undeniable (a detailed list of the errors he found while reading Undeniable: Evolution and the Science of Creation)
http://www.amazon.com/Undeniable-Evolution-Science-Creation-Nye/dp/1250007135
http://www.amazon.com/Undeniable-Evolution-Creation-Bill-Nye/dp/1250007135
>She could easily "dumb down" everything that she says. She never does though
I'm a heavily muscled man. An NSFW pic is in my profile.
​
>"I'm a scientist." Yeah, okay Bill. Okay...
Since you were so kind as to bring up Bill Nye and we are indeed talking about the origins of life, I am going to recommend that everyone read this book which is a debate between Bill Nye and a creationist. I'll just leave this here:
​
Undeniable: Evolution and the Science of Creation
https://www.amazon.com/Undeniable-Evolution-Creation-Bill-Nye/dp/1250007135
​
Great read.
​
I also recommend his show.
Bill Nye Saves the World
https://www.netflix.com/title/80117748
This has nothing to do with the show, but he has done some very well written books recently.
On the Origin of Species is an awe-inspiring book that was so far ahead of its time it immediately caused furore among the scientific and especially religious establishment at the time.
There are more current reads if you want, for example The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution (Richard Dawkins).
Sir, you clearly do not understand the science of evolution. I am no expert, therefore do not deem myself a qualified teacher. Perhaps this will help.
I'm not sure what we need to do about the "stupid people" and that serving as proof of deities.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_human_evolution
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_support_for_evolution
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_01
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/lines_01
http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-index.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/15-answers-to-creationist/
https://youtu.be/Uga0QaKsdCk?t=9m22s
https://www.amazon.com/Selfish-Gene-Anniversary----Introduction/dp/0199291152/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&qid=1474150851&sr=8-4&keywords=richard+dawkins
https://www.amazon.com/Greatest-Show-Earth-Evidence-Evolution/dp/1416594795/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&qid=1474150851&sr=8-5&keywords=richard+dawkins
The Greatest show on earth by richard dawkins is all about evolution...
any how this post is odd.
As for reproduction. The first cell wasnt in any kind of competition it had so much abundance of resources that a reproduction was innevitable. They werent eating eachother and to a single cell organism the food source was limit less.
Some interesting things on EVO's side are "Ring Species"
I like them both and have strong points that compliment each other. I would suggest reading both and then moving on to The Greatest Show on Earth, The End Of Faith and Unweaving the Rainbow in no particular order, but all great books in their own right.
The Greatest Show on Earth by Richard Dawkins is a really good book on why we think evolution is true, and says virtually nothing about theistic beliefs. It's entirely focused on the science and evidence of the topic.
Please provide links to relevant peer reviewed studies, that back up your claim.
Evolution is a core element of modern biology. It has been supported by an overwelming amout of data from the fossil record, to dna sequencing. Further the underlying process of random mutation and non-random selection has been succesfully applied to solve all sorts of computaional and engineering problems.
Here is an entire book written by a biologist which presents some of the evidence for evolution. It has a comprehensive bibliography: https://www.amazon.com/Greatest-Show-Earth-Evidence-Evolution/dp/1416594795
I suggest The Greatest Show on Earth by Richard Dawkins.
>but every now and then you get a truly beneficial one that does create information.
I'm not arguing there are no beneficial mutations. I'm arguing that the experiments thus showcased did not show an increase in information. Its just scrambled, or deleted. Less information, less variety, less and less options. And the really naughty part about this is the bait and switch - I asked for an increase in information experiment, and I get an article that fallaciously references the Lenski.
>probably reads more than he'd like..
I would suggest this book because he might like to follow his philosophies to their frightful conclusions.
>"evolution is just a theory" makes most of the "arguments not to use"
I didn't ever say this! Please read my statements before shoving words into my mouth. So do you know that there is a difference between science, and a scientific theory? Did you know that speciation has a root word, 'species', that BrunnerPB admittedly agrees that its a non-scientific word? So then, would you explain to me why I have to accept a word as a scientific definition when its root words and concepts are not? A word like 'speciation' is packed full of evolutionary precepts wont be simply slid into usage without challenge.
>Our side isn't even considered a theory, after all.
Am I in crazyland? Do you even know what a theory is? And who are you sourcing in with this statement? Creation theory is alive and viable, defensible, and in my opinion, enjoys much stronger evidence and arguments than the assumptions of evolutionary theory. Might I suggest a book for you sir - In Six Days: Why Fifty Scientists Choose to Believe in Creation. Its not blind faith that has convinced me in special creation - its evidence.
*edit: formating
> There is evidence for a designer...
Give me one piece of actual evidence, then go collect your Nobel Prize.
