How to teach evolution & Evidence for Creationism

[Nurvingiel]

Originally Posted by Falagar

I think the point he's making is that science doesn't follow rules, it is the rules.

I know you've already been quoted a couple times on this, but well said Falagar. I agree JD and Fal.

Originally Posted by me9996

God made the chicken first!!!

Lol!

I have to admit that I stole "headdesk" from another message board.

I'm interested to read what you post about scientific evidence for Creationism RÃ*.

[Rían]

I'm getting there with this very post!
(or maybe the next one )

(since I'm in such a strongly minority position here, I have to take my time and lay my groundwork. However, as many people point out, many great scientists have been in the minority position and then been proven right )

OK - so for the last three (or first three):

1. The world as we see it today was created by the God described in the Bible.
2. The world as we see it today was created by a purple turtle.
3. The world as we see it today was created by naturalistic processes.


As far as the purple turtle - as it stands, a scientist could just say, OK, well, nice thought. BUT - if that statement is then followed by something like this: "And therefore every night at midnight, people will turn into turtles for 2 minutes." - well, THEN a scientist can comment scientifically on it. THEN it falls into the realm of science - NOT before. That statement that I added PUTS it into the realm of science - that is a statement that is completely testable in the present with repeatable, measureable tests, and it is falsifiable. Now I think it's a very weak deduction, and there could be other reasons why we might turn into turtles, but the point is that before it was outside the realm of science, but this new aspect puts it into the realm of science. And what's more, it's even in the BEST part of the realm of science - the directly observable part.

Now if a scientific test shows conclusively that people do NOT turn into turtles for 2 minutes every night, then a SCIENTIST could make a valid SCIENTIFIC conclusion that the premise is not true as it stands. The world could very well have been made by a purple turtle - we'll never know for sure - but given that particular hypothesis (that if it WAS made by a purple turtle, we'd all turn into turtles for 2 minutes every night), it can be proven wrong scientifically.

The formation of hypotheses is critical.

[Insidious Rex]

*lost*

[jerseydevil]

I'm rather lost too.

But I will say that some of your statements are not based on science. You have to be able to OBSERVE something - but it does not necessarily have to be testable with things in the present. There are many things we see and observe that we see that something is the way it is - but we can not necessarily prove beyond doubt. Do we actually see under the earths crust the plates? or do we just know by the evidence that this makes sense by what we know about volcanoes, etc. No one has gone under and checked that there are plates rubbing against each other - nor have them been actually observed pushing and folding againsat each other. We do however see evidence to suggest this on the surface. But we don't actually observe the plates themselves.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

*lost*

OK - now for the last two!

Saving the best for last , I will now go over example 3 - the world as we see it was created by naturalistic processes, commonly known as evolution.

This one, like the creationism one, is scientifically untestable as it stands.

However, Darwin added some things to it that THEN made it come into the realm of science. He added that the mechanisms were pangenes and gradualism and natural selection. And he added things like "IF this is true, THEN we should see the following." And NOW we can analyze it scientifically.

Pangenes (that organisms change by USE and DISUSE and can pass these things on, like if a giraffe stretches his necks for high-up food, it will get a little longer, and this will be passed on to the next generation) were found to be scientifically false, by direct observation. This is fine and normal - science adjusts to things. Since it was found to be false, a new mechanism was proposed - beneficial mutations.

As I only want to mention evolution in order to make a point about creationism, I'll condense the next two - gradualism was determined to be false on the indirect evidence of the fossil record, and the theory was modified to punctuated equilibrium (or sometimes something similar, don't recall the name). Natural selection is pretty much a given - stronger things survive.

BEFORE these things were proposed, the concept of naturalistic evolution was NOT scientifically testable. AFTER they were proposed, evolution WAS scientifically testable, altho just like the purple turtle example, we will NEVER know for sure since we're talking about something in the past, and much of the important evidence is indirect and not in the present. IOW, deductions were made about the mechanisms because of the premise, but the premise itself is not directly testable, because it's in the past. And predictions were made based on the premise.

