How to teach evolution & Evidence for Creationism II

[Rían]

Originally Posted by BeardofPants

A person who studies the theory of evolution studies the mechanics of evolution. Do you not understand that? The origin of life is another study field altogether, and is not studied by the 'evolutionist'.

That's certainly not the typical term for one that studies the origin of life, although since the term "chemical evolution" is one term for the study of the origin of life (and this term is used by mainstream science), he has somewhat of a technical point, IMO. But I think it's safe to say that when "evolution" is used, the default would always be biological evolution, NOT chemical.

What do you mean by the term scientist being used and abused?

I know that it is abused when scientists that have valid degrees are treated as second-class citizens and falsely demoted to "so-called scientists" or similar things if they happen to state that they believe creationism is true.

[Insidious Rex]

They are still scientists. They are just wrong.

[rohirrim TR]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

They are still scientists. They are just wrong.

HA, I love it, you don't agree, so they're wrong.

[BeardofPants]

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

How about the term "naturalist"?

Is that the people that run around in the buff? What are you trying to say hector ???

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by BeardofPants

Is that the people that run around in the buff? What are you trying to say hector ???

Say? I just dropped in here (not to post anything serious, I promise) and saw a little trouble with terms...

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by rohirrim TR

HA, I love it, you don't agree, so they're wrong.

Your cause and effect needs a little work there.

Well we dont have to call them 'wrong'. How about just mistaken?

[Nurvingiel]

About the degree thing... just because a person has a degree doesn't meen he's a scientist. It might be an English degree. This degree is also perfectly valid and the holder's opinions shouldn't be looked down upon.
I realize this is a little tangential.

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Several more points to ponder about whether or not the two are linked:

1. If the chemical evolutionists finally did an experiment where they went from some chemical combination to a living cell, do you guys think Talk Origins would headline it? Why or why not?

2. Why is the Miller-Urey experiment featured in school textbooks in the evolution section?

1. What is Talk Origins? Judging solely by their name and their context in this thread, which implies that they are a forum for discussing the origins of life, I would say they would feature it. Chemical evolution, as has already been mentioned, is one theory about the origins of life. I don't really see why you're asking this though, I mean, Talk Origins will feature it if they feel like it.
However, doesn't it go chemicals -> RNA -> another step or something -> RNA is part of living cell? (See academic disclaimer below. )
While this complex experiment isn't necessarily impossible, I don't think we can currently re-create all the necessary conditions. However, this would be the awesomest experiment ever and I hope someone does it.

2. IIRC, the Urey-Miller experiment tested the theory of RNA strands evolving due to the presence of certain abiotic conditions and chemicals in the environment.
I can just imagine my first year biology prof who has a blue belt in tae kwon do threatening to kick me in the head for abusing this theory so much. ) It has been 3 years since I studied this experiment so if I make a mistake, this does not necessarily mean this experiment and/or related theories are faulty.
Academic disclaimer aside, I think it's interesting to discuss a theory about the origins of RNA along with explaining the structure and function etc. of RNA. These discussions also lead nicely into talking about evolutionary theory, theories about the development of RNA into DNA (see disclaimer), and other ideas related to evolutionary theory.

EDIT: Actually IR, Rohirrim TR does have a point. You usually employ very logical arguments when you say why you feel someone is wrong. I thought your tongue was firmly in cheek when you said that; tone is hard to discern from text.

[Count Comfect]

I know that it is abused when scientists that have valid degrees are treated as second-class citizens and falsely demoted to "so-called scientists" or similar things if they happen to state that they believe creationism is true.

I agree that insulting their education, if that is done, is an abuse. However, attention must be given to the absolutely unscientific nature of the theories they are expounding*. Having obtained a degree does not make you automatically a scientist - it is an indicator, yes, because to obtain that degree you have to have been a scientist in the past. But that does not mean that you are acting scientifically now. My mom has a geochemistry PhD... she works as a writer and editor. I would not feel comfortable with her being cited as a 'scientist' in an argument. I feel you have to look at what they are doing first - is it scientific? If not, they are not acting as a scientist - and then look towards prior qualifications.

*Have you read any of Michael Behe's (chief witness for the defense in the Dover trial) testimony? The man runs in circles.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by rohirrim

HA, I love it, you don't agree, so they're wrong.

Ahh, the omniscience of IRex in action!

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

1. What is Talk Origins? Judging solely by their name and their context in this thread, which implies that they are a forum for discussing the origins of life, I would say they would feature it.

No, TalkOrigins is a site for defending biological evolution against those pesky creationists. I guess they feel it needs defending.

Actually I think it's quite a good site in many ways, but makes some grave errors and oversights in its analyses.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Count Comfect

I agree that insulting their education, if that is done, is an abuse. However, attention must be given to the absolutely unscientific nature of the theories they are expounding*.

IYO, it's unscientific. That's what a part of this whole debate is about. IMO, there are definitely parts that are scientific, and those are the ones that I think we should be fighting for.

*Have you read any of Michael Behe's (chief witness for the defense in the Dover trial) testimony? The man runs in circles.

No, I haven't read any of the Dover stuff. I was mainly interested in the Kansas stuff, where they did not advocate actually teaching ID. I think it's too much in its infancy to be taught yet, although I think the concept worthy of a mention because we already DO analyze things to decide if they're natural or designed.

I think the most promising area of ID is signal analysis, which is certainly scientific. But that's just an ex-radar-person speaking

[Count Comfect]

It posits a supernatural explanation for events. It does not provide proof of said supernatural force's existence, save pointing at nature and saying "it is complex, therefore it is designed." Without proof, the supernatural is inherently [UN]scientific. Science looks for natural causes for phenomena.

