How to teach evolution & Evidence for Creationism

[Rían]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

NO - it's a matter of the scientist keeping religion out of the issue - how many times do I have to say that? ...

We're totally losing the focus of the thread again. Different people have different opinions. You and I disagree - it's that simple. To me, I don't care WHAT a scientist believes - I evaluate their scientific statements scientifically. And I also point out the problem with scientists that are atheists supporting a theory that involves naturalism. You disagree. But to make it easier, I just say let's not bring the beliefs of a person into the discussion - let's evaluate scientific information scientifically.

Jonathan, are you going to post something in your area? If not, I'll get something together by Monday to restart the discussion

[Rían]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

The fact that you say that one can not question the validy of the scientists is ridiculous.

How can we evaluate if a person earned their degree or not? It seems to me that the best idea is to evaluate the statements a scientist says. Otherwise there is NO discussion - you object to scientists I quote and I object to scientists you quote, and then no one discusses anything. Why not just allow quotes from any degree-holding scientist and evaluate the evidence they present?

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.

I don't understand this accusation.

I used the smilies because you changed mroe of your quote than just the first part.

You object that I edited my own post?

I don't think it required you to change your post - you could have just responded and put another post.

You object that I edited my own post? Do you think I should ask your opinion if something is "required" before I edit my post? I really, REALLY don't understand this.

You had completely rewritten your comments and added more things in there.

You object that I edit my own post? I don't get it I really don't.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

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.

A scientist that happens to believe in creationism has a perfect right to make a scientific comment about something. For example, a geneticist who believes in creationism can look at the genetics aspect of evolution and make perfectly valid comments on what he/she sees. That's what I"m talking about.

[Rían]

Could we please just discuss the topic? Many people are interested in discussing it, and many people are willing to hear from scientists, regardless of their background. JD, if you, personally, aren't comfortable accepting the scientific opinion of a degree-holding scientist who is a creationist, then feel free to say so, but please don't hinder others who DO want to hear scientific info from scientists of all backgrounds

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

We're totally losing the focus of the thread again. Different people have different opinions. You and I disagree - it's that simple. To me, I don't care WHAT a scientist believes - I evaluate their scientific statements scientifically. And I also point out the problem with scientists that are atheists supporting a theory that involves naturalism. You disagree. But to make it easier, I just say let's not bring the beliefs of a person into the discussion - let's evaluate scientific information scientifically.

That would be great. I'm waiting for you to do that and present your evidence ins a PURELY SCIENTIFIC way. Evolution is not about NATURALISTS - it's about the evidence. Again pleae listen - it does NOT attmept to answer whether god had a hand in evolution or not, it merely presents the SCIETIFIC aspects. You seem to be stuck on this concept though.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

A scientist that happens to believe in creationism has a perfect right to make a scientific comment about something. For example, a geneticist who believes in creationism can look at the genetics aspect of evolution and make perfectly valid comments on what he/she sees. That's what I"m talking about.

And I have a right to evaluate whether the scientist is bringing religion into it or not. If a higher being is required for the theory - then it can not be scientific. You can disagree all you want - but that is a fact. God can NOT be a issue in pure scientific evaluation.

[Fat middle]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

That would be great. I'm waiting for you to do that and present your evidence ins a PURELY SCIENTIFIC way. Evolution is not about NATURALISTS - it's about the evidence. Again pleae listen - it does NOT attmept to answer whether god had a hand in evolution or not, it merely presents the SCIETIFIC aspects. You seem to be stuck on this concept though.

I believe that you all in this thread are mistaken

A true SCIENTIFIC method does not look for evidence but for the denting of evidence. I think that nowadays Popper's theory of falsability is still the most accepted episthemology, so it doesn't really matter if God's involved or if an unknown natural force is involved: all that SCIENTIST can assure is what's not in the begining of the universe.

It's true, however that most scientists (and Popper would avail it) will not even consider the possibility of God because, since they consider that God cannot be experimentally falsable, they'll say it (He) falls out of the scientific ground.

The only little problem with this is that what can be falsable and what not is not a scientific question

[Sister Golden Hair]

The thing is that we are discussing evidence. Evidence is based on facts. If evidence exits for creationism through science, then it must be based on solid scientific fact finding. You can not use religion or the bible or god to back up scientific evidence on creationism, because there is no evidence to back up your back up.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Fat middle

I believe that you all in this thread are mistaken

A true SCIENTIFIC method does not look for evidence but for the denting of evidence. I think that nowadays Popper's theory of falsability is still the most accepted episthemology, so it doesn't really matter if God's involved or if an unknown natural force is involved: all that SCIENTIST can assure is what's not in the begining of the universe.

