How to teach evolution & Evidence for Creationism

[Rían]

Thank you, admins and mods

I notice the thread titles were changed, so that raises a question - where do we discuss where we think there are problems with the evidence? As thread starter in THIS thread, it's fine with me to discuss problems people have with the evidence, either for evolution or creationism, in addition to the evidence FOR them. I don't think it's profitable to just say "such-and-such supports this" and not allow any disagreements, IOW.

So as thread-starter here, I have no problem - in fact, I encourage - critical analysis of data presented, as long as the analysis is polite to the PERSON that gave the data. Please critize DATA, not PEOPLE, in this thread. IOW, please don't say things like "that's stupid!" or "no one believes that!"

Also, please don't question the integrity or validity of degree-holding scientists with statements along the lines of "real scientists don't believe that!" or "that's obvious he's just saying that because of his beliefs!" It's a FACT that degree-holding scientists fall on both sides of the question If their university saw fit to grant them a degree, who are we to say they don't deserve it? If you can see problems with their analysis or conclusions, then by ALL means point it out! but DON'T strip a scientist of their hard-earned degree and their right to comment on something in their field of expertise. If they are making scientific observations about data in their field, then they are making scientific observations about data in their field! It's that simple.

Also, please be very accurate about quotes here. Feel free to quote people, but please do it in context and in complete sentences OR an incomplete sentences with ellipses (...). This thread is not for "winning" anything; it's for good, intelligent, honest discussion, and hopefully learning on both sides. Please do NOT draw conclusions beyond what a person has explicitly stated - please grant each person the right to speak for themselves and explain what they think.

So let's continue, and Jon, I'm looking forward to your post on bio-stuff (technical term ), if you're still willing to make it.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

So as thread-starter here, I have no problem - in fact, I encourage - critical analysis of data presented, as long as the analysis is polite to the PERSON that gave the data. Please critize DATA, not PEOPLE, in this thread. IOW, please don't say things like "that's stupid!" or "no one believes that!" or "real scientists don't believe that!" It's obvious that degree-holding scientists fall on both sides of the question

I don't see how questioning the validity of the scientists who support creationism is attacking the person. As for the other two comments - I don't recall anyone saying that something was stupid or "no one believes that". As for degreed scientists being on both sides - that may be true, but scientists must LEAVE their religion at the lab door as I have said many times. Sorry - all the proof I have seen presented they do not do that one requirement when it comes to creaionism.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by jd

I don't see how questioning the validity of the scientists who support creationism is attacking the person.

I'll pull it out into a separate statement, then, instead of trying to explain it. Give me a minute to edit.

Originally Posted by jd

As for the other two comments - I don't recall anyone saying that something was stupid or "no one believes that".

I could be wrong, but I seem to recall some statements like that... However, it's irrelevant whether I'm right or wrong in that memory. The point is, I am requesting that people don't make statements like that.

Originally Posted by jd

As for degreed scientists being on both sides - that may be true, but scientists must LEAVE their religion at the lab door as I have said many times. Sorry - all the proof I have seen presented they do not do that one requirement when it comes to creaionism.

I certainly think that all scientists should act the same way, no matter what side they are on. They all need to evaluate their hypotheses fairly and scientifically and objectively.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

I certainly think that all scientists should act the same way, no matter what side they are on. They all need to evaluate their hypotheses fairly and scientifically and objectively.

I still hold that bringing god or beliefs into a scientific hypothesis is not science. And I still see no evidence presented for creationism that does not bring god or the "scientist's" biblical beliefs into the equation.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Also, please don't question the integrity or validity of degree-holding scientists with statements along the lines of "real scientists don't believe that!" or "that's obvious he's just saying that because of his beliefs!" It's a FACT that degree-holding scientists fall on both sides of the question If their university saw fit to grant them a degree, who are we to say they don't deserve it? If you can see problems with their analysis or conclusions, then by ALL means point it out! but DON'T strip a scientist of their hard-earned degree and their right to comment on something in their field of expertise. If they are making scientific observations about data in their field, then they are making scientific observations about data in their field! It's that simple.

I see you have edited it. I WILL question the validity of the scientists. Just because they got a degree does NOT mean that they are good scientists or that they have left their religious beliefs outside the lab. Not being able to question the scientists leaves out a very valid argument against the validity of creationism. This is becoming a very one-sided discussion with all your rules.