> There is not millions of data that supports evolution. You're pulling statitics out of your ass now.
Angry creationists are hilarious. I said "mountains," not millions. Reading is a skill. The evidence supporting evolution is overwhelming -- I suggest you give The Greatest Show on Earth a quick read, and then you can tell me about my blinders.
It's pretty much all around you. Whether or not you choose to except that or don't is up to you. If you like science and are not really biased to the point of willful ignorance, read some of these:
Etc...
If you'd like to understand evolution better, I'd suggest Why Evolution is True by Jerry Coyne. He gives a very good explanation of it that even a layman can understand. For that reason, it's the best book ever written on evolution in my opinion. I know Dawkins can be a little technical.
Edit: Screwed the title up.
The theory of evolution isn't the only "scientific" theory to explain the formation of human beings. The theory of evolution has "flaws" and does not explain everything satisfactorily. Some of these questions have remained unanswered by the theory of evolution since it was initially proposed by Darwin. The scientific community is just as dogmatic as the religious one with regards to the theory of evolution among other things. I would suggest checking the following material and similar material also from the scientific community.
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0089LOM5G/ref=dbs_a_def_rwt_hsch_vapi_taft_p1_i0
https://www.amazon.com/Heretic-Scientists-Journey-Darwin-Design/dp/1936599503/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=heretic&qid=1574584576&s=books&sr=1-1
https://www.amazon.com/Darwins-Black-Box-Biochemical-Challenge/dp/0743290313/ref=sr_1_1?crid=3CKSTFGSKWOXW&keywords=darwins+black+box&qid=1574584922&sprefix=Darwins+black+bo%2Caps%2C291&sr=8-1
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0061472794/ref=as_li_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=uslimkeptic-20&camp=1789&creative=9325&linkCode=as2&creativeASIN=0061472794&linkId=166be51886e107227843bc81a6f6cf02
> For starters, its entirely irrelevant to a discussion on human behavior. the last traces of our planet will have been destroyed billions of years prior to heat death which will still happen billions of years after we are all dead and buried and everyone who ever knew our name is dead and buried as well.
I agree 100% with your second sentence, however your first is dead fucking wrong.
Physics is everything.
It is, after all, THE science.
If sociology and psychology are indeed sciences, they will be touched in some way, some how, by physics.
Nevertheless, what you've stumbled on is a point within a point that I sought to make.
What do most people believe? All kinds of crazy shit. Everything from astrology to alternative medicine to Bronze Age myths and superstitions to My Little Pony to ... dare I say it ... hope.
Not many people have even heard of Thermodynamics, much less understand it.
And you're telling me that their beliefs, or more to the point the lack of comprehension and flat-out disinterest of modern physics, does not influence their behavior?
No, friend, what I've said is quite relevant.
What you're doing is attempting to turn it into a red herring and drawing unneeded attention to minutiae. It's neither. Follow the flow of my writing top-to-bottom. It fits.
All I'm doing is trying to make a point. Don't sweat the small stuff.
I really do stand behind what I've said. You are free to disagree. And that's fine. You're not alone.
> Also, our star is around 1% of the mass required to form a black hole, if that.
I stand corrected. It will collapse to form a white dwarf after it burns away what's left of a dead planet previously known as Earth.
Details.
> By all means, keep science in the discussion, we need it, but lets stick to facts that are relevant. I'd do some actual studying and work with thermodynamics before you try to talk about, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_of_thermodynamics of course you may need a few years of elementary calculus and physics before it makes any sense. have fun, i've done it.
Hmmmm, I think I may have studied elementary calculus and physics before I studied:
... aaaaaaand
Do I need to re-take them so that I can be more smug like you?
> A better argument would have been to say that we are utterly insignificant in the grandest scheme of things.
I do agree with that statement. And that would be quite satisfying if I wanted to toy with memes. Yes, the universe doesn't exist for us. It's > 99% dark matter / dark energy, and less than 1% us. Big deal.
Thanks but no thanks, I'll stick to practical science.
I'd rather strive for understanding than latch on to soundbites and convenient explanations.
In closing, before you make authoritative statements like these:
> Please leave the 2nd law of thermo out of any and all discussions about TRP and our planet.
Try to remember this:
> Arguments from authority carry little weight – authorities have made mistakes in the past. They will do so again in the future. Perhaps a better way to say it is that in science there are no authorities; at most, there are experts. - Carl Sagan
Now, hopefully, we can get back to my point.
He also wrote this book where he all but decries hereditary genetics, blaming disproportionate IQs on biased testing and cultural/environmental issues, all of which has been disproved many times before. Unfortunately, he's more of a pop star than a scientist. I've said it before but I'll take an E. O. Wilson over a Bill Nye any day.