It's true, however that most scientists (and Popper would avail it) will not even consider the possibility of God because, since they consider that God cannot be experimentally falsable, they'll say it (He) falls out of the scientific ground.

The only little problem with this is that what can be falsable and what not is not a scientific question

You seem to not understand what I was saying - whereas SGH does. God is not taken into the scienific equation. Scientists look a the findings and come up with hypothesis. Theories are not based on disproving something - but on evidence that suggests something is the case and is SUPPORTED by the evidence. Since you can not prove or disprove god - it must be taken out of the equation. TRUE scientitifc study does NOT attempt to say whether god exists or not or had a role in the development of life on earth.

[Jonathan]

Originally Posted by Sister Golden Hair

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

If it didn't work well having just one thread, I'm afraid it won't work at all having two. Where am I supposed to post evidence against creationism/evolution? I mean, evidence for one side can very often be used as evidence against the other side. Should I post my evidence in both threads or what?

Evidence for and against creationism and evolution are like, um... Sigfried and Roy . To have two separate threads doesn't make sense and is stupid IMO.

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Jonathan, are you going to post something in your area? If not, I'll get something together by Monday to restart the discussion

Oh, right. Forgot what I was going to post . I'll have a look at it again and then post it in... which thread am I in now?... Oh, I'll post in the other, parallel thread.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Jonathan

If it didn't work well having just one thread, I'm afraid it won't work at all having two. Where am I supposed to post evidence against creationism/evolution? I mean, evidence for one side can very often be used as evidence against the other side. Should I post my evidence in both threads or what?

Evidence for and against creationism and evolution are like, um... Sigfried and Roy . To have two separate threads doesn't make sense and is stupid IMO.

Why? There have been two seperate threads before and actually the CREATIONISM thread was a BRANCH OFF from an evolution thread. So I don't see the problem with having TWO again. Especially since in my observation this thread is being controlled too much in terms of what can be considered scientific evidence. The thread I started is NOT to bring god into it at all. It is to talk about the SCIENTIFIC evidence of EVOLUTION and to discuss how science does NOT support creationism. Rian's is the opposite and routinely brings god into the equation which is bad science.

[jerseydevil]

Jonathan had posted a link http://www.ebonmusings.org/evolution/index.html on the evolution page which explains very well my position on creationism and some of the things Rian is stating and explains much of what I have been trying to narrow down with Rian....

Explain the scientific evidence without resorting to debunking evolution.

...Creationism is not a theory -- it is a mass of conflicting attempts to discredit evolution. It advances no positive claims; it makes no testable predictions; in fact, it possesses no positive evidence of any sort whatsoever. Creationist literature is replete with claims of the form "Evolution couldn't have happened because of X," but it seems they never get around to finding evidence that specifically supports their own arguments.

The above is what I was saying - give evidence for creationism that stands on it's own without resorting to attacks on evolution. This is something I have not seen done yet in terms of the creationist argument.

Evolution is a science, and thus deals only in what can be known. It restricts itself to empirical facts and consistent, logical theories about the world derived from those facts.

...the claim, made by countless creationists, that evolution is inherently atheistic, or that it denies the existence of God. However, this is not true. It is true that evolution stands in opposition to a narrowly literal reading of a small portion of a particular religion's scripture, but this is a far cry from the sweeping accusations made by its detractors. Contradicting one possible interpretation of one chapter of one holy book is hardly the same as denying the very possibility of the existence of God.

An emerging trend in creationist tactics is to attack, not just evolution, but the very underpinnings of science itself. Specifically, some creationists (especially the advocates of "intelligent design") claim that a basic guiding principle of science known as naturalism is flawed, biased and should be thrown out.

To explain why this cannot and must not be done, and indeed is antithetical to the very nature of science itself, some relevant background information must first be provided.

...naturalism is one of the basic principles around which all of science is organized. It states that supernatural causes and events must be ruled out; that everything that happens must have an understandable cause that is based on empirical evidence and obeys physical laws and causality.

