How to teach evolution & Evidence for Creationism

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Those are some really old creationist tracks that have been debunked several times even on this message board nevermind in scientific circles. I mean the mud one has been abondoned by creationists because its such a poor argument. Same is true for the salt one.

i agree, but at least they are attempting to be scientific (though the motives may be a bit suspect)

[Rían]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

i read it before and i understand (i've heard your different evidence )...

I should have cut out the portion you just quoted - I was talking about the first part of the post. I was showing you that not all creationists will hold onto their theory if some really solid evidence for evolution (like what you mentioned) showed up.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

i read it before and i understand (i've heard your different evidence )...

I should have cut out the portion you just quoted - I was talking about the first part of the post. I was showing you that not all creationists will hold onto their theory if some really solid evidence for evolution (like what you mentioned) showed up.

[Grey_Wolf]

The reason for the specific number of 6000 years is that in the bible they didn't know of any higher numerals. Multiply with 750 000 and you'll get the correct number of years for the age of the Earth.

Remember we're dealing with ancient people (who wrote the biblical stories) who had no concept of how the Solar System was created and grew and how the planets revolved around the Sun and not the Earth.

[Grey_Wolf]

The reason for the specific number of 6000 years is that in the bible they didn't know of any higher numerals. Multiply with 750 000 and you'll get the correct number of years for the age of the Earth.

Remember we're dealing with ancient people (who wrote the biblical stories) who had no concept of how the Solar System was created and grew and how the planets revolved around the Sun and not the Earth.

[Rían]

(Guys, would you please keep evidence discussions over on the Evidence threads?)

Here's another thing about evolution that I think should be taught - I think it's important to know the scientific info that was available while Darwin was formulating his theory. One thing that I had mentioned before was the now-shown-to-be-false idea that use/disuse changes could be passed on to offspring. Another idea that was currently around at this time (and was shown to be false soon after by Pasteur) was spontaneous generation at the microbe level.

One could certainly see that if those were the prevailing scientific ideas, that it's easier to come up with a theory like Darwin did.

[Rían]

(Guys, would you please keep evidence discussions over on the Evidence threads?)

Here's another thing about evolution that I think should be taught - I think it's important to know the scientific info that was available while Darwin was formulating his theory. One thing that I had mentioned before was the now-shown-to-be-false idea that use/disuse changes could be passed on to offspring. Another idea that was currently around at this time (and was shown to be false soon after by Pasteur) was spontaneous generation at the microbe level.

One could certainly see that if those were the prevailing scientific ideas, that it's easier to come up with a theory like Darwin did.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Grey_Wolf

Remember we're dealing with ancient people (who wrote the biblical stories) who had no concept of how the Solar System was created and grew and how the planets revolved around the Sun and not the Earth.

And you "know" how the Solar System was created?

Not even an astronomer would say that.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Grey_Wolf

Remember we're dealing with ancient people (who wrote the biblical stories) who had no concept of how the Solar System was created and grew and how the planets revolved around the Sun and not the Earth.

And you "know" how the Solar System was created?

Not even an astronomer would say that.

[Earniel]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

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. [..]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.

I'm afraid I still don't see the entire connection. Why would I only accept them as scientists when they attempt to only provide a naturalistic means for everthing? A stone can be chipped by humans or by natural processes but to prove the stone is made by divine beings is taking the matter out of the scientific field. I trust scientists to be able to tell the difference within a fault margin, but they cannot -as of yet- prove divine interference.

If you're asking me the "we can only look for naturalistic causes in science" concept is un-usable in science. And a concept I have yet to come across in my encounters with science. Nowhere in the books I've read on archaeology and natural history has it ever come up. I think Nurv (as she does always, it seems) explained my point better.

I don't use the word "proof" here; I only use "evidence".

Identical words in Dutch. The language barrier strikes again, but the nuance is of little importance here.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

Rian, you have articulated why this matters: because it affects a person's worldview.

Absolutely; I'm glad you agree!

Here's an example: taken from an interview of Jeffrey Dahmer, the mass murderer who killed and then ate children:

‘If a person doesn’t think there is a God to be accountable to, then—then what’s the point of trying to modify your behaviour to keep it within acceptable ranges? That’s how I thought anyway. I always believed the theory of evolution as truth, that we all just came from the slime. When we, when we died, you know, that was it, there is nothing…’

Jeffrey Dahmer, in an interview with Stone Phillips, Dateline NBC, Nov. 29, 1994.

Mooters - please do NOT go ballistic here and say that I'm saying every evolutionist will end up having children for lunch! I'm just showing how scientific info CAN and DOES affect people's worldviews. Personally, I think Dahmer has an excellent (in terms of logic) point. Most people do not do what he does, because of the morals God has put into their heart , but personally, I don't see a flaw in his logic. Do you?

I know that it is not your personal and intention, but here is the rub.

I'm sorry; I don't understand the first part of this sentence ....

Creationists cannot accept many aspects of evolution because it contradicts their worldview. End of story, as Hobbit said. They will do whatever they can to undermine it.

