How to teach evolution & Evidence for Creationism

[Rían]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

this is interesting...

current definition...

proposed change...

they do not sound terribly different, but i find it interesting that he lost the phrases "adhere to strict empirical standards" and "a healthy skeptical perspective" ...

No, NO! They did NOT take out those phrases - they're still there. Look at page 3 again

[Rían]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

i find this statement from his proposed changes interesting too... whether we are "accidents of nature" or "intelligently designed" has absolutely nothing to do with whether we have "intrinsic purpose"... even if we assume their is an "intelligent designer", this does not mean that we were designed for a purpose... and it certainly does not automatically give us "intrinsic" purpose

those who prefer intelligent design would like to think we were designed for a purpose (preferable a good one ) ... but this is just as much an individual decision as is my own to just take purpose out of existance itself... it's "bad science" implying such a purpose without proof (or even a guess) at what this purpose is

This is an important area - it should be obvious that scientific information, whether it's right or wrong, can and does have huge implications for society.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

i find this statement from his proposed changes interesting too... whether we are "accidents of nature" or "intelligently designed" has absolutely nothing to do with whether we have "intrinsic purpose"... even if we assume their is an "intelligent designer", this does not mean that we were designed for a purpose... and it certainly does not automatically give us "intrinsic" purpose

those who prefer intelligent design would like to think we were designed for a purpose (preferable a good one ) ... but this is just as much an individual decision as is my own to just take purpose out of existance itself... it's "bad science" implying such a purpose without proof (or even a guess) at what this purpose is

This is an important area - it should be obvious that scientific information, whether it's right or wrong, can and does have huge implications for society.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by rohirrim TR

so you think we should consider the alien theory on equal footing with theorys that actually have scientific evidence?

i'd say go with the evidence theories first (evolution), but don't ignore the one's without scientific evidence... god, aliens, etc.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

No, NO! They did NOT take out those phrases - they're still there. Look at page 3 again

i'm referencing page 21, where he speaks about modifying the definitions in the textbook's glossary (i should have been more clear)

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

No, NO! They did NOT take out those phrases - they're still there. Look at page 3 again

i'm referencing page 21, where he speaks about modifying the definitions in the textbook's glossary (i should have been more clear)

[rohirrim TR]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

in the individual perception is reality... all i can ask is that you consider all the alternatives equally

i'd say go with the evidence theories first (evolution), but don't ignore the one's without scientific evidence... god, aliens, etc.

I respect your beliefs, however I do not quite understand your logic, what evidence is there for evolution? if you have any please present it here

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

This is an important area - it should be obvious that scientific information, whether it's right or wrong, can and does have huge implications for society.

if you are "a believer" yes, some kind of proof that puts serious doubt upon your religious belief system may change things for you, but it doesn't have to

i'm not "a believer" and never have been, and i didn't turn out all that bad and even if god came down to my house tomorrow to prove that he really did exist, it really wouldn't change my day to day

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

This is an important area - it should be obvious that scientific information, whether it's right or wrong, can and does have huge implications for society.

if you are "a believer" yes, some kind of proof that puts serious doubt upon your religious belief system may change things for you, but it doesn't have to

i'm not "a believer" and never have been, and i didn't turn out all that bad and even if god came down to my house tomorrow to prove that he really did exist, it really wouldn't change my day to day

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Eärniel

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.

My point is that you accept them as scientists, even though they look at things and do NOT attempt to provide a naturalistic means for them getting there. Science means knowledge; the scientists I listed don't limit themselves to considering only naturalistic explanations, and origins scientists shouldn't, either.

There are hallmarks of design that all the scientists that I listed above look for, and origins scientists should be allowed to do the same thing. The SETI and Mars lander scientists would be the closest thing to what the origins scientists should look for - they look for specified complexity and irreducible complexity, and no one would think them out of place to do so. The same should be true of origins scientists.

