How to teach evolution & Evidence for Creationism

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Blackheart

That would be a really big thread

There's a lot of evidence for evolution, most of it well known, at least the basics.

What is bothersome is that even if there are gaps in the evidence, there's still no credible evidence supporting a competing scientific theory.

So it's doubly bothersome when someone proposes a theory that is based soley on a gap in the evidence, which doesn't explain all the evidence, is often contradicted by evidence from OTHER fields of science, and contains completely untestable statements, and then insists that it is a scientific theory worthy of equal consideration. Not to mention ignoring other testable theories on why gaps in the evidence might exist.

It's one thing to throw up those kinds of objections from a philosophical point of view. That's acceptable, though rather pointless unless you are trying to illustrate epistomological issues...

But to insist that you are doing so from a scientific point of view is only doing one thing. Illustrating that you don't know what you are talking about.

Well I completely agree - but this is relgious creationcentric thread [Edited by azalea -- personal comment] I would like Rian to summarize what independent evidence there is for creationism - without bringing up flaws in evolution or bringing god or the bible into it. [Edited by azalea -- personally directed comment] A viabl theory should be able to stand on it's own without resorting to having to disprove a competing theory.

As for the thread - it was also to talk abou how science does not support creationism. [Edited by azalea -- points may be made or questions asked in this thread about evolution and where it differs from creationism]

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Yes, that certainly seems odd, and apparently you misunderstood me and/or missed by clarifying post

I said that if I was NOT a Christian, and I thought the evidence supported creationism (in the larger sense of intelligent design), then I wouldn't think that the God of the Bible was in charge. I would think whatever god/superintelligence I happened to believe in was in charge.

But you are a CHRISTIAN and anyway - you NEED a mystical being for creationism to work. But opart of the problem I see is that YOU NEED the bible to be right. In everything you argue, from this to homosexuality is in terms of what the bible says.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Yes, that would be "bothersome" indeed I'm not aware of anyone here having done that

Well I do and I'm quoting that person right now. There is not one explanation you do write without bringing in the problems of evolution to support your claims. What does whether evolution works or not have to do with supporting creationism. To me it's just a way to try shoring up your weak arguments and theory that can't stand on it's own evidence. But hey - that's just me from listening to you post about this for 2 1/2 years - what the hell would I know about the subject?

[Rían]

Please refer to my data posts

Originally Posted by jd

But opart of the problem I see is that YOU NEED the bible to be right.

JD is wrong, and has no authority or right to speak for me

[Rían]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

As for the thread - it was also to talk abou how science does not support creationism. But alas - that is not allowed - so now we are stuck with a creationcentric thread instead. My free expression has been hindered. Oh well.

BTW, it's fine with me if you want to talk about your thread topics over here. We can give it a try, but it might be too cumbersome, I don't know - but it's ok with me if we give it a try

BTW, reading your quote, I have a question for you on this subject - from what I can tell, your opinion is that creationism is outside the realm of science, right? (please correct me if I'm wrong [edited by azalea for ambiguous phrasing]) If creationism is outside the realm of science, then how can we "talk abou how science does not support creationism."?

[Rían]

NOTE - as thread-starter, in order to keep on-topic, I have moved the disagreements over to a new thread, called "Philosophies of Disagreements" (or something like that). Let's get back on topic here, please.

[jerseydevil]

[Edited by azalea -- personally directed comments]

BTW, reading your quote, I have a question for you on this subject - from what I can tell, your opinion is that creationism is outside the realm of science, right? (please correct me if I'm wrong, for I certainly would not want to speak for someone else's thoughts!) If creationism is outside the realm of science, then how can we "talk abou how science does not support creationism."?

No - that isn't my opinion - wrong again. GOD has no place in science - that is what I have a problem with. Science can show that we did or we did not pop out of thin air. I think the creaionism is junk science because it relies on people to use flaws in evolution to back it up - or religion and the bible has to be used in the argument. Well god is not proveable - nor scientific - therefore you can not base your scientific theory of creation by throwing god in there.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

NOTE - as thread-starter, in order to keep on-topic, I have moved the disagreements over to a new thread, called "Philosophies of Disagreements" (or something like that). Let's get back on topic here, please.

My disagreements aren't with you in that thread - my disagreements are in this thread - therefore they will stay here. Or am I not allowed to excercise my free expression?

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

I"m sorry, I don't quite understand your wording - do you mean you'd like to give us a brief discussion on the topic? If so, I'd like to hear it I took organic and inorganic chem at uni, but that's it.

There's a very interesting book out by a biochemist called Darwin's Black Box, where he discusses biochemical issues in relation to evolution.

That's not my background, but I could try to dig up comments from scientists on what you bring up, and I"m always interested in learning!

