How to teach evolution & Evidence for Creationism II

[Spock]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

"hopeful monsters" and punctuated equalibrium my very attractive behind! [/rant]

....ahem........now we have something else to look forward to

[rohirrim TR]

Originally Posted by BeardofPants

Excuse me, but the theory of evolution has NOTHING to do with the scientific approach to how life started on earth.

I'm sorry, but I'm firmly of the POV that ID/Creationism is reactionary pseudo-science. Grand Canyon created instantaneously by flooding my feckin' arse. [/rant]

hey IR and CC i didn't say it formed instantaneously that would be against common sense, i'm just pointing out that it did not take a billion years, a few weeks according to one thing i read, but, not instantly.

BoP-anger is the path to the dark side, join me, and have lots of power and lightsaber, and very possibly kortossis armor, and maybe even a territory named after you
The EMPIRE: be all i can force you to be

[Rían]

Speaking of CSPAN, and on the topic of evolution and its starting point...

I have in my hands a transcript of the proceedings of the "Crawling and Flying Babies Scientific Meeting of 2005" that was recently broadcast on CSPAN99 in the wee morning hours . I'll type it in for you guys, because I think it will illustrate some points about the theory of evolution that I think are absolutely critical to this discussion.

from CSPAN99's recent taping of the "Crawling and Flying Babies Scientific Meeting of 2005" proceedings

*inspiring music playing in background*

Host: Welcome to our annual scientific meeting where we scientific scientists discuss the scientific theory of Crawling and Flying Babies in a scientific manner! We will open with the distinguished scientific Professor X. Trapolation, who will present a nice overview of our scientific theory for the unscientific idiots that aren't in full agreement with us, as well as the stupid public outside our hallowed scientific doors. Please welcome Professor X. Trapolation! *wild applause*

Prof. XT: Thank you, my fellow scientific scientists! Thank you very much! Science rules, everything else drools! *chant taken up by the fervent audience* Oh, wait - there is nothing outside of science - silly unscientific me! *crowd laughs*

Host: Quiet in the hall, please! Control your scientific adoration for our scientific subject or we'll never be able to get back into our wonderful scientific science labs! *everyone rapidly settles down*

Prof. XT: *ahem* Someone turn down the lights and I'll start my PowerPoint presentation. First slide, please. Here is a picture of our scientifically beloved (which means we have all attached monitors to ourselves and noted our respiration, heart rates and skin temperature rising when we see his picture) Professor Godwin, who is the one who first came up with the theory. *reverent sighs from audience* Next slide, please.

And here is a photograph of the baby that started it all - Professor Godwin's niece Chastity! Chastity was born in London, and was 8 months old at the taking of this picture. All this has been scientifically documented. Now, here, of course, is the important scientific picture that shook our world ... *next slide please* ... this is a picture of Chastity in New York on her 9-month birthday! *picture of Chastity at the Empire State Building flashes on the screen* This, also, has been scientifically observed and documented.

Our scientifically beloved scientific theory (actually, we like to call it a fact, and anyone that doesn't just can't deal with reality) deals with how that baby got from England to New York. Professor Godwin, when he received this picture of Chastity at the Empire State building, came to the logical and natural scientific conclusion that she crawled there, and thus our scientifically beloved "Theory of Crawling Babies" was born.

Let me first show some support for the original theory.

Now here is a picture of a modern-day baby at its home in London. Please note this critical fact - the baby is crawling! Now what is next to the baby? Zoom in on that little thing there - yes, you can see that it is a compass - and it's showing that the baby is crawling towards New York! Now, it is WELL documented scientifically that babies crawl; we have a scientific picture of this baby crawling, and it's crawling in the direction of New York! What is our logical scientific conclusion? That this baby, under its own natural power, can propel itself to New York. The conclusion is absolutely inescapable, and supported by scientific evidence over and over - we've all seen babies crawl, over and over - sometimes long distances!

Now some of our unscientific opponents, obviously driven only by their radical unscientific beliefs, have dared to say that we haven't actually OBSERVED a baby crawling from London to the shoreline, let alone London to New York. *resounding boos from audience* Well, I ask you - what is extrapolation FOR if not for covering these types of difficulties? We have REPEATEDLY observed babies crawling anywhere from 2 inches to 2 yards. There has even been one case of a sighting of a baby crawling *hushed tone* 20 yards! *reverent sigh from audience* It's scientifically clear that one can extrapolate out to the seashore with NO problem whatsoever!