SO - as it stands, option 1 is ALSO not scientifically testable. HOWEVER, if we add mechanisms that ARE inside the realm of science, and predictions that are inside the realm of science, then scientists may now make valid scientific comments on it, just as they do on evolution and its proposed mechanisms and predictions.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Saving the best for last , I will now go over example 3 - the world as we see it was created by naturalistic processes, commonly known as evolution.

This statement is untrue. Evolution goes by scientific evidence. It does not attmept to answer one way or the issue of god. So it does not say whether the world was created by god or not. In order for it to be scientific though - it MUST be explainable through the confines of nature. To suggest anything would not be scientific.

As was posted before and I will post again...

Naturalism is Science

As stated before, 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...

...This restriction to natural causes for natural events is what gives science its explanatory power...

... a distinction must be made between methodological naturalism and metaphysical, or atheistic, naturalism. The former is what science employs, the belief that natural events have natural causes and that the physical world is logical and understandable. This principle is necessary to do science and can be held by both atheists and theists. The latter is the belief that there is nothing beyond those natural causes; in other words, that the supernatural does not exist. This is a personal belief that, while it may be held by some scientists, has no bearing on their work. Science itself, which uses methodological and not metaphysical naturalism, assumes that all events it can observe and study are natural in origin. It does not, however, claim that the supernatural does not exist; nor does it claim that it does exist. To make a statement either way would be beyond the bounds of science....

...aturalism is an absolutely essential part of science for the clear reason that naturalism is the only thing that gives science any explanatory power at all. With naturalism in place, scientists are forced to come up with answers backed by empirical evidence and logical, plausible explanatory theories. Without naturalism, there would be no such requirement, and scientists would be quite literally free to make up absolutely any answers they want...

...Without a need to come up with plausible, comprehensible explanations that obey physical laws, there is no need to do research - in other words, there is no need to attempt to broaden our comprehension, no need to understand anything better, no need to learn. The people who reject naturalism's role in science are proposing nothing less than that the growth of human understanding and science itself be brought to a halt. After all, once one has concluded a supernatural event occurred, there is nothing more that can be done, no further conclusions that can be drawn. Supernatural influence, by definition, is not testable, not falsifiable, not reproducible and not understandable; nor does it leave empirical evidence of any kind at all. If it were any of these things, or if it did leave evidence, it would no longer be supernatural, but natural.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

As I only want to mention evolution in order to make a point about creationism,

Sorry - you can not make a point about creationism by bringing evolution into the equation. This is a problem with your argument. You should be able to support creationism WITHOUT getting people confused about the facts of evolution. KEEP EVOLUTION OUT OF YOUR ARGUMENTS and stick to the scientific evidence for creationism.

[Rían]

(sorry, ppl, Nurvi asked me to respond to a post in the Theology thead, and now I'm out of time! )

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

Originally Posted by RÃ*

like if a giraffe stretches his necks for high-up food, it will get a little longer, and this will be passed on to the next generation

i am sorry but that has to be the worst statement, ever.
nobody has ever said that giraffes have long necks because they stretched o eat the taller acacias (i believe i posted along these lines in evolution, before the closing period) those which had the longer necks would be able to rech the tops of acacia trees, further from the thorns, and this would be passed on, not because some clever giraffe thought to himself "oh look, my neck is elastic, i will stretch to the top, and tell my kiddies to do the same"

Red Queen Effect/Evolutionary Arms Race

[Rían]

Yes, somebody has said that - in fact, Darwin did.

Read Darwin's The Origin of Species. It's in there, in chapter 5, "Laws of Variation", under the section "Effects of Use and Disuse".

So he was wrong! So what? That was the best he had at the time. I have no problem with him being wrong. My point is that he was wrong and the theory was adjusted accordingly. Darwin was a brilliant man. It's not his fault genetics wasn't very well developed. He went on what he had.

