How to teach evolution & Evidence for Creationism

[The Gaffer]

EDIT DUPLICATE POST

[The Gaffer]

EDIT DUPLICATE POST

[The Gaffer]

I think this tactic of casting evolutionists as "religious" is quite clever. Because then you can say "well, it's just another belief system" so all sides of the story should be told.

Two things about this:
1) it's absolutely, completely NOT about belief systems in this way.
2) it's interesting that such a relativist argument should be used to support an absolutist world view

Also, Rian, with the greatest respect, I don't think you've answered the question about "Why Evolution?"

There are lots of areas where there's evidence that doesn't fit the theory. I mentioned my own experience of quantum chemistry as an example. In which other areas are you attempting to elevate the standards of science thusly?

BTW, I liked your joke about being the only side of the argument who could ever know for sure that they are right.

[The Gaffer]

I think this tactic of casting evolutionists as "religious" is quite clever. Because then you can say "well, it's just another belief system" so all sides of the story should be told.

Two things about this:
1) it's absolutely, completely NOT about belief systems in this way.
2) it's interesting that such a relativist argument should be used to support an absolutist world view

Also, Rian, with the greatest respect, I don't think you've answered the question about "Why Evolution?"

There are lots of areas where there's evidence that doesn't fit the theory. I mentioned my own experience of quantum chemistry as an example. In which other areas are you attempting to elevate the standards of science thusly?

BTW, I liked your joke about being the only side of the argument who could ever know for sure that they are right.

[Butterbeer]

RÃ*an Quote:
Originally Posted by Grey_Wolf
That's as good a theory as any.


It's certainly on-par with macro-evolution's claims!

Well, there we go that's that settled then: the third way: a happy compromise: the martians did it! ... that'll be really popular in schools too!


(... but how were the martians created? evolution or creationism ?... )

[Butterbeer]

RÃ*an Quote:
Originally Posted by Grey_Wolf
That's as good a theory as any.


It's certainly on-par with macro-evolution's claims!

Well, there we go that's that settled then: the third way: a happy compromise: the martians did it! ... that'll be really popular in schools too!


(... but how were the martians created? evolution or creationism ?... )

[HOBBIT]

Uh, you are serious? Thats kind of insulting to those that don't believe in Creationism - not humorous.

And I've never said that it was ridiculous to believe in "Creationism" or "Intelligent Design" - certainly possible, but not scientifically backed up. It is called belief. Evolution is scientifically backed up.


1. Archeologicaly finds are scientifically backed up - what are you talking about?

Why wouldn't "evolutionists" believe in human artifacts? That makes no sense. What are you getting at? *shrug*

2. Safe to say that a majority (if not all) of the people at NASA follow evolution (regardless of what religion they may be. People at NASA are very smart guys If they find evidence of life on Mars - how does that go against Evolution??!! It doesn't.

Those lifeforms would have just evolved on Mars...... What is your point?

3. Scientists in SETI aren't creationists (maybe some, but certainly not all) - so what are you saying? The existence of alien life does not go against evolution.

[Earniel]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

I hope everyone here is willing to be logically consistent. If you guys will agree to abide by this standard, then I challenge the evolutionists who have said that creationism/ID is entirely outside of the scientific realm to do the following.

Sorry RÃ*an, but I absolutely fail to find the logically consistancy or reasoning in your following situations. Frankly, I would find them terribly embarassing too. Archaeologists are people who, in my experience (and especially if their field is early humans and their predecessors) know better than anyone the differences between objects made by human hands and made by natural causes. These people have to be experts in both human techniques and geological processes. One only has to look at early human-made stone tools to see how hard it is to determine whether they're man-made or not.

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

do you mean you wouldn't say those things to those 3 groups of people, yet you would criticize those who look for indications of intent and design in the area of origins?

Could you please explain what you think the difference is?

It is not about critizing people who look for indications of intelligent design, by all means let them go ahead. It is an interesting subject. It's about giving criticism (well, at least in my case ) on people who claim to have found such proof and call it conclusive.

One can very likely determine the influence of either natural phenomena or human activity on objects. One can determine something is man-made when it does not occur in the natural world in that fashion. Sometimes it's hard to tell, if for example humans use natural processes to get something done. But at this point one simply CANNOT scientifically determine the influence of devine beings.

[Grey_Wolf]

Originally Posted by Butterbeer

Well, there we go that's that settled then: the third way: a happy compromise: the martians did it! ... that'll be really popular in schools too!


(... but how were the martians created? evolution or creationism ?... )

The Martians were, are and will forever be, thus they were not created, they just were.

[Grey_Wolf]

Originally Posted by Butterbeer

Well, there we go that's that settled then: the third way: a happy compromise: the martians did it! ... that'll be really popular in schools too!


(... but how were the martians created? evolution or creationism ?... )

The Martians were, are and will forever be, thus they were not created, they just were.

[Spock]

...intriguing.....and there is a case for alien seeding of earth too but I'm not jumping into this now....conserving energy

[Spock]

...intriguing.....and there is a case for alien seeding of earth too but I'm not jumping into this now....conserving energy

[rohirrim TR]

Originally Posted by Eärniel

It is not about critizing people who look for indications of intelligent design, by all means let them go ahead. It is an interesting subject. It's about giving criticism (well, at least in my case ) on people who claim to have found such proof and call it conclusive.

One can very likely determine the influence of either natural phenomena or human activity on objects. One can determine something is man-made when it does not occur in the natural world in that fashion. Sometimes it's hard to tell, if for example humans use natural processes to get something done. But at this point one simply CANNOT scientifically determine the influence of devine beings.

nowhere in science can you prove that natural phenomena can create life out of nothing and that is what this debate comes down to, it is a scientific fact that life must come from life erego we could not have just exploded out of a lightning bolt.

therefore in the words of sherlock holmes when you eliminate the impossible whatever is left however improbable is the answer

[Spock]

Aliens?