...restriction to natural causes for natural events is what gives science its explanatory power. Divine intervention and miracles are ruled out; scientists cannot explain an event by saying "God did it". They're not allowed to postulate that angels push the planets around in their orbits, or that insanity is the result of possession by malignant spirits, or that thunder and lightning are caused by angry deities, or, for that matter, that atomic nuclei are stable because tiny pink leprechauns hold the protons together. And, of course, the kicker, the one that gets creationists so upset: They're also not allowed to say, "Six thousand years ago, God created the heavens and the earth, and the beasts of the field, the fish of the sea, and the fowl of the air, and created he man in his own image." Such a statement would be unscientific. Not necessarily wrong - just unscientific. If supernatural events do occur, science cannot study or explain them.

...ID, like other non-naturalistic hypotheses, is entirely reliant on God's will, and in a scientific equation God's will is a free variable, able to adapt to any situation; whatever we find, that's the way God wanted it, but we can never know in advance what God will want. Unlike evolution, ID cannot exclude anything - it can never tell us what we should not expect to find - and therefore it is powerless to predict the future. If science were this way, it would be useless.

As people can see naturalism is NOT the lack of belief in god, but is actually that it does not attmept to ANSWER whether there is a god or not. It only looks at the PHYSICAL evidence, not mythical beliefs which are not proveable. As it says - science would be completely useless if you include a god into the equation - because then anything at all is possible.

[Fat middle]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

You seem to not understand what I was saying - whereas SGH does. God is not taken into the scienific equation. Scientists look a the findings and come up with hypothesis. Theories are not based on disproving something - but on evidence that suggests something is the case and is SUPPORTED by the evidence. Since you can not prove or disprove god - it must be taken out of the equation. TRUE scientitifc study does NOT attempt to say whether god exists or not or had a role in the development of life on earth.

You seem to have failed to view that that's exactly what I've said and that it's near to what SGH says, although she says it as a mere axiomatic statement (that it isn't).

The only difference between tour post andmine is that I also comment about the validity of the definition of science: it's validity resides in that's commonly accepted but not in SCIENTIFIC evidence. Science depends on a sort of democratic consensus (about its philosophical basis) among the scientists.

... but it cannot be scientifically proved

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Fat middle

You seem to have failed to view that that's exactly what I've said and that it's near to what SGH says, although she says it as a mere axiomatic statement (that it isn't).

The only difference between tour post andmine is that I also comment about the validity of the definition of science: it's validity resides in that's commonly accepted but not in SCIENTIFIC evidence. Science depends on a sort of democratic consensus (about its philosophical basis) among the scientists.

It is scientitifically accepted - so I'm not sure what you are saying here? First you say that "it's validity resides in that's commonly accepted" - then you say but not in SCIENTIFIC evidence. Then you say "science depends on a sort of democratic concenus among scientists." You seem to be contradicting yourself here. And actually - evolution is based on SCIENTIFIC evidence. Evidence of the fossils, evidence in the gological record, etc.

... but it cannot be scientifically proved

That doesn't mean that it's not scientifically supported by the evidence though. Was eistein scientific? His theory of relativitiy, etc? What about the astromers who say they have found new planets outside our solar system? They don't actually SEE them - but the evidence is there by the reaction of the stars that there are large bodies orbiting around them. Is that not science?

[Rían]

I'm back from a nice, busy weekend, and I'll start to (re)build my case now on why I think the evidence which can be evaluated scientifically supports creationism more than evolution.

First of all, I'll deal with some of the higher-level issues involved, which IMO will make the discussion move along better, because we'll be on the same page; or if we aren't, then at least we'll all know what page we're all on.

Sir Francis Bacon, considered the founder of the scientific method, gave a pretty straightforward definition of science : observation --> hypothesis --> test hypothesis by experiment --> proof/disproof --> knowledge. And this is still how scientists operate today, as well they should.

Now of course this view depends upon some MAJOR philosophical assumptions, such as the law of non-contradiction, the basic reliability of our senses, and the law of causality. All of these must be accepted by faith,(i.e., they cannot be "proven in a lab") and yet science cannot operate without their acceptance. I imagine most of you guys are aware of the works of Hume, Kant, Aristotle and others in these areas.

I'll give a brief definition of these things for those who are not familiar with them. I imagine most people would say these things are true, but they might not be familiar with the technical names for these concepts, so I'll briefly explain them.