Now when this theory was first formed and published, and as people thought about it, eventually someone pointed out that it's rather hard to crawl across the Atlantic Ocean, so we have modified our beloved scientific theory, because that's what we scientists do! No matter HOW inconceivable our starting point, once we have one, we're willing to modify any other part (except the starting point) when we find difficulties. SO - our theory evolved from "The Theory of Crawling Babies" to "The Theory of Crawling and Flying Babies" to account for the difficulties of the ocean. Note that this adjusted theory takes care of ALL the difficulties! *thunderous applause, which gradually quiets down.*

Thank you, thank you - yes, I agree with you all!

And, as more proof of our theory (as if any more is needed) *snickers from crowd* - here is a picture of that SAME BABY in - yes - NEW YORK!

Now again, some unscientific critics have tried to disparage the theory, pointing out that no baby we've ever seen has wings. Well, I ask you - if a baby is in London, and then in New York, and it can crawl on land but not on water, therefore there MUST be wings on the baby, but they're just HIDDEN! *roars of approval* Now we haven't actually observed wings, but we're still trying, day in and day out, to catch them at it! Since we have said it had to be this way, we KNOW it has to be this way! Here are some of our more exciting recent discoveries - next slides, please - here is a baby with an enlarged scapula, RIGHT where we observe wings attached on some species. Here is a baby with a large mole on its back. Here is a baby flapping its arms! And the list goes on and on.

Now, even if we haven't observed flying babies, yet EVERY TIME we observe CRAWLING babies, that only STRENGTHENS our already iron-clad theory, because crawling is an important part of the theory! *wild cheers* And we have literally thousands of pictures of babies in London and New York - THOUSANDS! Our theory verified by observable fact over and OVER! *more wild cheers, scientists fainting in the aisles*

I thank you, my fellow scientific scientists! *leaves the platform to thunderous applause*

Host: Thank you, Professor X. Trapolation! Now, let's have a brief break for coffee, which will be served in the foyer next to the shrine of Professor Godwin.

This made-up transcript was written in the spirit of the Spaghetti Monster post about ID, and I don't think any of you guys are uber-evolutionists like the ones in my story, but I DO think ... well, I'm out of time now, but I'll comment on the points that I hope this little story brought up later on this evening, and I hope we can have some good discussion

[Count Comfect]

Ah, mockery. Just what healthy debate needs.

Originally Posted by Rian

Now again, some unscientific critics have tried to disparage the theory, pointing out that no baby we've ever seen has wings. Well, I ask you - if a baby is in London, and then in New York, and it can crawl on land but not on water, therefore there MUST be wings on the baby, but they're just HIDDEN!

Here's where it goes overboard. This is not an extrapolation science would ever make. The entire idea is facetious, of course, but yes, over land a scientist would perhaps conclude that (in the absence of observed phenomena such as PARENTS, CARS, BOATS, or AIRPLANES to name a few, all of which are ignored) the baby crawled all the way. However, babies float, so the wings thing is actually an unscientific assumption. Swimming, on the other hand, is not; I have seen babies dog paddle. And you know what? If we couldn't prove there were any other way, I would say the baby swam and crawled. However, I also know scientifically that the baby's mother is alive, has a car, can buy plane tickets, etc. This is not true of, say, an unproven intelligent designer. Just a point.

And at least we try to develop tests for punctuated equilibria (what the heck is that "hopeful monsters" thing?) - unlike the ascientific theories.

Rohirrim - a couple weeks is still a catastrophic event. Everything I said still applies. To leave those well-developed layers would take centuries at the very fastest possible movement, and more likely even longer given how much is exposed.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Count Comfect

Ah, mockery. Just what healthy debate needs.

No, Count, I didn't mean it that way. I even specified I didn't mean you guys, and I noted that it was in the style of the Spaghetti Monster post, which no one objected to altho it ridiculed ID, and which I still want to address because of the points it brought up. I meant to make this funny, and to illustrate my points. Sometimes stories do that better. I've heard a lot lately about humor being a good thing (but usually only when it's directed against my side, for some reason...), so I wrote something that was humorous (IMHO) but NOT meant to mock anyone here.

Yes, you've found a weak point (I just sat down and wrote it off the top of my head, and realized that weak point was there, but went with it anyway). I hope to start discussions tonight on it.

The "hopeful monsters" thing is an idea that some leading evolutionists have put forth - try a google on it

[BeardofPants]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Would you please consider recanting that statement?