[Rían]

I believe that is not true, and I'll try to explain why again, hopefully a little better

(What, are you guys like my kids, not listening to me? (joke!) )

I'll see if I can pick up the subject and try again on Monday, esp. for Nurvi, with a general overview of what I think is the scientific part and why

(do you mean "unscientific" in your third sentence?)

[Count Comfect]

(yes, thank you).

We're like your kids? You're like the kids I used to teach (joke.)

I'm not saying that ID or creationism are wrong. I do believe that they are wrong - don't misunderstand me there - but that is a separate contention. Here I am just saying this, in its most basic form:

Science studies only the natural
ID and creationism posit the supernatural
Therefore ID and creationism are not science

Says nothing about whether the supernatural exists or not. But you must concede that given our present knowledge, a being capable of intelligent design or creation of life is supernatural. Godlike, perhaps. Real, perhaps. But supernatural regardless.

[Rían]

(teacher, teacher, I don't understand ... can I go to the bathroom? )

More Monday - I've come down with a cold, and I have soccer games in the morning and company in the afternoon...

I enjoy discussing things with you, Count

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by rohirrim TR

what i mean is that it gets thrown around with very little meaning, and i think it has been overused. in any event if i used the word scientist to mean evolutionist it would be terribly inaccurate at the very least, for there are just as many scientist out there who are supportive of ID and creation, and have just as much evidence to support their theorys as ToE claims to. Anyway i know BJ was joking because he had a * * in there.

i was kinda joking but not really

evolution is a scientific theory, so people who study it are scientists

ID and creation are NOT scientific theories, so people who study it are NOT scientists (they may be scientists according to other things they study, but not when it comes to ID/creation)

ID/creation has NO SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE... ZERO, ZILTCH, NADA, NAUGHT!!!

[BeardofPants]

Interesting article from newscientist:

Astrology would be considered a scientific theory if judged by the same criteria used by a well-known advocate of Intelligent Design to justify his claim that ID is science, a landmark US trial heard on Tuesday.

Under cross examination, ID proponent Michael Behe, a biochemist at Lehigh University in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, admitted his definition of “theory� was so broad it would also include astrology.

The trial is pitting 11 parents from the small town of Dover, Pennsylvania, against their local school board. The board voted to read a statement during a biology class that casts doubt on Darwinian evolution and suggests ID as an alternative.

The parents claim this was an attempt to introduce creationism into the curriculum and that the school board members were motivated by their evangelical Christian beliefs. It is illegal to teach anything with a primarily religious purpose or effect on pupils in government-funded US schools.

Supporters of ID believe that some things in nature are simply too complex to have evolved by natural selection, and therefore must be the work of an intelligent designer.

Peer review

Behe was called to the stand on Monday by the defence, and testified that ID was a scientific theory, and was not “committed� to religion. His cross examination by the plaintiffs’ attorney, Eric Rothschild of the Philadelphia law firm Pepper Hamilton, began on Tuesday afternoon.

Rothschild told the court that the US National Academy of Sciences supplies a definition for what constitutes a scientific theory: “Theory: In science, a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses.�

Because ID has been rejected by virtually every scientist and science organisation, and has never once passed the muster of a peer-reviewed journal paper, Behe admitted that the controversial theory would not be included in the NAS definition. “I can’t point to an external community that would agree that this was well substantiated,� he said.

Behe said he had come up with his own “broader� definition of a theory, claiming that this more accurately describes the way theories are actually used by scientists. “The word is used a lot more loosely than the NAS defined it,� he says.

Hypothesis or theory?

Rothschild suggested that Behe’s definition was so loose that astrology would come under this definition as well. He also pointed out that Behe’s definition of theory was almost identical to the NAS’s definition of a hypothesis. Behe agreed with both assertions.

The exchange prompted laughter from the court, which was packed with local members of the public and the school board.

Behe maintains that ID is science: “Under my definition, scientific theory is a proposed explanation which points to physical data and logical inferences.�

“You've got to admire the guy. It’s Daniel in the lion’s den,� says Robert Slade, a local retiree who has been attending the trial because he is interested in science. "But I can’t believe he teaches a college biology class."

The cross examination will continue Wednesday, with the trial expected to finish on 4 November.

Newscientist

[Nurvingiel]

Interesting article Boppy. And RÃ*an and Count Comfect, you guys rock. I like reading your discussions.

RÃ*an, what did you think of my answer to question 2 (about the Urey-Miller experiment and stuff)? Feel free to wait after soccer and company.

[Curubethion]

What about Miller-Urey? Didn't they mix together a bunch of hypothetical molecules and come out with only one or two of the many amino acids that exist today?

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

Interesting article Boppy. And RÃ*an and Count Comfect, you guys rock. I like reading your discussions.

Thanks! Ditto with you. I think you have the knack of distancing yourself from your opinions and analyzing something on its merits, which not a lot of people can do, IMO.

RÃ*an, what did you think of my answer to question 2 (about the Urey-Miller experiment and stuff)? Feel free to wait after soccer and company.

Interesting stuff, I agree! The reason I brought it up, tho (oops - THOUGH, sorry! ) was to show yet another link between evolution (biological evolution) and origin of life stuff that is so often vigorously denied. My feeling is that it is vigorously denied in the same way as an embarassing relative is denied - "who, that lady over there with the lampshade on her head? Never seen her!"

The connections are undeniable. They are made in mainstream science. I have provided links and examples from textbooks. I hope I have cleared that one up for good. Yes, they are separate fields. But to say they have nothing to do with each other is just wishful thinking on the part of evolutionists, IMO.