How to teach evolution & Evidence for Creationism

[Nurvingiel]

Wow, everyone's in this thread right now. pssst... RÃ*an... see my post about the thread re-name. ^

Anyway, I was parusing the summary posts again RÃ*an, and I noticed you said your belief in Creationism is independant of your being a Christian. Since you put it in the summary posts you've probably dealt with this before, but I wonder if they are independant, really.

Would you still believe in Creationism if you weren't Christian? If you were, say, Hindu, you wouldn't even believe in the keystone of Creationism, God (the Christian one). Doesn't that pose a major problem to that statement?

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

hey nurvi, we did try to discuss other religions and their views on creationism - few pages back

if this is supposed to be a debate, but the whole thread has been renamed for one side of an argument only, how is this debate, anyone else see the paradox?

[Rían]

Creationism is a sub-category of Creation by Intelligent Design (by a being/beings more powerful than humans). If I were Hindu, I would think a Hindu god created things. Does that explain it?

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

I don't totally get the renaming of this thread. Personally I think it's a tad misleading. Points that outline a failing in the theory of Evolution don't necessarily prove that Creationism is right. Creationism has to prove its validity in itself as well.

Well see I suggested the name change because rian has only been able to defend creationsim by saying why she doesn't see how evolution is possible, I have asked her repeatedly to just state in a post - without mentioning evolution - why she supports creationism. She has not done that. Here is what she says in her summary points. Thorughout it talks about evolution and why that doesn't make any sense. I weant to knwo why Creationism makes sense without relying on the wholes in evolution to back up her arguments.

For all we know there could be some other theory that no one has discovered yet that is closer to the truth than both our theories. Thus, disproving ToE would merely mean that it isn't true (I'll leave it to you guys to decide whether or not you can do this), it would not automatically mean that Creationism is true. Obviously, the reverse also applies.

Of course there could be - but if creationism is incorrect - then the bible would be incorrect. If evolution is discovered to be incorrect - then fine - at least we will have gained knowledge. On the other hand, I think Rian would honestly have a hard time believing in anything if it contracted the bible.

[Nurvingiel]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

I do

Don't be sad! I get it now. Thanks Ri and Chrys. (Bad lurker! Bad! )

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

You're absolutely right! I totally agree.

Well, it's your thread, so you could get it re-renamed to "Evidence for Intelligent Design and against Evolution" (since "Creation by Intelligent Design and against the Theory of Evolution" is a tad long ). Or something.

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

I think where it is related is this : As I stated before, the ToE relies on the assumption of non-directed, non-goal-oriented processes. Conversely, creationism relies on the assumption of directed, goal-oriented processes in the initial act of creation (the minor variation of species after the initial act is "non-directed"). So if the ToE is shown to be non-proven or indicated against in its most elemental and necessary features (macroevolution and beneficial mutations), then it is likely that its underlying assumption is false, too. Does that make sense?

Hm, they are like complete opposites when you put it that way. But since both theories share micro-evolution, are they not actually complete opposites? I am so very confused now.

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Creationism is a sub-category of Creation by Intelligent Design (by a being/beings more powerful than humans). If I were Hindu, I would think a Hindu god created things. Does that explain it?

Yes. But as I stated above, maybe Creationism doesn't belong in the title either.

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

I always need you, Nurvi I could use a Moothug from you right now! *hugs Nurvi* Let's go find a lovely virtual tree and our virtual selves will enjoy some tea and scones and a chat!

*Moothugs* Aww! See you in the Café! JD, Chrys and I were drinking beer and singing songs, care to join?

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

As I stated before, the ToE relies on the assumption of non-directed, non-goal-oriented processes.

Tyhat is not true at all. it just doesn't say at all why the changes came about - other than it happened graudually. What you mean by "non-directed" is that evolution assumes that god did not play a role in it. That's where your science loses it's credibility.

Conversely, creationism relies on the assumption of directed, goal-oriented processes in the initial act of creation (the minor variation of species after the initial act is "non-directed").

Basically this is language to indicate that creationism requires an intelligent being to guide the process. This is where intelligent design came into being - creationists couldn't get that taught in the classroom so they came up with "intelligent design" same concept different name.

So if the ToE is shown to be non-proven or indicated against in its most elemental and necessary features (macroevolution and beneficial mutations), then it is likely that its underlying assumption is false, too. Does that make sense?

You can not prove creationism by trying to throw holes into Evolution - which is what you repeatedly do. You do it again here. I want you to explain WHY creationism is right without using evolution or god or biblical beliefs in your post.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

See you in the Café! JD, Chrys and I were drinking beer and singing songs, care to join?

I doubt it - since I'm her problem at the moment. She won't do a simple post I have requested. Just one simple post.

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

I want you to explain WHY creationism is right without using evolution or god or biblical beliefs in your post.

fundamental impossibility, there has to be something to do the creating

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Last Child of Ungoliant

fundamental impossibility, there has to be something to do the creating

Which is one of my problems with creationism. However - she can state the SCIENTIFIC evidence for creationism - and ONLY for creationism - not by comparing how "such and such works better than Evolution", and how evolution isnt' feasable, therefore creationism is correct, etc

[Nurvingiel]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

I doubt it - since I'm her problem at the moment. She won't do a simple post I have requested. Just one simple post.

You never know, RÃ*an is cross-posting with us as we speak! I think she'd join us in the Café regardless, but I won't presume to speak for her.