Certainly not. My comments were meant to be taken in context with the nonsensical comments that Rohirrim was making. It was he that implied that 'evolutionists' were the ones who studied the origins of life on earth, and you and I both know that these are two separate fields of study.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

This made-up transcript was written in the spirit of the Spaghetti Monster post about ID, and I don't think any of you guys are uber-evolutionists like the ones in my story, but I DO think ... well, I'm out of time now, but I'll comment on the points that I hope this little story brought up later on this evening, and I hope we can have some good discussion

CC addressed it pretty well

that said, i think it's pretty clear that no one is going to change their mind about how the world was created, so no need to further abuse that dead horse

i've tried to address what is an isn't science, and even suggested ways both could be included in the educational system without stepping on each other's toes... but some people don't seem to be able to even make that much of a compromise

i'd really like to hear some comments on a question i've already raised twice, but have yet to receive a comment about from the non-evolution types:

here is the link again

i dare you

[Spock]

I think it's fair to say that non-action on your suggestion indicates a lack of interest by participating members.

[Rían]

It might indicate that, but it's not true in my case. I remain very interested in the topic. However, I've been at least 3 exhausting rounds on this subject during my Entmoot life, and I just can't seem to get in gear for this round. And I can't remember how to show who has the most posts in a thread (how do you do that?) but I think it's a pretty safe bet that it's me, given that until now, I've been the principle poster for the creationist side.

I'm pretty free today, and my goal is to address brownie's link and Nurvi's request. And Count's post. And the Spaghetti monster post. And BoP's post. and ... and ...

I need a very strong cup of tea!

[Rían]

brownie - I just scannedthrough about half of it - three questions for you:

1. Have you read it?

2. What do you think of its validity? (i.e., any good points IYO?)

3. What aspect would you like comment on?

[Spock]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

It might indicate that, but it's not true in my case.
brownie's and Nurvi's request. And Count's post. And the Spaghetti monster post. And BoP's post. inked...

.....sighs.....ok, you can't extrapolate and so here it is plain and simple.....those you've enumerated plus one, are the ones most interested in extending, drawing out, endlessly discussing and posting, on this subject. It's turned into your own little message board (fine) but you might get better input PM'ing each other. You wouldn't have to see that others aren't expressing interest.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

brownie - I just scannedthrough about half of it - three questions for you:

1. Have you read it?

yes... and discussed it on other forums

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

2. What do you think of its validity? (i.e., any good points IYO?)

i think it does a good job of letting both science and religion coexist... in the end religion is about salvation and science is about theorizing about our world in a different way... is it possible that things can about naturally

i think people get way too hung up on what is right and what is wrong (on both sides)... right and wrong is not the point... the point is thought processes... science teachs students first and foremost to approach issues from a analytical pov... religion teaches people to approach issues from a philosophical pov... both are valid, and useful... but when you mix the two, you diminish both

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

3. What aspect would you like comment on?

all of it

here's a good part though... i think it addresses what i see as the biggest issue i have with those who insist upon biblical literism... the fear that somehow christianity is invalid if the earth is in fact billions of years old... or if human beings were once ape-like creatures

We are not to put stumbling blocks in front of fellow Christians (Romans 14:13). It hurts my faith to hear Christians pass along hoaxes and false information. It hurts my faith to hear Christians assert extra-Biblical speculations about Creation and the Flood, and treat them as dogma.

The goal of our witness is Salvation. That salvation comes through faith in Jesus Christ, and Him crucified for our sins and risen from the dead. Salvation does not come from what the fossil record says or does not say. It does not come from someone's analysis of the combinations of amino acids, protein, and DNA. Do not stake your soul on whether evolution is valid or not, and don't lead others to do so either.

I have been advised to put aside all the arguments and science, and to read Genesis and listen to what the Holy Spirit is telling me. When I read the first chapters of Genesis in this manner, I have peace. I am confident that God has created me and all that exists. I know that mankind is at the very center of God's love. I know that God Almighty is the Creator and Ruler of the universe. I realize that we have all sinned, and that only Jesus Christ can redeem us. I am confident that nothing under heaven or on earth can ever separate us from the Love of God in Jesus Christ (Romans 8:36-39)!

When I read the literature of creationists and talk with them, I have no peace. I feel doubt about the Christian church and anger at people who are supposed to be my brothers and sisters in Christ. After encountering false information I become suspicious of what I read and hear. So I don't associate with creationists very much, and I rarely discuss these matters.

This essay came about only because anti-evolution views were thrust forward at a worship service. I heed the warning in Titus 3:9-11: "Don't get involved in arguing over unanswerable questions and controversial theological ideas; keep out of arguments and quarrels about obedience to Jewish laws, for this kind of thing isn't worthwhile; it only does harm. If anyone is causing divisions among you, he should be given a first and second warning. After that have nothing more to do with him, for such a person has a wrong sense of values. He is sinning, and he knows it."

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Spock

.....sighs.....ok, you can't extrapolate and so here it is plain and simple.....those you've enumerated plus one, are the ones most interested in extending, drawing out, endlessly discussing and posting, on this subject. It's turned into your own little message board (fine) but you might get better input PM'ing each other. You wouldn't have to see that others aren't expressing interest.