No, No, NO!! PLEASE modify this statement to SOME (or many, or even most) creationists. As I've said many times (today, most recently), if I found some convincing evidence in the area of genetics, especially, I would be willing to change my opinion.

There are also evolutionists out there who are hard-core atheists; do you have problems with them? If not, why not?

Consider the Copernican view of the solar system (you know, the one where earth goes around the sun), banned by the Catholic Church in 16-oatcake because it contradicted doctrine.

I think the RCC was overstepping its bounds.

It's a good example because, like evolution, you can't observe it directly.

It's a terrible example, because planetary motion is happening NOW - you CAN make indirect measurements NOW! It is happening NOW. Evolution (the important part - macroevolution) is NOT happening now (or for those who think it is, it's not happening where we can observe it - all this "finch-beak-changing is macroevolution" is a total cop-out). It happened - if it DID happen - in the PAST. That's a huge difference - HUGE.

Note however, that the Ptolemaic view (earth is at the centre), the one the Church was defending, can actually be consistent with the evidence from observing planets etc. The Copernican model was preferred by science because it was simpler.

It fit the evidence better.

Galileo was banned from promoting this worldview as "correct", but he was allowed to postulate it as a theoretical concept. Ring any bells?

yes, the RCC is more tolerant than today's evolutionists.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

Rian, you have articulated why this matters: because it affects a person's worldview.

Absolutely; I'm glad you agree!

Here's an example: taken from an interview of Jeffrey Dahmer, the mass murderer who killed and then ate children:

‘If a person doesn’t think there is a God to be accountable to, then—then what’s the point of trying to modify your behaviour to keep it within acceptable ranges? That’s how I thought anyway. I always believed the theory of evolution as truth, that we all just came from the slime. When we, when we died, you know, that was it, there is nothing…’

Jeffrey Dahmer, in an interview with Stone Phillips, Dateline NBC, Nov. 29, 1994.

Mooters - please do NOT go ballistic here and say that I'm saying every evolutionist will end up having children for lunch! I'm just showing how scientific info CAN and DOES affect people's worldviews. Personally, I think Dahmer has an excellent (in terms of logic) point. Most people do not do what he does, because of the morals God has put into their heart , but personally, I don't see a flaw in his logic. Do you?

I know that it is not your personal and intention, but here is the rub.

I'm sorry; I don't understand the first part of this sentence ....

Creationists cannot accept many aspects of evolution because it contradicts their worldview. End of story, as Hobbit said. They will do whatever they can to undermine it.

No, No, NO!! PLEASE modify this statement to SOME (or many, or even most) creationists. As I've said many times (today, most recently), if I found some convincing evidence in the area of genetics, especially, I would be willing to change my opinion.

There are also evolutionists out there who are hard-core atheists; do you have problems with them? If not, why not?

Consider the Copernican view of the solar system (you know, the one where earth goes around the sun), banned by the Catholic Church in 16-oatcake because it contradicted doctrine.

I think the RCC was overstepping its bounds.

It's a good example because, like evolution, you can't observe it directly.

It's a terrible example, because planetary motion is happening NOW - you CAN make indirect measurements NOW! It is happening NOW. Evolution (the important part - macroevolution) is NOT happening now (or for those who think it is, it's not happening where we can observe it - all this "finch-beak-changing is macroevolution" is a total cop-out). It happened - if it DID happen - in the PAST. That's a huge difference - HUGE.

Note however, that the Ptolemaic view (earth is at the centre), the one the Church was defending, can actually be consistent with the evidence from observing planets etc. The Copernican model was preferred by science because it was simpler.

It fit the evidence better.

Galileo was banned from promoting this worldview as "correct", but he was allowed to postulate it as a theoretical concept. Ring any bells?

yes, the RCC is more tolerant than today's evolutionists.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

once again... it is about what the theory is based upon... observation and theorizing... scientists speculated about the origin of life in non-theological ways before darwin was even born... and scientists may very well discard darwin's theory in the future if a better one comes along... a scientist is looking for the answers

Where a hypothesis comes from has nothing to do with if it's scientifically valid or not. Why should it? The Bible has some great instructions on hygiene that were totally unique for thousands of years and are still valid (e.g., washing after touching a dead body, contageous disease quarantining and tests, etc.) that we now know the scientific reasons for why they work. Are you saying that if a person read the Bible, saw the bit about washing after touching a dead body, and decided to theorize that germs could be passed from a dead body to a living by touch, that his theory would be disallowed because he happened to get it from the Bible? That doesn't make much sense to me. I see no valid scientific reason for enquiring after the source of the hypothesis.

give me one piece of observable evidence that a) does not come from the bible and b) makes creationism a logical alternative

The observeable stubbornness of genetic info that keeps making dogs out of dogs, cats out of cats, people out of people, etc., over and over and OVER again, with mutations being neutral or harmful. Even with quick life-cycle things like fruit flies, and even with forced mutations (i.e., driven by INTELLIGENCE , not chance), you get fruit flies that are worse off, not better. And breeding for characteristics yields LESS genetic info, not MORE, and LESS viability, not MORE. Even when those finch beaks change, the bigger beak size was PREEXISTING in the population, and the finches are still finches (and what usually ISN'T reported is that the beak size went BACK to what it was when the drought was over - there was no net change.)