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

do you mean you wouldn't say those things to those 3 groups of people, yet you would criticize those who look for indications of intent and design in the area of origins?

Could you please explain what you think the difference is?

that's the whole point... as i explained earlier RÃ*an, science is all about criticism and open-ended theorizing... if i actually thought those things you mentioned were valid criticisms, i'd have no problem making them... and there are plenty of valid criticisms made all the time about every theory out there

embrace criticism, don't fear it

here's an analogy explaining "the difference" between science and creationism... think of it like a murder investigation:

scientist investigator: hears about a murder and goes to the scene of the crime looking for clues, interviewing people, checking on the victims history, friends and family... all in hopes of finding a motive as to why someone (and this could be anyone) would want to kill this person... he may come up with theories (or suspects) along the way... but these conclusions are open to change as further evidence presents itself

creationist investigator: hears about a murder and is told by a highly-trusted friend that "joe smith" was the murderer... he proceeds to do the same thing as the scientist (looking for clues, interviewing people, checking on the victims history, friends and family), but all he is really looking for is evidence that proves his assumption true (that "joe smith" was the murderer), or disproves any theories the scientist investigator may come up with... the fact of the matter is, no matter how much contrary evidence is found, he will continue to believe that "joe smith" was the murderer because he trusts his friend who told him so that much

both are methods of investigation... but one is open while the other is narrowed by assumptions... assumptions not based on fact either... that is the difference

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Why should we stop teaching science? I'd just like evolution to be back on the same playing field as the rest of the sciences.

it is... whether or not you choose to see it or not... you are projecting the extreme pov as the norm

go to a science class if you can this coming september... i'll bet you that in the first week they will discuss the scientific process and the difference between theory and fact

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Why should we stop teaching science? I'd just like evolution to be back on the same playing field as the rest of the sciences.

it is... whether or not you choose to see it or not... you are projecting the extreme pov as the norm

go to a science class if you can this coming september... i'll bet you that in the first week they will discuss the scientific process and the difference between theory and fact

Ok, I'm back...wow there's been a lot going on here.
Ok, first I'd like to object to the terms scientists vs. creationist. May not seem like a big deal, but there are plenty of scientists who are creationists, and plenty of non-creationist scientists who don't buy into evolution.

By the way, those who came up with evolutionary thinking had their own assumptions. Well before radiometric dating and well-organized paleontology, there were those scientists who denied the interference of God and started coming up with a way of explaining the universe without him. This is just as much an assumption. Everyone has their own worldview, their own set of assumptions about the universe. The evidence that they see is filtered through their worldview. We are even assuming that our senses are providing us with accurate information.

Stating that evolutionary theory is based on an un-biased examination of the world just isn't realistic.

And we're not just trying to find evidence to fit our worldview, we take the evidence that's already there and it fits.
The fossil record is easily explained by a world-wide flood. Especially since many fossils seem to have suffered sudden, violent burial. An Icthyosaur was found in the middle of giving birth, animals have been found in the middle of eating other animals. Fossils normally happen when the body is buried quickly, otherwise they would rot and fall apart.

Quoted from brownjenkins:
though obviously you could just say "god made it that way 6,000 years ago" ... but if you take that route basically "anything goes" and any observation or deductions are essentially meaningless

That is handy, isn't it? Assuming an all-powerful God makes it much easier to explain the universe. Not what suggesting here though since there's a bed of coal underneath the ice which would have been laid down during the flood. Incidentally, I haven't been able to find any info on your 400,000-year-old ice core, if you could point me to that I'd be able to get a better handle on it. The "oldest" ones I've heard of are claimed to be somewhere between 100K and 150K years old.

[Earniel]

Originally Posted by rohirrim TR

nowhere in science can you prove that natural phenomena can create life out of nothing and that is what this debate comes down to, it is a scientific fact that life must come from life erego we could not have just exploded out of a lightning bolt.

therefore in the words of sherlock holmes when you eliminate the impossible whatever is left however improbable is the answer

I disagree that that is what this debate comes down to. I do agree with you that there is scientifically very little to go on to explain the very origin of life. (Which is why mentions of life on other planets is such exciting news and an interesting field of study, don't you agree? )

But evolution-theory does not deal with how the universe came into being out of nothing, that's a different field of study: astronomy. However, where you have the building blocks of life (i.o.w. carbon, oxide, hydrogen, ect..), life is at once not so impossible anymore. Evolution may deal with how life may have come into being when those building blocks were present but mostly, and I think foremost, it deals with how life may have changed due to certain influences in the course of the Earth's existance to what life we know today.

Evolution-theory has a far, far larger scope than the origin of life. Geological processes (not exactly or necesarily part of evolution-theories but since they are so often disputed by creationists, I thought I'd add them), genetic mechanisms, theories that try to give a reasonable explanation for the disappearance and the rise of new species are not necesarily worthless if life has NOT sprung from an uninviting primordeal sea. Whereas creationism depends UTTERLY on the existance and interference of a divine being. Take that out of the equasion and creationism and intelligent design lose their reason of existance.

There has been a question posed, why evolution...Well, that's very simply answered. Other scientific theories have their basis in fact.
Macro-evolution sees natural selection, assumes that the world came about on its own, and hypothesizes genetic mutation as a method of changing one species to another. We don't have a problem with evolution being taught, we're just very leery about teaching it with the same level of certainty as genetics, wave-particle duality, or valence elections. That's all.