Should evolution be taught in schools?

[Rían]

Originally posted by cassiopeia
Wow, I leave for a few days and you guys post five pages. Yes, I had two maths exams. I would say 'maths is my favorite subject', since we're talking about one subject. (Actually, after the exams I've just had, I would NOT be saying maths is my favorite subject for a while.)

Gee, that sounds so funny to my ear! "Maths IS ...." But I can see how it makes sense.

It seems I've come too late to respond to your first argument.

No, you haven't - I'd like to hear your opinion. What I wanted to do this time was to present scientific evidence for creationism (as requested ) and have discussion on that evidence, and NOT to get into back and forth "link wars", like GrayMouser noted. So I say again that no one has responded to my first post on fossil evidence for creationism (that I have seen - maybe I missed it) except by defending evolution.

(Cirdan - that's what I meant - I did note at one time that you responded to my post, but still not really in the sense that I was asking for - a scientific evaluation if the evidence in the fossil record supported the creationist prediction of what would be found.)

So I'll put it more plainly, I guess - creationism would predict (in the scientific sense, which theories SHOULD be able to do) that there would be lots of critters in the fossil record appearing fully formed (i.e., no sort-of feathers, etc.) and of many levels of complexity, including very complex. The fossil record confirms this prediction, IMO. What are the opinions of the evolutionists on the thread about this?

And I don't think Darwin's opinion on the eye is relevent. This was about 150 years ago, and we have learnt so much since then.

Yes, I know we've learnt a lot, but to me it's relevant because of the reasons I noted earlier. I guess we'll just have different opinions on the subject

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
[B]So I'll put it more plainly, I guess - creationism would predict (in the scientific sense, which theories SHOULD be able to do) that there would be lots of critters in the fossil record appearing fully formed (i.e., no sort-of feathers, etc.) and of many levels of complexity, including very complex.

I like your use of the scientific terminology: "critters".

[Rían]

I try to keep the discussion on high scientific planes

[Cirdan]

Why is it important to find the one link between "major groups" of "critters"? If you evaluate the fossils it is easy to see the development of structures within groups that are progenitors of structures in the next more complex group. Are we supposwed to find a half bryozoan- half brachiopod?

Think of your intelligent design model. The introduction of a new technology (in nature a new capacity such as breathing air). If the inventor of the carborator lived 800 million years ago would we be able to walk out to the paleodump and find the first few designs he made among the billions made since? It is the successful end product that goes into mass production, not the prototypes.

Recently a "link" was found, an amphibian with gills. Think of the relatively brief time we have approached fossil analysis with scientific method, the size of the record, and the difficulty in finding sedimentary rocks of extreme age. The finds to date are a infinitesimal sample of the history. Not finding every intermediate is not proof of anything except that they haven't been found yet.

Species don't "just appear" in the fossil record fully formed. They start out rare and populate over time. Why would the creator just start out making a few instead of just populating right up front?

The idea that extinction supports creation in a bit silly too. Extinction fits the evolutionary model of the fossil record excellently. Are we to believe the creator made a bunch of badly adapted species? The failure rate is very high for a non-random, intelligent designer. Would the creator, as a perfect being, just create the perfect world on the first try?

It is weak to just say, "Oh, there is a gap here in the fossil record. Let's insert a creation event until someone finds evidence against it". Is every non-conformity in the fossil record considered a creation event? How does that jive with the Noahic Flood theory? Did the Flood pause during the creation event? Was god creating new species during the flood? Why, if they are just going to die.

Why go part way in adopting the science? Why couldn't god just plant the seed of life knowing all the other forms would evolve. Or that god is the mechanism behind all causation (outside the activities of sentient beings with free will, of course), therefore god creates through the process? It's more adaptable to new discoveries.

The literal reading of the creation story fails because the language of it's authors, regardless of divine intructions, were completely lacking the words, ideas, concepts, knowledge, or experience to ever be able to translate the way nature really works. If god told them about DNA, or an earth billions of years old, or trilobites and dinosaurs, how could they have possibly explained it? So why put the burden on them to explain it all?