EDIT: Downvoted by people who couldn't tell you who E. O. Wilson is.
https://www.claremont.org/crb/article/giving-up-darwin/
https://www.amazon.com/Deniable-Darwin-David-Berlinski-ebook/dp/B0799R1TV2/ref=sr_1_1
https://www.amazon.com/Darwins-Doubt-Explosive-Origin-Intelligent-ebook/dp/B0089LOM5G/ref=sr_1_2
Heading to bed so I can't type out a response. Here's 3 sources
I suggest you vary your reading. Odd Jackdaw has just given you are reading list of extremely biased sources (wikipedia editors in particular are extremely hostile to anything not in keeping with atheism or evolution. )
For balance you can begin with these sites
https://evolutionnews.org
https://uncommondescent.com
https://blog.drwile.com (one of the few YEC sites I read)
For Books
Stephen Meyer's books are pretty good ( and hated by adherents of Darwinism)
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B002C949BI/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1
https://www.amazon.com/Darwins-Doubt-Explosive-Origin-Intelligent-ebook/dp/B0089LOM5G
and the ever loved Michael Behe
https://www.amazon.com/Darwin-Devolves-Science-Challenges-Evolution/dp/0062842617/ref=sr_1_3?keywords=michael+behe&qid=1562441940&s=gateway&sr=8-3
From what I understand, these "coding" genes are what makes us look drastically different than organisms that share "97% of our DNA" such as the chimpanzee. A good bit of reading in regards to this topic would be Your Inner Fish, by Neil Shubin.
IIRC a mutation in how much muscle to form for our Temporalis (one of the chewing muscles) when we were apes caused a significant change in brain mass because the lack of chewing power/muscle allowed our skull plates to set later in life and therefore a larger, more developed brain. We have essentially the "same" DNA that chimps do in respect to our Temporalis muscle, the biggest difference is how much muscle the coder DNA calls for.
If you want sources, talk to them.
Stephen C. Meyer, It's called Darwin's Doubt: The Explosive Origin of Animal Life and the Case for Intelligent Design.
http://www.amazon.com/Darwins-Doubt-Explosive-Origin-Intelligent/dp/0062071475
From the reviews:
>“It’s hard for us paleontologists to admit that neo-Darwinian explanations for the Cambrian explosion have failed miserably....Meyer describes the dimensions of the problem with clarity and precision. His book is a game changer.” (Dr. Mark McMenamin, paleontologist at Mt. Holyoke College and coauthor of The Emergence of Animals)
>“Darwin’s Doubt represents an opportunity for bridge-building rather than dismissive polarization—bridges across cultural divides in great need of professional, respectful dialogue—and bridges to span evolutionary gaps.” (Dr. George Church, professor of genetics at Harvard Medical School and author of Regenesis)
>“Meyer writes beautifully. He marshals complex information as well as any writer I’ve read....a wonderful, most compelling read.” (Dean Koontz, New York Times bestselling author)
>“Darwin’s Doubt is by far the most up-to-date, accurate, and comprehensive review of the evidence from all relevant scientific fields that I have encountered in more than forty years of studying the Cambrian explosion.” (Dr. Wolf-Ekkehard Lonnig, senior scientist emeritus (biologist) at the Max Planck Institute for Plant Breeding Research)
>“Meyer demonstrates, based on cutting-edge molecular biology, why explaining the origin of animals is now not just a problem of missing fossils, but an even greater engineering problem at the molecular level....An excellent book and a must read.” (Dr. Russell Carlson, professor of biochemistry and molecular biology at the University of Georgia and technical director of the Complex Carbohydrate Research Center)
>“Darwin’s Doubt is an intriguing exploration of one of the most remarkable periods in the evolutionary history of life.... No matter what convictions one holds about evolution, Darwinism, or intelligent design, Darwin’s Doubt is a book that should be read, engaged and discussed.” (Dr. Scott Turner, professor of biology at the State University of New York and author of The Tinkerer's Accomplice)
>“It is a tour de force…This book is well informed, carefully researched, up–to–date and powerfully argued. It confronts Darwin’s doubt and deals with the assumptions of Neo–Darwinism. This book is much needed and I recommend it to students of all levels, to professionals and to laypeople.” (Dr. Norman C. Nevin OBE, BSc, MD, FRCPath, FFPH, FRCPE, FRCP; Professor Emeritus in Medical Genetics, Queen's University, Belfast)
>“Darwin’s Doubt is another excellent book by Stephen Meyer. Stephen Meyer has clearly listened to the arguments of those who are sceptical about intelligent design and has addressed them thoroughly. It is really important that Darwinists read this book carefully and give a response.” (Dr. Stuart Burgess, Professor of Design and Nature, Head of Mechanical Engineering at Bristol University)
