Evolution vs. Quantum Science

Quantum physics is a branch of science through :slightly_smiling_face: and it wouldn’t be hard to explain why it’s necessary. Evolution is a process. So the analogy doesn’t quite work for me…

Not an explanation of why it’s necessary, an explanation of what it is and how it works.

1 Like

The properties of the chemical elements are the results of quantum properties of atoms. So unless we want to ignore chemistry, we can’t leave out all quantum mechanics.

1 Like

You first have to define “it” here if we’re going to relate it to evolution.

And there’s the simple explanation of why it’s necessary.

But I wasn’t talking about evolution there.

The point of this discussion is that the demand for a simple explanation of evolution in lay language is arguably as sensible as the demand for a simple explanation of quantum physics in lay language.

I could explain quantum in lay language, but it would be a very dramatically over-simplified qualitative description that probably wouldn’t even deserve to be called in ‘explanation’. It moves almost immediately into the realm of equations, and largely equations in imaginary numbers.

And that’s only quantum mechanics, not quantum theory itself. Quantum mechanics is a mathematical apparatus that we know will work for calculating the probabilities of certain outcomes, but that doesn’t explain why those outcomes have those probabilities.

The analogy between evolution and quantum is not perfect, of course… and part of the problem with me talking about it is that I at least know what I don’t know: I don’t know evolutionary theory well enough, in its most scientifically current form, to be able to give even a really solid attempt at a simple lay explanation.


Let me fix it. Evolutionary BIOLOGY is a science.


I agree with that when you’re talking about evolutionary biology and quantum physics.

But the conversation was really in reference to evolution as an origins theory and how that process worked.

Tbh, I haven’t found yet that, as it pertains to origins, it is much more complicated than this video. :sweat_smile: I haven’t seen anyone give a more thorough explanation while I’ve been on the forum. If there is, please let me know. I enjoy the video just because this guy is amazingly talented, but IMO it seems not to be very robust origins theory in order to get from cells to people in an undirected process. So that’s why I’m sticking with God creating people and animals and plants, etc directly since it makes more sense to me philosophically.

Right. So you’re making an argument from personal incredulity about something you have clarified you don’t actually understand.

Quantum is wildly counterintuitive for those who don’t fully understand it, and pretty counterintuitive even for those who do.

Doesn’t make it wrong.


No, not really :slight_smile: I’m saying that quantum physics makes way more sense to me intuitively than evolution from cells to people. I’ve had fun learning about it. You basically just don’t try to understand it in order to understand it.

With evolution from cells to people and everything in between, if you try to understand it, it seems you have to buy into a protocell evolving into a factory-like cell eventually (even if it did so through a chain of organisms), and then undirected processes resulting in genetic events including some never-before-seen that first built multi-celled organisms and then genomes of all species while those species went through multiple extinction events. And again all of this through purposeless, directionless events. That’s where I’m at with learning about it so far. From my POV, basically you have a lot of faith in death and time - my mind just won’t agree to that.

Then your intuition doesn’t seem like a reliable guide to truth. Consider that you yourself developed from a single cell.

The simple fact is intuition is rather poor at understanding what goes on at the subatomic and molecular level, what happens at extremely high velocities, and in extremely strong gravitational fields, or under trial and error over extremely long timescales in changing environments. That’s why we do science instead of just intuiting everything.

Your intuitions may be fine for making snap decisions about whether you can cross the street without getting hit by a car, or for determining how your friends will react in certain situations, but that’s about it.


Wow you watched a youtube video. And have yet to finish reading a book by a creationist which says things you constantly reveal you don’t even understand and run away from answering questions about.

By golly you’re a veritable biologist now then.


That says something about you, not about QM or evolution. Both QM and evolution are counterintuitive and both are central to understanding their respective fields of science. Both are supported by enormous ranges of evidence.


It fascinates me that people of faith would use the word faith as a term of derision. You have faith that the Bible is God’s word, and that your understanding of Genesis is a true description of history. Strangely, you then turn around and claim you can’t have faith.

1 Like

I think the intent here is, rather, to equate positions based on sound evidence and logic with those that are just believed because one wants to believe them i.e. faith.


Even though QM is probably the most counterintuitive thing on earth? Okay, bud.

Yes, but we know what that cell is like and many, many details of how it divides and develops into a human.

I agree that evolutionary biology is supported by an enormous range of evidence.

Since I do have faith in God, I was describing that affirming an origins theory that requires a lot of faith in death and time causes too much cognitive dissonance for me. I don’t think the science supports that origins theory very well, and I already believe in God, so there’s no need to affirm what’s bad science, from my point of view.

I don’t see it that way. So far, physics makes more sense to me than biology. At least the terms are concrete. :sweat_smile:

Sometimes you speak more truth than you realize. :smiley: :relaxed: :roll_eyes: :grimacing: :thinking: :upside_down_face:


The real question is if any amount of evidence would ever change your mind.


Not everyone bases their beliefs on evidence, and some people seem to be aware, and even proud, of this.

I’ve been thinking about that - and yes, if there was more, it really would.

Right now creationists have some good explanations of some of the evidence and the global flood and aftermath makes a lot of sense of the catastrophes geologists describe - even mainstream science says “early earth cracked like an egg” because of some kind of additional surface layer and the pressure of that and there were multiple extinctions, etc. If the Bible never provided an explanation for the same evidence, then there would be no reason to interpret it differently than most scientists are doing. For some reason, we do have the first 10 chapters of Genesis and the rest of the Bible confirms them IMO.