Creation science will never be useful until it stops being a tool to attack the teaching of evolution and starts actually producing ideas that are useful in science. The beauty of Darwin's ideas is that the theory continues to work and grow with subsequent discoveries and ideas. An idea relies on missing information and that must retreat from new discoveries is not a useful tool.

I'm sorry to be so negative but there isn't any new information here.

[cassiopeia]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
So I'll put it more plainly, I guess - creationism would predict (in the scientific sense, which theories SHOULD be able to do) that there would be lots of critters in the fossil record appearing fully formed (i.e., no sort-of feathers, etc.) and of many levels of complexity, including very complex. The fossil record confirms this prediction, IMO. What are the opinions of the evolutionists on the thread about this?

Creationism predicts we would see animals fully-formed and that we should find (say) human bones with dinosaur bones. But we don't see this, we see human bones in different layers. On the other hand, evolution predicts exactly this.

Rian: I was talking about a different Earth moving post. I think it was in the religion thread, where Lief said that the Bible says the Earth doesn't move, and that it's correct because the Earth doesn't accelerate. I then posted that whenever I jump in the air the Earth accelerates a tiny bit towards me. I got no response.

[GrayMouser]

Originally posted by RÃ*an

(Cirdan - that's what I meant - I did note at one time that you responded to my post, but still not really in the sense that I was asking for - a scientific evaluation if the evidence in the fossil record supported the creationist prediction of what would be found.)

So I'll put it more plainly, I guess - creationism would predict (in the scientific sense, which theories SHOULD be able to do) that there would be lots of critters in the fossil record appearing fully formed (i.e., no sort-of feathers, etc.) and of many levels of complexity, including very complex. The fossil record confirms this prediction, IMO. What are the opinions of the evolutionists on the thread about this?

I'm not sure what you mean by "fully formed", if you mean functional, then of course both theories would predict this.

If you mean no transitional fossils, then of course the record falsifies creationism-
Archeopteryx and the lineage of the horse with all the intermediate stages being the best-known examples,
but there are plenty of others.

Creationism would also have to predict that there is no increase in complexity over time; see the references to the developments of the early Cambrian to show how that is wrong.

Since Young Earth and Old Earth Creationism would make very different predictions about the fossil record, it's hard to reply without knowing which model you are advocating.

I'll go on the working assumption that this is YEC, if I'm wrong please correct me.

Creationist predictions would include:
No sorting of fossils by date; primitive amphibians, dinosaurs, early mammals, later mammals (including humans) should all be mixed in together.
(There might be another sorting method; I'll leave you to reply on that.)

[Rían]

Originally posted by cassiopeia
Rian: I was talking about a different Earth moving post. I think it was in the religion thread, where Lief said that the Bible says the Earth doesn't move, and that it's correct because the Earth doesn't accelerate. I then posted that whenever I jump in the air the Earth accelerates a tiny bit towards me. I got no response.

Oh, I remember that post - my answer still stands, tho, and I think it's the correct one I don't know if Lief was trying to explain some reasoning behind it, or if that's what he actually thought - you'll have to ask Lief. But I think my answer is the correct one (Lief, any comments?)

I'll get to the rest of your post, along with Cirdan's and GMousers, a bit later when I have a block of time...

[afro-elf]

RIAN,

Wouldn't just be easier to teach creationism in religous schools and evolution in public schools?

[Rían]

AE - Easier, yes, but I think it presents a more complete scientific picture to present both at all schools. I'm more interested in what I think is "right" than what I think is "easy" (that's why I'm on this thread, 1 "against" 6 or 7 or more ) (I put "against" in quotes, because I'm not personally against the evolutionists - I like the vast majority of them quite a lot! But my opinion on which model is better, creationism or evolutionism, is different than theirs.)