I'm not quite sure what you mean , but if it's what I think you might mean, then all I would say is that no one is forced to post on this thread, or even read it. I've never understood the objection to its existence. IMO, some of the best and open-minded thinkers on the Moot are on this thread, and if they want to keep discussing things, then let 'em at it! as long as no one is forced to post or to even read the thread (which they aren't).

To anyone that doesn't like this thread or this discussion: please go start one that you DO like! If I find your subject boring, I won't post on your thread, and I won't complain about the existence of your thread, either.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by BeardofPants

Certainly not. My comments were meant to be taken in context with the nonsensical comments that Rohirrim was making. It was he that implied that 'evolutionists' were the ones who studied the origins of life on earth, and you and I both know that these are two separate fields of study.

Yes, they are separate, but they ARE related to each other, wouldn't you agree? It's like this: say there's a physics lab that is doing work on lasers (Light Amplification by Stimulated Emission of Radiation, for those who don't know what it stands for, or that it's an acronym), and during their research, they find out a cool new property of light, since that's what they're studying. Across town is an astronomy lab with some cool telescopes. Now the astronomy and lasers are different fields (the astronomy guy couldn't pop over to the laser lab and instantly get a job; he'd probably have to get another degree, and vice versa), but they are most definitely related - they both work with light and its properties, and when the astronomers hear about the discovery at the physics lab, they'll get all excited and see how it can be used, if at all, in their field. But the geology lab downstairs that's working on making gold out of copper won't be interested (except if there's any way it will make their instruments better). That's a rough example, but I hope it shows what I mean.

And biological evolution and chemical evolution are even more tightly related than my example above. For example, let's pretend we have some wonderfully talented and consciencious chemical evolution scientists, and they get to do all the experiments they wanted to, and re-did some ones that were already done and found flaws. If they issue a statement like this: "After 10 years of rigorous study and new experiments, and re-doing of past experiments, we have come to the conclusion that we may scientifically conclude that to the best of our knowledge, the likelihood of abiogenesis occuring is basically zero, and NOT as likely as we used to think it was", then you can BET that the biological evolutionists will think it is relevant to them, for the result of abiogenesis is the starting point for their field. The geologist trying to make gold, however, won't care.

Do you see what I mean? That was one of the points I was trying to make with the flying baby example. Biological evolution takes as its starting point the one-celled prototype, and it is VERY important to the theory how likely it is that the one-celled prototype might exist. I mean, I could say that given the starting point of flying babies, that it is entirely reasonable that a baby can fly over the Atlantic Ocean, and my deduction would be valid. But I doubt if you would grant me my starting point! Biological evolution has as its starting point a one-celled prototype thing, and I think the likelihood of it even existing is a very reasonable thing to consider.

What say ye?

[Spock]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

I'm not quite sure what you mean

Just a natural follow up to your posting:
But then you've already admitted:

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

(I have no idea what Spock means - but that's not uncommon! )

So I understand.

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

However, I've been at least 3 exhausting rounds on this subject during my Entmoot life, and I just can't seem to get in gear for this round. ......given that until now, I've been the principle poster for the creationist side.

An observation and a conclusion drawn from same. yikes

[Insidious Rex]

No they have nothing to do with each other. No more so then oceanographers need to be highly concerned about where all the water came from to begin with. Thats a completely seperate subject. The fact is its here (the water for the oceanographer and life for the evolutionary biologist) and evolution is the best theory we currently have to explain how life has progressed. How it got there doesnt effect that fact one bit.

[Spock]

"Admiral, there be whales here."

I just couldn't resist

[BeardofPants]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

No they have nothing to do with each other. No more so then oceanographers need to be highly concerned about where all the water came from to begin with. Thats a completely seperate subject. The fact is its here (the water for the oceanographer and life for the evolutionary biologist) and evolution is the best theory we currently have to explain how life has progressed. How it got there doesnt effect that fact one bit.

More blunt than I would have put it, but thank you IRex, that is what I wanted to say. In any case, it must be remembered that my comments were made in light of rohirrim's ignorant comment about the evolutionist studying the origins of life.

Spock, I realised that I flame-baited him, but god, is anyone getting annoyed at this repetitive force-fad they keep posting on all the threads?

[BeardofPants]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

It might indicate that, but it's not true in my case. I remain very interested in the topic. However, I've been at least 3 exhausting rounds on this subject during my Entmoot life, and I just can't seem to get in gear for this round. [/size]

I hear you! I've been through a few myself, including the big slinging matches with Wayfarer et al. Those were exciting, and frustrating all at the same time. But I'm definitely burnt out from the subject.

[Insidious Rex]

Well personally Im a glutton for punishment.