BTW - you have COMPLETELY edited your post, you didn't just edited that one part.

[Earniel]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

I notice the thread titles were changed, so that raises a question - where do we discuss where we think there are problems with the evidence?

What's wrong with doing it here? If we're discussing here what one considers evidence, I don't see the problem in discussing it here when somebody else doesn't see that particular part of information as evidence.

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

As thread starter in THIS thread, [...]So as thread-starter here, [...]

Don't go hogging the thread, dear.

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

As thread starter in THIS thread, it's fine with me to discuss problems people have with the evidence, either for evolution or creationism, in addition to the evidence FOR them. I don't think it's profitable to just say "such-and-such supports this" and not allow any disagreements, IOW.

RÃ*an, please keep in mind that SGH specifically stated:

Discussion of Creationism and Evolution will be discussed in their designated threads and will not enter the others.

We are aware that evolution and creationism run through one another on several levels, yet I'd advise you (all) to keep them seperated as much as possible. The center of this particular thread will be and must remain mainly creationism, both the evidence and the problems people will have with them. Likewise with the evolution-thread, that one must remain mainly about evolution. I believe this is indeed the best for both discussions. We don't want both threads to turn into virtual copies of one another where identical, parallel discussion are held.

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

i really want to continue the debate, but it would seem that i have run out of steam, oh well...

[Insidious Rex]

Your asking for trouble if we arent allowed to discuss evolution in a thread about creationism. Part of the discussion is a comparison of the issues. You should make one thread and call it EVOLUTION OR CREATIONISM or something. Otherwise youll need to moderate every other post. or maybe thats the idea...

[Sister Golden Hair]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Your asking for trouble if we arent allowed to discuss evolution in a thread about creationism. Part of the discussion is a comparison of the issues. You should make one thread and call it EVOLUTION OR CREATIONISM or something. Otherwise youll need to moderate every other post. or maybe thats the idea...

Did we not try that already? Then the title was changed implying that evolution was not welcome to be discussed and therefore the "Evolution" thread was made

[Insidious Rex]

Hey can we split up the Homosexual Marriage thread into one thats "Evidence for homosexual marriage" and one thats "evidence for Heterosexual marriage"?

*allows to sink in*

Its the same issue. Take away the "evidence for" in the titles for both threads and youd have a point (we could talk about evolution in pure form and try to talk about creationsism in pure form). But discussing the prevailing issues regarding creationism and not being able to say the word "evolution" (and vice versa) is next to impossible.

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

hey, IR, you said 'evolution' in here get out, bad, bad man!!

[Insidious Rex]

From now on it will be referred to as the E-word

*stern big brother look*

[Sister Golden Hair]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Hey can we split up the Homosexual Marriage thread into one thats "Evidence for homosexual marriage" and one thats "evidence for Heterosexual marriage"?

*allows to sink in*

Its the same issue. Take away the "evidence for" in the titles for both threads and youd have a point (we could talk about evolution in pure form and try to talk about creationsism in pure form). But discussing the prevailing issues regarding creationism and not being able to say the word "evolution" (and vice versa) is next to impossible.

I'm not disagreeing with you IR. I wish it had worked the last time we tried it. I'll see what the other mods think and what Rian has to say. It might not happen today though.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

I still hold that bringing god or beliefs into a scientific hypothesis is not science. And I still see no evidence presented for creationism that does not bring god or the "scientist's" biblical beliefs into the equation.

Then I hope that you choose to ignore any comments from scientists that have publically stated that they are atheists, since their beliefs will NOT let them consider anything other than entirely naturalistic processes.

I will consider ANY statement that ANY scientist has to state, and I will evaluate it fairly and honestly. And I ask that other people be willing to do this, too.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Then I hope that you choose to ignore any comments from scientists that have publically stated that they are atheists, since their beliefs will NOT let them consider anything other than entirely naturalistic processes.

I will consider ANY statement that ANY scientist has to state, and I will evaluate it fairly and honestly. And I ask that other people be willing to do this, too.

NO - it's a matter of the scientist keeping religion out of the issue - how many times do I have to say that? If a scientist brings his christianianty into his theory - then the science is flawed. Cojtrary to your statement - scientists who support evolution do not attempt to answer whether it is purely a naturalistic process or if there is a god.