I think it would be hard to make a God-free post though, as a divine being is rather essential to Creationism and Creation by Intelligent Design (CID). However, I don't think that makes the theory bad or completely unscientific.

What is science exactly? Must it be completely devoid of philosophy? Could you not make the argument that all science is a type of philosophy, since it's another way to try to explain the world around us? My braaaaain...

I seem to fall in a category all of my own... I believe the Theory of Evolution is the closest theory we have to the truth, and I believe God meant for it to happen. (Now everyone disagrees with me! Yay! )

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

I think it would be hard to make a God-free post though, as a divine being is rather essential to Creationism and Creation by Intelligent Design (CID). However, I don't think that makes the theory bad or completely unscientific.

She keeps saying she believe in creationism based on scientific evidence - so if that's the case - then she should present it with scientific evidence only and without bringing evolution into it at all.

What is science exactly? Must it be completely devoid of philosophy? Could you not make the argument that all science is a type of philosophy, since it's another way to try to explain the world around us? My braaaaain...

Science requires the the evidence be presented and hypothesis to be formed. Science does not take into account mystical beings. If we went by religion as our guide - we would still think that the earth was flat and the sun revolved around the earth. But science - based on studying things - discovered that it was not true. There were no space ships when science discovered that the earth revolved around the sun - it was by looking at things scientifically and making hypotehsis based on what they saw. Today we know that the scientists were correct and religion wrong.

I seem to fall in a category all of my own... I believe the Theory of Evolution is the closest theory we have to the truth, and I believe God meant for it to happen. (Now everyone disagrees with me! Yay! )

Well I don't because you can't prove god. You just described what many religious people have tried to get taught in our schools - "intelligent design"

[Nurvingiel]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

Well I don't because you can't prove god. You just described what many religious people have tried to get taught in our schools - "intelligent design"

Just one comment then, what I described isn't the same as Intelligent design. I'd go into it more, but I think I'd make this thread even more insane. It's definitely not ID though.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by JD

She won't do a simple post I have requested. Just one simple post.

You know why I won't do it, JD? Because YOU said I can't do it.

Originally Posted by jd

That's because you know you can't.

*sniff* JD is always right! He is 100% correct when he says things about how I think! I suppose he must be able to read my mind somehow! I must be wrong how I think I'm thinking! I'd like to do a summary post, but JD says I know I can't *sob* and he sure thinks he's right about what I'm thinking, so he must be right! *goes into a corner and cries*

NOT!

[Rían]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

Well I don't because you can't prove god. You just described what many religious people have tried to get taught in our schools - "intelligent design"

No, she is describing "theistic evolution", NOT intelligent design.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

You know why I won't do it, JD? Because YOU said I can't do it.

*sniff* JD is always right! He is 100% correct when he says things about how I think! I suppose he must be able to read my mind somehow! I must be wrong how I think I'm thinking! I'd like to do a summary post, but JD says I know I can't *sob* and he sure thinks he's right about what I'm thinking, so he must be right! *goes into a corner and cries*

NOT!

I asked you all last night to do this summary post - it's only recently that I said you can't. So nice try. Any other excuses you want to come up with? If you aren't going to post it - then I will take it that you are conceding to the debate.

As for reading your mind - it's not that hard to read in what you post. I see you've now resorted to sarcasm.

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

No, she is describing "theistic evolution", NOT intelligent design.

and there's a difference?

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

No, she is describing "theistic evolution", NOT intelligent design.

Intelligent design requires a intellect to guide the formation of organism, I don't see much of a difference. Intelligent Design was proposed by religious people to get god into the science books - because creationism was not allowed since it has no real scientific backing.

"The theory of intelligent design (ID) holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause"

Sounds like a god like being to me.

[Nurvingiel]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

No, she is describing "theistic evolution", NOT intelligent design.

Bwahaha, see?

Yes, Chrys, there is a difference. Theistic evolution (good name) is like this, to me anyway:

I think God set the Big Bang in motion. God created the earth in the sense of bringing together all the possible elements necessary to make the Earth in a very subtle way. Not just *poof* world! It's more like God was a catalyst for circumstances which brought about circumstances with allowed parts of the world to come together.

I don't think God is some distant being that, having made everything, sits on a throne and watches. I think God is in the molecules and DNA and trees etc. etc.

My personal beliefs are much more weighted on the Evolution side, since I think that's how God meant it to be. When extraordinary circumstances came about allowing life to form (I actually do know what ToE says about the first RNA chains, but my brain just died and I don't have my biology notes to give details), God helped that happen.

Do you guys see what I mean? Should I go on? I will if this is a desired post.


Important note: In this post, I am not saying anything about the beliefs of others. Infer nothing (except about me).

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

turtles and elephants

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

I think God set the Big Bang in motion. God created the earth in the sense of bringing together all the possible elements necessary to make the Earth in a very subtle way. Not just *poof* world! It's more like God was a catalyst for circumstances which brought about circumstances with allowed parts of the world to come together.

Hence Intelligent Design. Intelligent design espouses that an intelligent being was behind everything that happened - which is what you describe here.

I don't think God is some distant being that, having made everything, sits on a throne and watches. I think God is in the molecules and DNA and trees etc. etc.

Can you prove god exists?

My personal beliefs are much more weighted on the Evolution side, since I think that's how God meant it to be.

Hence again - Intelligent Design.