This whole idea of "we can only look for naturalistic causes in science" is a new concept. For hundreds of years, that was not the case, and there's no reason for it to be the case now. Science just meant (and should still mean) "knowledge". Many scientists were Christians, and that certainly didn't stop them from making many brilliant discoveries. Why this fear-mongering tactic among some evolutionists, where they say that if a scientist thinks that God created the earth, he'll then just hang up his cloak and go home? Certainly, that didn't happen in the past, and doesn't happen now, either.

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.

I don't use the word "proof" here; I only use "evidence". There can be NO proof in the area of origins, at least as far as the historical elements. Origins science is a historical science, and the most important elements of a theory CANNOT be proven, for they cannot be observed!

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.

What is looked for among proponants of ID are the things listed above - specified complexity and irreducible complexity - because those things are the hallmarks of intelligent design for intelligence as we know it, divine or not divine. As more scientists are revolting against the zealot evolutionists that are out there (and that list of 100 scientists that I mentioned a few months ago has grown to over 400 now), this field is growing.

We'll NEVER know, on this earth, if we came about via naturalistic means or supernatural means, but just like the anthropologists, archaeologists, planetary scientists, and SETI scientists, we can sure examine the evidence and make conclusions on the reasonableness of the two alternatives.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

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

There is absolutely NO difference - your "scientist" investigator has a very firm belief that Mr. MacroEvolution/naturalism did it, and your "creationist" investigator has a very firm belief that Mr. God did it.

Look at the historical evidence, brownie! Darwin said that the study of fossils was in its infancy, and that if the record in the coming years didn't support his idea of slow, gradual changes, that that would invalidate his theory. Well, the record did NOT support his idea of slow, gradual changes, but did the evolution community drop their belief that macro evolution occurred? No, they did NOT! They merely said that gee, there must be another way that macro evolution occurred, and came up with the idea of Punctuated Equilibrium.

That's critical, brownie - they did NOT drop their BELIEF (unproven and unproveable, by its very historical nature, just like creationism) that macro-evolution occurred.

Also, Darwin wrote that the raw material for changes was brought about by use/disuse changing characteristics that were then passed on to the offspring. His example was that giraffes who stretched for leaves made their necks longer, and lived better, and reproduced better, and - this is critical - passed on their newly acquired characteristics to their offspring. We now know, through knowledge gained thru scientific studies, that this is TOTALLY WRONG! yet the BELIEF that macroevolution takes place was NOT DROPPED, even though one of the two critical components was proven totally FALSE!

If this isn't a belief system, I don't know what is.

[rohirrim TR]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

if you are "a believer" yes, some kind of proof that puts serious doubt upon your religious belief system may change things for you, but it doesn't have to

i'm not "a believer" and never have been, and i didn't turn out all that bad and even if god came down to my house tomorrow to prove that he really did exist, it really wouldn't change my day to day

actually none of this evidence contradicts the bible in fact all of the new evidence supports the biblical view of creation

In fact the only belief system being challenged here is evolution I certainly hope that the evidence changes something for you; I'm afraid the evolutionist must have a lot more faith in a "belief system" than any christian I know

[rohirrim TR]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

if you are "a believer" yes, some kind of proof that puts serious doubt upon your religious belief system may change things for you, but it doesn't have to

i'm not "a believer" and never have been, and i didn't turn out all that bad and even if god came down to my house tomorrow to prove that he really did exist, it really wouldn't change my day to day

actually none of this evidence contradicts the bible in fact all of the new evidence supports the biblical view of creation

In fact the only belief system being challenged here is evolution I certainly hope that the evidence changes something for you; I'm afraid the evolutionist must have a lot more faith in a "belief system" than any christian I know

[Rían]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

if you are "a believer" yes, some kind of proof that puts serious doubt upon your religious belief system may change things for you, but it doesn't have to

No, no, no, I don't mean that - I'm talking about things like how IRex says his position on abortion depends on what science finds out about the fetus. Also, IIRC, the founder of Planned Parenthood believed in eugenics, based on Darwin's philosophy. Also, based on Darwin's philosophy, blacks and Jews were considered to be an inferior, less-well-adapted branch-off of the human race for quite a while, which sure made it easier to overlook abuses.