Cassiopeia, GrayMouser and Cirdan - thanks for your evaluations of my first "evidence for creationism" post. That's what I was really hoping for when I first decided to present some evidence - some scientific evaluation (not just defences of evolution) - but it's a real uphill battle to just get to that point . I first have to get thru all the erroneous "evolution (as in the ENTIRE THEORY) is proved by the specked moths" type ideas, then I have to get thru the charges that scientists that believe in creationism aren't even scientists, then I have to get thru quote-mining charges (some of which are true, but they're also true of evolutionists) ......

.... and THAT'S just to get to a level playing field!

Let's see if I can answer some of your points.

Cass first, 'cause hers is the shortest this time (whew!) -

by Cassiopeia
Creationism predicts we would see animals fully-formed and that we should find (say) human bones with dinosaur bones. But we don't see this, we see human bones in different layers. On the other hand, evolution predicts exactly this.

This is a good point, and I need to look into layers/geology more. But I think your creationism prediction isn't entirely accurate - I would say something like "creationism predicts we would see animals fully-formed and of varying complexities, including very complex". I think the complexity issue is extremely important, and it's opposite to what evolutionists would expect to see, IMO. And this is what we DO see. In the supposed earliest ages, there are very complex critters in the fossil record.

[Rían]

GrayMouser's most recent post -

Originally posted by GrayMouser
I'm not sure what you mean by "fully formed", if you mean functional, then of course both theories would predict this.

I'm pretty sure I said "complex", too, which makes a big difference. And what I mean by "fully formed" is that wings are wings, feathers are feathers, etc.

If you mean no transitional fossils, then of course the record falsifies creationism-
Archeopteryx and the lineage of the horse with all the intermediate stages being the best-known examples,
but there are plenty of others.

Now this is where we could get into a link war (a polite one, of course ). From what I've read, I strongly disagree with Archeopteryx being transitional, since (1) the feathers are perfectly formed feathers, not semi-gill-semi-feathers, (2) there are other living birds today, like the ostrich, that have claws on their wings, (3) the wings are not semi-legs-semi-wings, they are completely developed and fully functional wings.

Also, there are some bird bones discovered in layers "deeper" than those that contain Arch. remains, so Arch. can't be an ancestor of birds, because birds already existed, acc'd to evolutionary dating methods.

So I would say as it stands, Arch. does NOT exhibit any leg-to-wing transitional forms, nor does it exhibit any gill-to-feather transitional forms. Both wings and feathers are the same as modern bird types. It IS, however, one of those not-run-of-the-mill birds, like ostriches.

I think many evolutionists have discarded Arch. as a transitional type, but I could be wrong. Do you want to look into it more and get back to me, or should we just leave it at "evolutionist PhDs say Arch. IS a transitional type, and creationist PhDs say it ISN'T, so it must be inconclusive, assuming integrity on both sides."

Creationism would also have to predict that there is no increase in complexity over time; see the references to the developments of the early Cambrian to show how that is wrong.

I must have missed this, and from what I have read, I would disagree. Could you please direct me to where this was discussed, or summarize it for me?

Since Young Earth and Old Earth Creationism would make very different predictions about the fossil record, it's hard to reply without knowing which model you are advocating.

I'll go on the working assumption that this is YEC, if I'm wrong please correct me.

I think YEC is the best model.

Creationist predictions would include:
No sorting of fossils by date; primitive amphibians, dinosaurs, early mammals, later mammals (including humans) should all be mixed in together.
(There might be another sorting method; I'll leave you to reply on that.)

I don't know what type of mix would result from a complex and catastrophic event like a world-wide flood. Like I told cass, I'll have to look into it more. I think that the evolutionist idea of different layers representing times that are millions of years apart is an assumption, though, so there's a little implied date assumption going on in your creationism prediction that I disagree with.

[Rían]

And for GrayMouser re the horse -

Same with the horse example, BTW - creationists point out other fossil finds that contradict this order, such as the South American ungulates (order Litopterna) - there is a three-toed hoofed ungulate (Macrauchenia), a three-toed hoofed ungulate with reduced laterals (Diadiaphorus), and a one-toed hoofed ungulate (Thoatherium) with reduced splints, just like the Eohippus-Miohippus-Equus. However, the two latter were contemporaries, and the three-toed Macrauchenia appeared AFTER the last two, acc'd to evolutionary dating!