An atheist scientist can support animals poping up on earth from nothing - if the science supports that. The issue is DOES the evidence support this without bringing god into it. God and religion is NOT science. So again - it has NOTHING to do with whether a scientist is religious or not - it has to do with whether they bring their religious beliefs into the equation.

Evolution does not look as whether there is a god or nor - it merely looks at the evidence. It does not attempt to answer, nor should it attempt to answer, whether there is a god or not. So if you can support "creationism" without god - then that is science.

Yu have to be able to present your evidence from a purely non-religious standpoint in a scientific manner. If you can not do that - then it is not a scientifically supported hypothesis, but is merely based on fairytales.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

This is becoming a very one-sided discussion with all your rules.

"all my rules"? What rule(s) to you object to? Be polite to others, subject ideas from all scientists to analysis, and/or quote accurately? The only reason I even had to ask for these rules in the first place is that some people have violated them before and the thread has been shut down as a result, even though the majority of people have kept them without ever having to have been asked, and we've had many, many interesting and enjoyable posts on this thread without any conflict. The concept of honoring the requests of thread-starters is certainly a time-honored one at Entmoot, and if a person doesn't like the thread, then they are free to not post on it. There are many threads that I don't care for here, and I just don't post on them.

BTW - you have COMPLETELY edited your post, you didn't just edited that one part.

Why did you use the thing?! Do you have a problem with me editing my own posts?! I don't get it.

Did you see the "reason for editing" line I put at the bottom? You objected to one part, and I edited it, and I added some stuff for clarification. What in the world is wrong with that? I don't understand.

[Rían]

We are aware that evolution and creationism run through one another on several levels, yet I'd advise you (all) to keep them seperated as much as possible. The center of this particular thread will be and must remain mainly creationism, both the evidence and the problems people will have with them. Likewise with the evolution-thread, that one must remain mainly about evolution. I believe this is indeed the best for both discussions. We don't want both threads to turn into virtual copies of one another where identical, parallel discussion are held.

That's fine with me

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Sister Golden Hair

I'm not disagreeing with you IR. I wish it had worked the last time we tried it. I'll see what the other mods think and what Rian has to say. It might not happen today though.

It's fine with me either way, SGH. I don't really care. My personal preference is that one focuses on creationism and proving/disproving it (including info on evolution), and the other focuses on evolution and proving/disproving it (including info on creationism), but I'll go with whatever you guys want.

I really just want to have a polite and intelligent discussion on the scientific aspects of creationism and evolution, that's all.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

"all my rules"? What rule(s) to you object to? Be polite to others, subject ideas from all scientists to analysis, and/or quote accurately? The only reason I even had to ask for these rules in the first place is that some people have violated them before and the thread has been shut down as a result, even though the majority of people have kept them without ever having to have been asked, and we've had many, many interesting and enjoyable posts on this thread without any conflict. The concept of honoring the requests of thread-starters is certainly a time-honored one at Entmoot, and if a person doesn't like the thread, then they are free to not post on it. There are many threads that I don't care for here, and I just don't post on them.

The fact that you say that one can not question the validy of the scientists is ridiculous. And as for people being polite - that is all well and good, but I'm not just going to let you get away with whitewashing your evidence. As for people violating the rules - I don't recall anyone violating the rules of the thread.

Why did you use the thing?! Do you have a problem with me editing my own posts?! I don't get it.

Did you see the "reason for editing" line I put at the bottom? You objected to one part, and I edited it, and I added some stuff for clarification. What in the world is wrong with that? I don't understand.

I used the smilies because you changed mroe of your quote than just the first part. I don't think it required you to change your post - you could have just responded and put another post. You had completely rewritten your comments and added more things in there.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

It's fine with me either way, SGH. I don't really care. My personal preference is that one focuses on creationism and proving/disproving it (including info on evolution), and the other focuses on evolution and proving/disproving it (including info on creationism), but I'll go with whatever you guys want.

I really just want to have a polite and intelligent discussion on the scientific aspects of creationism and evolution, that's all.

So does that mean that religion will be kept out of the discussion since you want SCIENTIFIC aspects discussed? I hope so - then we can actually have a SCIENTIFIC discussion. I also hope that in the supporting of creationism that you will refrain from bringing in why you think that evolution does not make sense. A theory should stand on it's own - if it can not - then it is not a valid theory if it relies on problems with the competing theory.