Another thing is the current debate over the fetal anasthesia bill - many scientists and doctors believe that fetuses can feel pain quite early on in their development, and that it is only ethical that if their mom chooses to abort them, that they should get some pain relief before their limbs are sawed off, etc. A report came out recently saying that they couldn't feel pain before the 29th week - however, was it only coincidence that the two leading authors had major ties with NARAL and other major pro-abortion groups? The report seemed seriously flawed in several areas, the main one being that apparently their judgement of if the fetus felt pain or not was if it verbalized it (I need to do more research on this, tho), which is totally silly to expect from a fetus. The thing is, our neonatal care is so advanced now that we have really, really young preemies, much earlier than 29 weeks, in our hospitals, and no one doubts that they can experience pain, even tho they don't say "ouch!"

Things like this are what I mean by how scientific information greatly influences society.

I'm not "a believer" and never have been, and i didn't turn out all that bad

You're sweet! *chaste, friendly Entmoot kiss*

and even if god came down to my house tomorrow to prove that he really did exist, it really wouldn't change my day to day

Well, that remains to be seen ...

[Rían]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

if you are "a believer" yes, some kind of proof that puts serious doubt upon your religious belief system may change things for you, but it doesn't have to

No, no, no, I don't mean that - I'm talking about things like how IRex says his position on abortion depends on what science finds out about the fetus. Also, IIRC, the founder of Planned Parenthood believed in eugenics, based on Darwin's philosophy. Also, based on Darwin's philosophy, blacks and Jews were considered to be an inferior, less-well-adapted branch-off of the human race for quite a while, which sure made it easier to overlook abuses.

Another thing is the current debate over the fetal anasthesia bill - many scientists and doctors believe that fetuses can feel pain quite early on in their development, and that it is only ethical that if their mom chooses to abort them, that they should get some pain relief before their limbs are sawed off, etc. A report came out recently saying that they couldn't feel pain before the 29th week - however, was it only coincidence that the two leading authors had major ties with NARAL and other major pro-abortion groups? The report seemed seriously flawed in several areas, the main one being that apparently their judgement of if the fetus felt pain or not was if it verbalized it (I need to do more research on this, tho), which is totally silly to expect from a fetus. The thing is, our neonatal care is so advanced now that we have really, really young preemies, much earlier than 29 weeks, in our hospitals, and no one doubts that they can experience pain, even tho they don't say "ouch!"

Things like this are what I mean by how scientific information greatly influences society.

I'm not "a believer" and never have been, and i didn't turn out all that bad

You're sweet! *chaste, friendly Entmoot kiss*

and even if god came down to my house tomorrow to prove that he really did exist, it really wouldn't change my day to day

Well, that remains to be seen ...

[Rían]

(have fun without me the next few days, guys! I'll be in Arizona, celebrating my parents-in-law's 50th wedding anniversary )

[Rían]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

so it is based on the writings in the bible as opposed to any geological evidence?

that is perfectly acceptable, but once again, it is not science

And macro-evolution is based on thoughts in people's heads, not geological evidence. And that's not science, either.

And then both are tested against the geological evidence - that's where the science part comes in. And if evolutionists are honest, they'll admit that at least some of the evidence supports YEC more than billions-year-old earth. And as an honest creationist, I think that some of the available evidence supports evolution more than creationism.

Sadly, however, I think few people are as honest as I am when considering the evidence.

[Spock]

ok Rian, where in Az., it's my former home.

[Rían]

Prescott

Been there?

[Spock]

Sure have. We have relatives in Scottsdale and miss Sedona something awful.