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

i meant on here, not generally

this is what i posted in the EforE thread:

I cite the "red queen" effect, or "evolutionary arms race"
In 'alice in wondrland', the red queen tells alice that to stay where she is, she must run as fast a she can, this is where the name for the theory comes from

Giraffes and Acacias
Acacias were once a low growing shrub fed upon by the ancestors of giraffes
eventually, the acacias with particularly sharp thorns were not eaten, thos that had smaller thorns got eaten, resulting in all acacias having spiky thorns. those giraffes with extremely long tongues were the only ones that managed to get to the succelent leaves, and survive. only those acacias with longer trunks would survive the giraffe attacks, then only those giraffes with longer necks manage to reach the succelent leaves on top of the trees, thus we arrive at the stage we have now - tall, spiky acacias, and giraffes with long necks and long tongues.

note - no stretching involved - this is current scientific theory, based on observation over the past 80 years or so

[Rían]

Did you know that's what Darwin thought? I think the evolution of the theory of evolution is very interesting! As I said, it's certainly no bad reflection on Darwin.

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

jus by-the-by, if anyone ever happen to see michael crichton's book 'the lost world', read the chapter called 'problems with evolution' nicely interesting

[Rían]

I'm coming back today to post here and complete my thought that was started with those 6 options. I'm going to keep it extremely brief, but I want to at least complete the thought. When the fun discussion on the theology thread slows down, I'll get into more detail here

We're down to the final question now, which was:

1. The world as we see it today was created by the God described in the Bible.

NOW - this is certainly untestable as it stands, just as "the world came about thru evolution" is untestable as it stands. So let's move on and add some details that ARE scientifically testable. And since we’re still talking about something that happened in the past, we can observe things in the present, but we have to use inference as far as what really happened in the past.

The particular model I'll discuss is Young Earth Creationism, or YEC. It’s basically the account in Genesis – the universe was created by forces outside of it in an initial creative act.

Assuming this account is true, then we should see the following:

1. In the fossil record, we should see a complex array of living systems, with well-defined features, many of which can still be seen today. Extinction may also be present, just as it is currently.

2. In biology, we should see mechanisms in place that provide for the basic reproduction and stability of living organisms.

3. In physics, we should see laws providing for the conservation of quantity and the decay of quality.


SO – with these three statements, we can move on to the scientific evaluation of available data.

[Rían]

Brief Scientific Evaluation of Data Fit to Hypotheses

1. In the fossil record, we should see a complex array of living systems, with well-defined features, many of which can still be seen today. Extinction may also be present, just as it is currently.

Evaluation: Evaluating the fossil record automatically puts us in the realm of indirect data. The first really abundant fossil layer is the Cambrian. What is actually seen in the Cambrian layer is many, many creatures of varying complexity, from simple to extremely complex. Some of these types are still around in the present time. Examples of things in the Cambrian layer are: sea urchins, sea lilies, snails, sponges, nautiloids, and trilobites. This layer contains almost ALL the major groups of sea life, including the most complex invertebrates, the nautiloids, and the highly complex trilobites. Extinction is evident, just as it is today. All the groups appear as separate, distinct, diversified lines in these deepest layers.


2. In biology, we should see mechanisms in place that provide for the basic reproductive stability of living organisms.

Evaluation: Now we are in the realm of directly observable data. What we observe, over and over, is the basic reproductive stability of living organisms. Changes to species are minor, and involve no gain of information, only LOSS of information in response to environmental stimuli. If an animal is bred for a feature, that means it LOSES information for other features, and is unable to gain it back unless bred with an animal with that information again, in which case it would only get back to what it started with. Change always hits limits, and viability is often decreased in order to breed the desired characteristics.


3. In physics, we should see laws providing for the conservation of quantity and the decay of quality.

Evaluation: First and second law of thermodynamics, two of the most universally observed laws in science.


End of very brief evaluation.

[Rían]

SO - there it is, a very brief summary of SOME of the scientific support for this theory.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

SO - there it is, a very brief summary of SOME of the scientific support for this theory.