Darwin's Black Box, by Michael Behe, I've been reading it for about a night now. "Darwin on Trial" by Phillip E. Johnson is recommended by me.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

It won't work because the only thing you want to discuss is religion or how you are correct in creationism.

That is incorrect.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

That is incorrect.

Whatever rian - no one is correct but you. You say things repeatedly in posts - but then nothing is true. You said you never indicate that your beleifs are logical and rational and might I add "common-sense" - yet I gave you many quotes where you do. Enough said.

[Rían]

Here's IRex's post that I wanted to talk about :

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

As I see it theres four scenarios (as far as this debate is concerned at least):

1. Science Only: Evolution is a natural aspect of our universe and there is no guiding or initiating force involved.

2. Initializer: An "Intelligent Designer" has set things in motion either at the big bang or somewhere along the way. He has made the rules and brought together the ingrediants and everything just spirals naturally from there. There is no further guidance. In this way evolution becomes the natural aspect of the divine.

3. Guider: An "Intelligent Designer" started stuff as above but also subtly (or not so subtly) took part in guiding his design toward a preconcieved goal. In this way evolution becomes the direct tool of the divine.

4. Old Testament Creationism: God created the heavens and the earth! Sorry... an "intelligent designer" did... And he created all known creatures in whole form purposefully and with exacting perfection. In this way evolution is simply an illusion.

So then the real key is finding evidence for EACH of the above scenarios. We already have reams for the first one. Who wants to tackle the other three...

Now IRex, what do you mean that in option 4, "Evolution is simply an illusion"? What aspects of evolution are you talking about?

[Rían]

More on IRex' post - in option 1, "Science Only: Evolution is a natural aspect of our universe and there is no guiding or initiating force involved."

See, again, I think the problem here is the use of the word "evolution". People mean so many different things by that word. When you say "evolution" in this context, what exactly do you mean?

And another thing - what do you mean by "initiating force"? If it's what I think you mean, then wouldn't that be outside the realm of science?

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

what is going on with these threads?

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Last Child of Ungoliant

what is going on with these threads?

hey you're off topic - but we're now allowed to bitch about creationism and how it's junk science in here.

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

so um, the red queen effect...

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

My disagreements aren't with you in that thread - my disagreements are in this thread - therefore they will stay here. Or am I not allowed to excercise my free expression?

you mean like certain people arent allowed to excercise their free expression in the why im glad to be in a free country thread? What was that about "entmoot isnt a country stupid"? I recall being told that several times.

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

Personally, I like Evolutionism theories to try to explain our origins. Though Creationism theories are also good, I feel that ultimately, they are too easy of an answer. (Though, perhaps I'm misunderstanding the theory.....)

Allow me

To me, the reason evolution seems impractical is that it makes (seemingly) a mountain out of a molehill. Scientists like to zoom up on the molehill, and to them it looks like a mountain.
Why do we have to think that the earth's beginnings had to be complicated? And why do most atheists look at creationism as "cheap, convenient, magical"? Creationism is no more convenient than evolution. I look at Science (not the same as Evolution) as something that had to exist as a result of our existing; God made us from dust, material, and science as we all know, has to do with the study of. Science is like clothing I like to think, but it is not the whole picture.

My citing the mountain of a molehill is for this: complexity does not equal life. Just because the Theory of Evolution is complex and scientific and makes sense in theory does not prove anything, IMO. I say the more complex and scientific, the more probability of creation through a creator. Let me add another word, Sophistication. The world is not only complex, it is sophisticated. No amount of time (IMO), material, and explosions could have brought about this planet that works to support life. And then there are the genes (EACH ONE) in our body that are more complex than the Encyclopedia Brittanica (I always preferred the Americana myself). Deep down in every part of genes and strands and all that other stuff that makes me dizzy, there is complexity and sophistication.

Note! I said that complexity does not equal life, and later I seem to contradict myself. I am actually saying that just because Evolution is a complex theory etc...and my further comments on complexity have to do with complexity pointing to a creator...etc.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Now IRex, what do you mean that in option 4, "Evolution is simply an illusion"? What aspects of evolution are you talking about?

Well if we assume creation word for word as stated in the bible then animals never evolved. They just came into being in whole form. and therefore all the evolutionary mechanisms we have found through the course of scientific study and observation must be an illusion.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

you mean like certain people arent allowed to excercise their free expression in the why im glad to be in a free country thread? What was that about "entmoot isnt a country stupid"? I recall being told that several times.

Ahh - pretend you don't see my point - that's fine. The fact is that everyone was screaming about freedom of expression - which actually the use of the word "USAmerican" isn't about freedom of expressiojn - since she could freely express what she was saying by using the word "American". But I wouldn't expect you to understand or even to know the hypocracy you have in the situation. Oh well.