Creationism has a hypothesis that we will see living beings replicating after their kind - and the evidence for this is absolutely staggering - mountains and mountains of it, observable over and over every day for years and years. Evolution REQUIRES that living beings will NOT reproduce after their kinds - and we do NOT see this. It is only inferred from fossil evidence - and there is more than one valid inference that can be made from the fossil evidence. Just because one BELIEVES that animal A came from animal B, and you find these two fossils, along with animal C that has some characteristics of both, does NOT mean that it DID happen. It's still just a belief. So I'm forced to give more weight to what we actually CAN observe, and frankly, I don't see the proposed mechanism (beneficial mutations) observed - in fact, I see the opposite - I see it supporting creationism's hypothesis VERY strongly!

[brownjenkins]

If a person doesn’t think there is a God to be accountable to, then—then what’s the point of trying to modify your behaviour to keep it within acceptable ranges?

simple... 'cause if you don't modify your behavior, you'll be rejoining that slime a lot quicker than if you do... jeffrey dahmer is a good case and point on that fact

[brownjenkins]

If a person doesn’t think there is a God to be accountable to, then—then what’s the point of trying to modify your behaviour to keep it within acceptable ranges?

simple... 'cause if you don't modify your behavior, you'll be rejoining that slime a lot quicker than if you do... jeffrey dahmer is a good case and point on that fact

Originally Posted by E
arniel

Quote from Rian:
I don't use the word "proof" here; I only use "evidence".

Identical words in Dutch. The language barrier strikes again, but the nuance is of little importance here.

If I may clarify then ... You have evidence when you can show something _may_ be true. You have proof when you can show that something _is_ true.

[Earniel]

Yes, yes, I know the difference. But since I was talking about considering something (I said proof in my original statement but it could go for evidence as well) conclusive, I don't think it matters whether I used proof or evidence.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Eärniel

I'm afraid I still don't see the entire connection. Why would I only accept them as scientists when they attempt to only provide a naturalistic means for everthing? A stone can be chipped by humans or by natural processes but to prove the stone is made by divine beings is taking the matter out of the scientific field. I trust scientists to be able to tell the difference within a fault margin, but they cannot -as of yet- prove divine interference.

You can't prove the stone was made by a divine being - nor can you prove it was made by a human. However, I'm pointing out that we have ways to evaluate if something is more LIKELY to be made by chance (based on our observations of things we KNOW are made by chance) or if it's more LIKELY to have been made by intelligence (based on our observations of things we KNOW are made by intelligence). And we make these types of evaluations all the time, and there's nothing wrong with making them on the origins question. If we see things in the universe that have characteristics of things made by intelligence (specified complexity, irreducible complexity, information-bearing, etc.) then the only reason I can see that people don't want to conclude that an intelligent source is more likely than chance is that they have a personal bias against it being that way.

If you're asking me the "we can only look for naturalistic causes in science" concept is un-usable in science. And a concept I have yet to come across in my encounters with science. Nowhere in the books I've read on archaeology and natural history has it ever come up. I think Nurv (as she does always, it seems) explained my point better.

You're right; the "naturalistic causes only" thing doesn't come up in archaeology and natural history. That was my point. So why should it come up in the discussion of origins?

Identical words in Dutch. The language barrier strikes again, but the nuance is of little importance here.

Rats! Darn language barrier!
It is of great importance, IMO, so I"ll try to explain.

What I mean by "proof" would be things like this:

"I think that if I take chemical A and chemical B and mix them together, I get chemical C and byproduct D - let's do it and check - *does experiment* yes, indeedy, we DO get those results! Let's do it multiple times, and let other scientists do it *this happens* yes, we ALL do get those same results!" To me, that would be on the level of proof.


What I mean by "evidence" would be things like this:

"I know that if I take chemical A and chemical B and mix them together, I get chemical C and byproduct D - well, we just dug up some stuff and I see chemical C and byproduct D, and I'm not aware of other ways to get those two things together, so the evidence is very strong that chemical A and chemical B were here, too, and got together and made chemical C and byproduct D. However, since it happened in the past, and there are other ways to get chemical C and byproduct D, and perhaps even other ways that we haven't discovered yet, we can only guess that that's what happened."

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Spock

hmmm, 6,000 yrs old???? the fosil record goes to the millions.

Based on some dating techniques that use circular reasoning (i.e., index fossils).

[Rían]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

macro it is then

Some of those "evidences" just crack me up!

I mean, that new species have DNA?!

They actually propose that finding a new species that didn't have DNA would be a falsifiable check?

Why don't I propose that if my son turns into a football that I would believe in macroevolution.

Talk about safe bets!

But that the kind of behavior one expects from true believers.