There's also a place in Oregon where the three-toed versions are found WITH the one-toed versions.

Also, altho one could see a possible Eohippus to Equus change, the transitions are NOT in the fossil record - they are said to have happened too rapidly. Well, that's an assumption, then, not backed up by what is actually IN the fossil record. Assumptions are fine, but they should be called assumptions.

(and for your reference - info on the horse in this post is from Evolution: The Challenge of the Fossil Record by Duane Gish)

[cassiopeia]

My answer was probably the shortest because I don't know much about that. I did one semester of Earth science a few years ago, and that's all.

Yes, I remember in the book it mentioned that there were seemingly more complex creatures in the past than now. In the earliest fossil records, we see bacteria called stromatolites (actually they can still be seen here in Western Australia). 600 million years ago we see jellyfish, sea anemone and earthworm like creatures (again this can be seen in fosssils from Australia). Plants then evolved from algae about 400 million years ago. 380 million years ago the first vertebrates moved onto land. This lead to reptiles, then dinosaurs. Birds then evolved from dinosaurs (if you believe the Archaeopteryx fossils). Mammals evolved from reptiles, then we came along. Are we not more complex than jellyfish?

I suppose that this evidence isn't valid if you don't believe the Earth is 4.6 million years old, or that geologic dating involves circular reasoning. But we don't see complex critters ( ) like humans or dinosaurs or flowering plants in the earliest fossil records, so I don't see any problem.

[Rían]

Originally posted by Cirdan
Why is it important to find the one link between "major groups" of "critters"? If you evaluate the fossils it is easy to see the development of structures within groups that are progenitors of structures in the next more complex group. Are we supposwed to find a half bryozoan- half brachiopod?

I think it is VERY important to find links between 2 vastly different things like wings and legs, and non-flying to flying parts (including feathers and the specialized avian lung), if you are going to suggest that these transitions happened; don't you?

*rats, out of time again! I hope I can finish discussing your post later tonite, Cirdan*

scheduled for a later time : discussion on Cirdan's :

Think of your intelligent design model. The introduction of a new technology (in nature a new capacity such as breathing air). If the inventor of the carborator lived 800 million years ago would we be able to walk out to the paleodump and find the first few designs he made among the billions made since? It is the successful end product that goes into mass production, not the prototypes.

Recently a "link" was found, an amphibian with gills. Think of the relatively brief time we have approached fossil analysis with scientific method, the size of the record, and the difficulty in finding sedimentary rocks of extreme age. The finds to date are a infinitesimal sample of the history. Not finding every intermediate is not proof of anything except that they haven't been found yet.

Species don't "just appear" in the fossil record fully formed. They start out rare and populate over time. Why would the creator just start out making a few instead of just populating right up front?

The idea that extinction supports creation in a bit silly too. Extinction fits the evolutionary model of the fossil record excellently. Are we to believe the creator made a bunch of badly adapted species? The failure rate is very high for a non-random, intelligent designer. Would the creator, as a perfect being, just create the perfect world on the first try?

It is weak to just say, "Oh, there is a gap here in the fossil record. Let's insert a creation event until someone finds evidence against it". Is every non-conformity in the fossil record considered a creation event? How does that jive with the Noahic Flood theory? Did the Flood pause during the creation event? Was god creating new species during the flood? Why, if they are just going to die.

Why go part way in adopting the science? Why couldn't god just plant the seed of life knowing all the other forms would evolve. Or that god is the mechanism behind all causation (outside the activities of sentient beings with free will, of course), therefore god creates through the process? It's more adaptable to new discoveries.

The literal reading of the creation story fails because the language of it's authors, regardless of divine intructions, were completely lacking the words, ideas, concepts, knowledge, or experience to ever be able to translate the way nature really works. If god told them about DNA, or an earth billions of years old, or trilobites and dinosaurs, how could they have possibly explained it? So why put the burden on them to explain it all?