>“I spend my life reading science books. I’ve ready many hundreds of them over the years, and in my judgment Darwin’s Doubt is the best science book ever written. It is a magnificent work, a true masterpiece that will be read for hundreds of years.” (George GilderTechnologist, economist, and New York Times bestselling authorGeorge GilderTechnologist, economist, and New York Times bestselling authorGeorge GilderTechnologist, economist, and New York Times bestselling authorGeorge GilderTec)
>“The issue on the table is the mechanism of evolution—is it blind and undirected or is it under the control of an intelligence with a goal in mind? In Darwin’s Doubt, Stephen Meyer has masterfully laid out one of the most compelling lines of evidence for the latter.” (Dr. William S. Harris, Professor, Sanford School of Medicine, University of South Dakota)
>“Dr. Meyer has written a comprehensive and up–to–date analysis on the massive scientific evidence revealing the total failure of the neo–Darwinian explanation for life’s history. Darwin’s Doubt is important, clearly written with sound arguments, excellent illustrations and examples that make the topic easily understandable even for non–specialists” (Dr. Matti Leisola, Professor, Bioprocess Engineering, Aalto University, Finland (emeritus); Editor-in-chief, Bio-Complexity)
>“Meyer makes a case for intelligent design as the only viable scientific theory for the origin of biological novelty. Meyer’s challenge to naturalism will no doubt be strongly resisted by those committed to a materialist worldview, but provide food for refection for those who are searching for truth.” (Dr. Donald L. Ewert, Molecular Biologist, Associate Member (retired), Wistar Institute)
>“Stephen C. Meyer’s Darwin’s Doubt is a truly remarkable book. Within its 413 pages of text are four tightly woven interrelated arguments. Using 753 references, he presents evidence associated with the serious weaknesses of materialistic theories of biological evolution, and positive evidence for the theory of intelligent design.” (Dr. Mark C. Biedebach, Professor Emeritus, Department of Biological Sciences, California State University, Long Beach)
>“A great book on the origin of animal life and crises of Darwin evolution; very clear, factual, comprehensive, logical, and informative. An enjoyable reading for both non–expert and expert.” (Dr. Change Tan, Molecular biologist/developmental biologist, Associate Professor, University of Missouri-Columbia)
>Steven Meyer gives an insightful and thoughtful treatment to the history of life. Justice Louis Brandies taught us that, ‘Sunlight is the best disinfectant,’ and Dr. Meyer lets the sun shine in. (Dr. Stephen A. BatzerP.E., forensic engineerDr. Stephen A. Batzer, P.E., forensic engineer)
>“Steve Meyer’s book is a much–anticipated bombshell that details the swarm of problems of Darwinian evolution and also presents the case for intelligent design. Ask yourself: how often does a book of this kind receive a warm welcome from leading geneticists and paleontologists? Never, until now! ” (Dr. Tom Woodward, Research Professor, Trinity College, Tampa Bay, Author of Darwin Strikes Back: Defending the Science of Intelligent Design)
>“Stephen Meyer’s new book, Darwin’s Doubt, is a fascinating and rigorous study demonstrating not only that biologists and paleontologists do not have an adequate explanation for the Cambrian Explosion, but that there is an alternative view that makes more sense.” (Dr. Richard Weikart, Professor of History at California State University, Stanislaus; Author of From Darwin to Hitler)
>“Meyer is a talented writer with an easygoing voice who has blended interesting history with clear explanations in what may come to be seen as a classic presentation of this most fundamental of all debates.” (Terry Scambray, New Oxford Review)
http://www.amazon.com/Signature-Cell-Evidence-Intelligent-Design/dp/0061472794/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1415097955&sr=1-1&keywords=Signature+in+the+Cell%3A+DNA+and+the+Evidence+for+Intelligent+Design
From the reviews:
>“Signature in the Cell is a defining work in the discussion of life’s origins and the question of whether life is a product of unthinking matter or of an intelligent mind. For those who disagree with ID, the powerful case Meyer presents cannot be ignored in any honest debate. For those who may be sympathetic to ID, on the fence, or merely curious, this book is an engaging, eye-opening, and often eye-popping read” — American Spectator
>Named one of the top books of 2009 by the Times Literary Supplement (London), this controversial and compelling book from Dr. Stephen C. Meyer presents a convincing new case for intelligent design (ID), based on revolutionary discoveries in science and DNA. Along the way, Meyer argues that Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution as expounded in The Origin of Species did not, in fact, refute ID. If you enjoyed Francis Collins’s The Language of God, you’ll find much to ponder—about evolution, DNA, and intelligent design—in Signature in the Cell.