1. The law of non-contradiction:
The law of non-contradiction is basically this: "A cannot be A and non-A at the same time and in the same sense or relationship." Or in the words of Aristotle, it is "impossible that contrary attributes should belong at the same time to the same subject." This may sound simple and obvious, but IMO it should be mentioned, because this is a philosophical law that is one of the most important foundations of science. IOW, one can't say, "This magnet attracts the paper clip, and it doesn't attract the paper clip." This sounds silly, but it is really important, because we often base conclusions on eliminating possibilities. Again, this is a philosophical foundation of science. If we don't take this on faith, then there is no science, because one can't form conclusions without using this law.

2. The basic reliability of our senses:
Yes, our senses have limitations. Yes, our senses can mislead us. But this law states that our senses are basically reliable. And science is nonsense without this law, for how can we observe things and draw conclusions from them if our senses aren't reliable? This law is basically just to get rid of the useless claim of, "yes, the evidence seems to point to that very strongly, but what if our senses are misleading us?", which only seems to be said when a person is losing an argument If our senses cannot be basically relied upon, why even bother to do a scientific experiment? So this is another foundational philosophical aspect of science.

3. The law of causality:
This law is basically, "Every effect must have a cause." Note that it's not every "thing"; it's every "effect". This is a "formal" or "analytical" truth. IOW, it's true by definition, because the very definition of an effect includes that it is the result of some cause. (Another example of a formal truth would be "all bachelors are unmarried men." The definition of "bachelor" includes the fact that they are unmarried, so this statement is analyticaly, or formally, true, or is true by definition.) Again, this may sound like an obvious truth, but it's very important to recognize, IMO, for science works by analyzing effects. And this is a third critical foundation of science that is philosophical; and science cannot operate without this law.

SO - there's some info to re-start the discussion on creationism. Do you guys all agree that these 3 things are true, and that science cannot operate without them? Or do you disagree, and if so, why?

refpost

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

I'm back from a nice, busy weekend, and I'll start to (re)build my case now on why I think the evidence which can be evaluated scientifically supports creationism more than evolution.

I hope you will stick to your support for creationism without resorting to the very erroneous method by backing up your claims by attacking evolution. If you can't do that - then you don't have a good scientific argument in SUPPORT of creationism.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

SO - there's some info to re-start the discussion on creationism. Do you guys all agree that these 3 things are true, and that science cannot operate without them? Or do you disagree, and if so, why?

refpost

I disagree with the first one which doesnt apply on the quantum level. On the quantum level one thing can be two different things. One thing can be in two places at the same time. And nowhere all at once. And ultimately, the things we observe in the every day world can be broken down into quantum components.

[Rían]

But Rexy, you're not looking at the rest of the sentence, which is critical: "...and in the same sense or relationship." That makes all the difference. Given that part of the sentence, I don't see how your example works.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Eärniel

Don't go hogging the thread, dear.

Eärniel, I'm not hogging the thread I'm just trying to keep the thread alive for those of us who really enjoy discussing it and can do so in a polite and considerate manner. Jonathan and I and some others were just starting to discuss some very interesting topics, and then ... some things changed and the thread got temporarily shut down.

I have no authority at Entmoot, besides the semi-kindof-authority of a thread starter (which is pretty universally acknowledged here). I'm really interested in discussing these topics, and so are many others, and we were talking about them intelligently and considerately ... and then some things changed and the thread got temporarily shut down. So ALL I was trying to do was express some preferences and make some requests (as thread starters do all the time!) to hopefully increase the chances of keeping the thread open and letting the Mooters enjoy it

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Eärniel, I'm not hogging the thread I'm just trying to keep the thread alive for those of us who really enjoy discussing it and can do so in a polite and considerate manner. Jonathan and I and some others were just starting to discuss some very interesting topics, and then ... some things changed and the thread got temporarily shut down.

I have no authority at Entmoot, besides the semi-kindof-authority of a thread starter (which is pretty universally acknowledged here). I'm really interested in discussing these topics, and so are many others, and we were talking about them intelligently and considerately ... and then some things changed and the thread got temporarily shut down. So ALL I was trying to do was express some preferences and make some requests (as thread starters do all the time!) to hopefully increase the chances of keeping the thread open and letting the Mooters enjoy it

What changed? Nothing changed other than you being asked a question which in my opinion you didn't wish to answer and taking offense by the tone. It wasn't about politeness it was about calling you on something that IMO you don't want to face.

Oh and I don't plan on going anywhere from this thread. I think you beat around the bush too much and don't give straight forward answers on the evidence of CREATIONISM without bringing evolution in on it. If I see you continue to try to support creationism by criticizing evolution - I will call you on it (since no one else seems to do it).