Creation science will never be useful until it stops being a tool to attack the teaching of evolution and starts actually producing ideas that are useful in science. The beauty of Darwin's ideas is that the theory continues to work and grow with subsequent discoveries and ideas. An idea relies on missing information and that must retreat from new discoveries is not a useful tool.

I'm sorry to be so negative but there isn't any new information here.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Noahic Flood theory

'Scuse me for butting in, but I was just saying that I believe the term is "Noahide" or "Noachide". Although of course, I am not sure of this.

[Lizra]

Cirdan's right. Reading, writing, and evolution! Everytime I read this thread title...I think of creation science being taught in school, and I just say NO! (repeatedly!) If they taught creation in public school, I would home school my kids! (sounds familiar! I guess it's one or the other! )

*thank you Nancy Reagan!

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally posted by Lizra
Cirdan's right. Everytime I read this thread title...*I just say "NO"*! If they taught creation in public school, I would home school my kids!

Isn't the title, "Should evolution be taught in schools"; or am I missing something here?

What if they taught both, as alternative theories?

P. S. Nancy Reagan?

[HOBBIT]

Teaching Creation in school as a scientific theory is ludicrous. It is NOT SCIENCE. That is not my opinion, that is fact (by the definiton of science ..... lets not get into this again, unless you really want to). It seems to me that you are the only one who thinks that, rian. Correct me if I wrong.

It is nothing more than a belief. I have no problem with you or anyone believing this, but I DO have a problem with people trying to force their BELIEFs onto others. Which is what you want to happen - you'd love to see creation taught in schools. I see you that you really believe it to be true, and that you really believe it to be very scientific, but it just isn't.

And how exactly would you present this in a class or textbook? Surely not the adam and eve myth? In my school, there must be at least a handful of diff creation myths that the study body believes in - well there are that many diff religions at least, i'm fairly positive that more than half the school's student body are atheist or agnostic. Creation does not imply a christian god at all - it could also be any kind of aliens.

Creation Science is nothing more than a cover to try to get religion taught in schools (for one thing).

The book "What is Creation Science" seems to be geared towards people who believe as you do, Rian. You want to believe in it - so go ahead and keep believing in it . From the pages that I have read and reviews that I have read from it (maybe I'll actually get the book) and from other Creationist stuff I have read and seen on tv, they seem to substitute quotes often for evidence and they only make points by completely leaving out contrary evidence and/or completely misinterprting data and info.

That is just my opinion though...

Doesn't it mean anything to you that even most (if not all, i don't know about all) CHRISITAN RELIGIOUS private schools teach evolution in science class and creation in religious studies? They keep em separate.

You constantly say that you've evaluated both sides and picked creation, but it seems to me (just my own observations, correct me if I am wrong) that you had your mind made up beforehand. You were raised a christian, correcT? You believed in creation and you drifted towards info that supported what you believed in. IMO, if you really looked at all the evidence you would probably believe in evolution - or at least evolution started by god (a supreme being).

Plus, the "creation theory" is nothing without some supreme being.

But of course, we all know that the Mice rule this planet and the Earth was built by the Magrathean's to solve the question of life, the universe, and everything to which the answer is 42. Anyone who debates this is silly :P

[Lizra]

Gwai! I'm missing something! (too much salmon and wine!) I mean YES! I'll go edit. Should creation theory be taught in school "NO" (a hundred million times NO!)

Nancy Reagan coined the phrase "Just say no" (to drugs)

[Lizra]

The creation bit is so empty! What's to teach..or understand? On the first day, the invisible magic being did this...day two, this... what about all the science stuff we have concrete evidence of, (all the things that have been mentioned on this thread and much, much more) Will someone find their specific time in the *magic week*! Really!

[HOBBIT]

Yes, I completely agree with you Lizra. I don't think that "the theory of creation" will EVER be taught in public schools, so we don't have to worry.