"The big bang has nothing to do with evolution!"

[Valheru]

I see this often in discussion boards. You'd have a discussion about evolution, and somebody (a creationist, perhaps) would interject about "well what caused the big bang?" or "if you can explain how a bunch of molecules just started organising and reproducing, I'll take you seriously", or whatever. We've all seen it.

Now, just as often, I see the response "The big bang has nothing to do with evolution", or "abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution".

While I can understand the point, I think it's a fallacious retort.

Evolution deals with questions of origin, and about change, and I don't particularly see any real distinction between biological evolution in a living population, and evolution of protospheres from simple organic compounds, or simple organic compounds being made by naturalistic processes. Maybe it's because I see all of it, even the most advanced form of earthly life, as chemistry and physics in action. Where life begins and ends is an arbitrary distinction, for me.

Why do questions about abiogenesis and cosmology not belong in a discussion on evolution, especially if the question was raised by a creationist? Or for that matter, how the earth was formed? Or, for that matter, how the solar system/galaxy/universe was formed? Are we afraid to answer the question?

These aren't philosophical questions, so retorting that the question is off topic, seems like a cop-out to me. We have ready answers for these sorts of questions, so why try and steer the discussion where WE want it? Atheism is, after all, a holistic viewpoint that stretches across these barriers of "definition".

Your thoughts?

[Worldtraveller]

Well, cosmology has very little to do with biological eveolution, except in the most esoteric sense. I understand your point, but I think it's a valid retort to IDiots and creotards who are only using it as a red herring, probably because their favorite strawman just got skewered with some pesky facts.

[Valheru]

That's exactly why the question shouldn't be sidestepped, because it doesn't allow them to perpetuate some artificial distinction on where our origins lie.

ETA: (a distinction that we, the atheists, put in place, to boot)

[Worldtraveller]

I disagree. As a rhetorical device, it is not 'sidestepping' if one insists on staying on topic.

If I'm a biologist, or even a well informed (on biology) layman, and I am arguing some finer aspect of biological evolution, even abiogenesis, it would not serve me well to let some IDiot change the topic to the big bang.

And since that is how it's used mostly, in the debates I've read, I think that's a fair and consistent approach. The other times you'll see both those topics thrown out in close proximity is some cretinist practicing a Gish gallop. Also in that case, it is quite fair to ask whether they would like to discuss biological evolution, cosmology, or chemistry (abiogenesis), if only because it's hard to have even a decent layman's understanding of all those topics.

[DMB]

I think there are a number of reasons for this. One is the compartmentalisation of science. Physicists aren't biologists and, of course, among broad classifications like physics or biology there are many specialisations. Back in the seventeenth century, there were no such divisions and the virtuosi could dabble in everything. Now there is such a load of accumulated knowledge that no-one can get on top of all of it, so the disciplines remain separate.

Then there is the history. Back when Darwin first formulated his theory, he did not deal with abiogenesis. The idea was too far out. There were only the vaguest ideas of what was meant by a living organism. It needed acceptance of evolution for abiogenesis to become a logical next step.

The next thing is the difference of the nature of the problems to be solved. Evolution seeks evidence about how one species descends from another. There now exist lots of trails of evidence, from geology, from fossils, from DNA, but evidence of abiogenesis is a lot harder to find. The Philosopher's Stone would be a series of methods for creating all the elements of life in the lab, finally proceeding from a collection of chemicals to the formation of functioning cells. But even if you had that, all it would be showing would be one plausible pathway for our sort of life to have arisen. It would not be a conclusive demonstration that it really must have happened in that way.

As far as the Big Bang is concerned, it is much further from consensus than biological evolution is. Of course, within any scientific subject there will be areas of disagreement, but there are still so many in this one, despite the standard model, that it probably ought to be kept separate from biological evolution. The latter depends on the existence of some form of early life and certain conditions in the early Earth to enable evolution to get going and life-forms to proliferate. Provided they are there a matter of about 4 billion years ago, it doesn't matter what is eventually decided about the cosmos around 13.7 billion years ago.

So I think that yes, we should be prepared to discuss abiogenesis and the Big Bang, but that there are good, practical reasons for dealing separately with biological evolution.

[Valheru]

But that's the thing, is it really off topic? We're not necessarily talking about a thread about some specific aspect of evolution, it could simply be a general discussion about whether it's true or not. In that case, I don't think it's off-topic at all, but the retort still gets used, and wrongly so, in my opinion.

[DMB]

Speaking as a member of staff, my normal reaction would be to shunt it off to a new thread. It ought to be discussed, but discussions are usually of most value when they don't try to bring in everything that the human mind has ever considered. Of course, creationists usually have particularly sparsely endowed minds, and I think for some of them almost everything comes under the aegis of religion, with a little area for non-religion that encompasses all of science.

[WishboneDawn]

But that's the thing, is it really off topic? We're not necessarily talking about a thread about some specific aspect of evolution, it could simply be a general discussion about whether it's true or not. In that case, I don't think it's off-topic at all, but the retort still gets used, and wrongly so, in my opinion.