You have a lot of assumptions in your posts there and is still not based on scientific evidence. For instance - how can you say that the reproductive mechanisms are stable?

[Nurvingiel]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

You have a lot of assumptions in your posts there and is still not based on scientific evidence. For instance - how can you say that the reproductive mechanisms are stable?

I'd say they're highly unstable, especially in humans.

[jerseydevil]

By the way - Rian in my opinion is still trying to explain the evidence for creationism by knocking evolution - while trying not to mention evolution. This is demonstrated with her comment about evolution not being testable and comparing it to the idea that god is untestable and that therefore they are in the same league scientifically.

Quoted from Rian...

1. The world as we see it today was created by the God described in the Bible.

NOW - this is certainly untestable as it stands, just as "the world came about thru evolution" is untestable as it stands. So let's move on and add some details that ARE scientifically testable. And since we’re still talking about something that happened in the past, we can observe things in the present, but we have to use inference as far as what really happened in the past.

This is the furthest thing from the truth. Science does NOT have to include labroatory experiments - which seems to be what Rian means by "testable". It has to be supported by the evidence at hand and as more evidence is obtained over the years, the theory must be able to hold up.

Has Evolution Been Proven?

No.

And many creationists would have us end the story there.

In reality, however, the situation is not so simple.To argue against evolution by saying, "It's only a theory; it hasn't been proven" is to demonstrate a severe misunderstanding of the nature of science, a misunderstanding which this essay will endeavor to correct.

It is true that evolution has not been proven. Neither has quantum theory, the theory of relativity, or even the theory of gravity.

There is obviously something else at work here.

Imagine that we are scientists seeking to explain some feature of the natural world. Based on the evidence available to us, we might construct a hypothesis - an educated guess - which we offer as that explanation. If, in time, more evidence turns up that supports our hypothesis, if our hypothesis is testable and falsifiable, and if our hypothesis can be used to make predictions which are proven to be correct - if all these things are true, then our hypothesis graduates to the status of a theory and, in time, becomes accepted scientific wisdom.

But how do we really know our original hypothesis was right? What if it completely misses the mark, but gives the right answers purely by coincidence? Or what if it is just an approximation, giving superficially correct answers while failing to capture the true reality of what's going on? How can we ever be sure that these things are not the case?

The answer is: We can't. This is why no scientific theory, including evolution, is ever considered to be proven. As more and more evidence accumulates to support a theory, our confidence in it grows. Eventually, a point may be reached where the weight of evidence supporting the theory is so enormous, so overwhelming, that further attempts to deny or question it would be futile. This is the case with the theory of evolution. But this is not absolute proof. Not even the best-supported, most thoroughly verified theories of science are put on a pedestal and considered infallible, since at any time, evidence might turn up that completely contradicts accepted knowledge and destroys an until then well-supported theory. We have no way of knowing that this will not happen.

This is not to imply that the theory of evolution is in any way tentative or uncertain. On the contrary, it is extremely robust, backed by over a hundred years of empirical evidence, experiment and observation. In all that time, not a single piece of evidence that seriously contradicts any part of it has ever turned up. Within the scientific community, evolution is not at all controversial and is no longer questioned; it is considered to be a fact, as simple and indisputable as gravity. While it can never be absolutely proven, it has come as close to attaining this status as it is possible for any scientific theory to be. To attack evolution by labeling it an "unproven theory" misses the point entirely. There is a saying in some scientific circles: "Proof is for mathematics and alcohol."

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

I'd say they're highly unstable, especially in humans.

What do you mean by "unstable"? Considering humans turn out humans every time, I'd say it's pretty observably stable! Considering the amount of babies born, in humans and every other animal, the amount of healthy babies born is astonishing. And the babies are always of the same type as the parents. There can be characteristics brought out in the offspring over time, but they are pre-existing, genetically, in the parents. There is no gain of genetic information. There are sometimes mutations, but they are usually rendered ineffective because of the brilliant scheme of getting half the genes from the mom and half from the dad.