I don't agree. I think you could talk about evolution in the wider sense with people who accepted it but with creationists you've got to get them into specifics with clearly and narrowly defined terms or they'll bury you under rhetoric and vague wordplay.

I do have my own pet peeves though and at the top are people who argue for evolution and refer to it and other theories and laws as "truth". Facts have their place in science, I'm not convinced truth does.

[Alex]

Facts have their place in science, I'm not convinced truth does.
Why not? Would it make sense to talk about "false facts"?

[BioBeing]

I think it depends on how it is asked.

A person can genuinely ask "where did we came from" in a way that includes our surroundings too. Their question may not be about evolution specifically, although that might be how the discussion starts. Obviously, for evolution to occur, there had to be life. For life to occur, there had to be a universe. For a universe to occur, there had to be a "Big Bang". So where did the big bang come from? I think it a fair question, however one that is best answered by a simple "I don't know". Making up a God to explain it helps nothing, and merely puts the question off one step to an unknowable.

In a discussion solely on evolution it has no place. Evolution (the theory) only deals with what happens after life started. Life could have started here on Earth by panspermia, or by god-spermia or by abiogenesis. It doesn't matter in a discussion on evolution. Likewise, cosmology doesn't matter in a discussion on abiogenesis. You are not asking how the universe got here - could have been god - but how life started given a lifeless planet.

So, I would agree that, in the correct context, it should not be brushed off. Try to figure out what your opponent is asking. But do beware the Gish Gallop and red herrings, as it does often come up that way!

[BioBeing]

I do have my own pet peeves though and at the top are people who argue for evolution and refer to it and other theories and laws as "truth". Facts have their place in science, I'm not convinced truth does.

Small "t" truth matters. Not Capital "T" Truth though. Religionists present their worldview (often) as the latter; while scientists tend to the former. I think of small t truth as being as close as we can get to what is real, but it is always subject to revision given new data. Big T Truth tends to be inflexible.

[Alex]

Here's a simple question: Is it true that blood circulates around the human body? Since the answer is Yes, what's wrong calling that a "scientific truth"?

[dancer_rnb]

Here's a simple question: Is it true that blood circulates around the human body? Since the answer is Yes, what's wrong calling that a "scientific truth"?

Is it a truth if you have a big gaping hole in an artery? :D

[Daynna]

I've really only witnessed the big bang being brought up in a discussion of evolution as a diversion tactic.

Many people believe their religion is compatible with evolution, as it doesn't address "the creation." Some religious types see creation and evolution as the same thing. This confuses things greatly in a discussion. I see no problem in, as others said, keeping things on topic by distinguishing between evolution and the big bang theory.

[Ray Moscow]

Abiogenesis is closely related to the TOE, and it's fair game for discussion as long as it's clear that it's not the same thing.

The origin of the universe itself is pretty far afield, though.

[DMB]

Abiogenesis is closely related to the TOE, and it's fair game for discussion as long as it's clear that it's not the same thing.


Yes, but I don't see how it will ever progress beyond "this is how it could have happened". Mind you, if it is demonstrated in the lab, that will hit the creationists hard. They will probably then switch the attack to one of "How dare you try to play God!"

[Valheru]

HNA, I don't know of any offhand, but you can try GraphViz (http://graphviz.org).

Wrong thread?

[DMB]

HNA, I don't know of any offhand, but you can try GraphViz (http://graphviz.org).

Wrong thread?

It was, and I've moved it. :D

[TheBear]

In the broadest sense of an overall sequence of events, the big bang would be a logical starting point. But that's a wide spectrum, covering a vast array of nature and sciences. It's really an all encompassing approach....akin to discussing the 'theory of everything'. Creationists use the ploy of - "Since you can't explain everything in the universe, from the big bang to present, leaving not a single question unanswered, then biological evolution is falsified." When discussing the big bang event specifically, no organic matter existed. When discussing biological evolution specifically, the big bang is far removed from the topic.

[Pandora]

What's a "Gish gallop"?

[Jobar]

Gish Gallop

Look under "Debates".

added- Heh heh heh! From that article-
Ian Plimer, head of the Geology department at the University of Newcastle, Australia, debated Gish in 1988. Plimer considered the debate to be political rather than scientific, and thus refused to argue genteelly about scientific minutiae. Instead, Plimer debated Gish in a street-fighting style which a Sydney Morning Herald reporter described as going in "boots and all, aiming for the opponents kneecaps". "Professor Plimer mocked, ridiculed and challenged every tenet that the movement holds dear, and made a string of blunt personal accusations about some of its more prominent members."
My, how I would have loved to watch that one! :D

[DMB]

Is this the one?

D44LqmktXrg

[DMB]

More here:

jT7nGNguZg8

[DMB]

Ok. To get to Plimer you have to go on a bit. This is devastating

2IgLXgP_bzw