How to teach evolution & Evidence for Creationism

[brownjenkins]

reading some of those creationist claims involving star systems made me wonder... how do they explain why we can see light emissions from stars and galaxies much further away than 6,000 light years?

andromeda is some 2 million light years distant... if it (and us) were only created 6,000 years ago, we simply would not "see it" yet

(a spiral galaxy, btw ... the short answer to that one is that scientists believe stars re-cycle, so they remain spirals for a very long time)

[Rían]

no, no, no, please!!! *whimper*

Please do NOT merge the two threads!!! Please - I want to talk about bases for determining curricula guidelines in the Kansas thread, and do NOT want to get into evidence details. The other thread is for discussing evidence for creationism, then the third thread is for discussing evidence for evolution. There's just too many angles to combine the threads - the subjects will get totally lost!

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

There's just too many angles to combine the threads - the subjects will get totally lost!

i disagree... it's really all related and would be much better to not split... evidence for both claims are intwined... you can't talk about one without the other... and deciding what should be in a science curricula hinges on which claim is or isn't science

i think you just don't want to have to answer my points

[Rían]

Well, you're right in that I'm not in the mood to go over the evidence now - I've done two or three rounds over the last few years, and one needs to be in the mood for it!

But truthfully, what intrigues me more is the underlying stuff - the definitions of science and worldviews/religions - and the ferocity of some people's reactions to what's going on, and what would make them so intense about it, etc. etc.

I brought it to your attention twice now but don't recall seeing a response from you - did you see that if genetic info-adding was discovered, I would definitely give evolution another look-see and definitely give it more weight? Again, not all creationists are the same. I'm the best type *humble look*

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

I brought it to your attention twice now but don't recall seeing a response from you - did you see that if genetic info-adding was discovered, I would definitely give evolution another look-see and definitely give it more weight? Again, not all creationists are the same. I'm the best type *humble look*

i read it and agree... everyone one is an individual

my point on science... at its roots it's about theory and testing, not just theory

if a theory is untestable by it's very nature (i.e. god), it is not a scientific theory

evolution is a scientific theory because it can be debated via observation (as both sides have shown here)

the idea the the earth is 6,000 years old is a scientific theory because it can be debated via observation (as both sides have shown here)

the idea that there is a "creator" is not a scientific theory because it can be not be debated via observation... it can only be debated philosophically (your "morals" argument, for example)... so the term "creationism" is simply not science

this has nothing to do with right or wrong... but has everything to do with whether it should have a major presence in the science classroom or not

[Rían]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

my point on science... at its roots it's about theory and testing, not just theory

I agree.

if a theory is untestable by it's very nature (i.e. god), it is not a scientific theory

I agree.

evolution is a scientific theory because it can be debated via observation (as both sides have shown here)

Parts of it definitely are. Macro-evolution is a part that is NOT testable. Would you agree?

the idea the the earth is 6,000 years old is a scientific theory because it can be debated via observation (as both sides have shown here)

I agree.

the idea that there is a "creator" is not a scientific theory because it can be not be debated via observation... it can only be debated philosophically (your "morals" argument, for example)... so the term "creationism" is simply not science

I agree with you, but don't stop there - you're stopping short. The idea that life as we know it arose in a non-guided fashion is also, to use your phrase, "not a scientific theory because it can be not be debated via observation".

And also, as I pointed out with my examples about archaeologists and anthropologists and SETI scientists and Mars rover scientists - the search for indicators of intelligence, even extra-terrestrial intelligence, is by NO means foreign to the sciences, and is indeed entirely appropriate.

this has nothing to do with right or wrong... but has everything to do with whether it should have a major presence in the science classroom or not

Yes - both concepts need a major caveat when they are discussed.

Let me start another post - I've been composing something in my head - my opening statement to my science class when we started a section on origins, if I were a biology teacher. I'll see if I can get my point across that way.

[Rían]

... here's how I would address the class when we started our section on origins:

"OK, class, today we're starting a rather fascinating topic - the topic of origins; or in other words, how what you see around us today got here!

"I think the most important thing we can understand about this topic is that it is historical in nature - we're talking about things in the past that NO ONE has observed. However, that doesn't mean that we can do nothing - on the contrary, there's a lot we can explore, and we can and have made many wonderful discoveries about our world during this exploration. But it's important to know that we will never know for sure if we're right or not, so let's be respectful of people with different opinions on the subject.

"I'd really like to underscore the importance of understanding the historical nature of this subject. Here's a quote that I think is helpful, from Ernst Mayr, a evolutionary biologist:

"...Darwin introduced historicity into science. Evolutionary biology, in contrast with physics and chemistry, is a historical science - the evolutionist attempts to explain events and processes that have already taken place. "

"And two quotes from the proposed Kansas science curriculum guidelines,

"Students should understand that many aspects of paleontology and earth science are historical in nature where one seeks to explain the cause of singular unobserved past events from presently existing evidence. Techniques used in science to explain the cause of past events are similar to techniques used by forensic scientists. Like detectives, historical scientists develop tenative competing hypotheses and then seek clues that will rule in one while ruling out others. In many cases historical hypotheses may not be confirmed by experiment due to unknown variables and the inability to replicate conditions in the laboratory. As new clues are developed, historical hypotheses frequently change or are discarded entirely. As a consequence, in historical sciences one generally seeks "an inference to the best current explanation," with the undertstanding that the explanation may not be the "best" in the future."

"And

"Explanations about the cause of past events are inherently more subjective because they rely to a large extent on imagination and inference to supply missing evidence. Even a laboratory demonstration that an outcome is physically possible (e.g., amino acids forming in a defined chemical atmosphere), does not mean that such an outcome actually occured in the history of nature."

"SO - I want you to really understand the historical nature of the subject right off the bat, and I hope these quotes helped. Any questions? *no questions because of RÃ*an's perfect explanation*

"Now on to some of the hypotheses.

"A major dividing point right from the beginning, with intelligent scientists on both sides, is this: did our world get here though the intent and efforts of an extra-terrestrial intelligence, or though entirely unguided events? Again, we won't be able to PROVE either one, but we should be able to come up with some testable hypotheses for both.

"Currently, the leading contender for the latter view, in this country, is a theory called neo-Darwinism, which, in a nutshell, says that the initial elements for life were somehow here and somehow came together to form the building blocks of life, and all life as we see it today came from these initial particles through the mechanisms of beneficial mutations and natural selection. Currently, this model is by far the most accepted model in the scientific community. This model, although not entirely scientifically testable, has some testable parts, and we will study and discuss these. We will also discuss the original Darwinian theory, along with a discussion of the scientific information thought to be correct in Darwin's day as he formulated his theory, and how it was proven wrong, and how the theory has been modified to take this into account. The major tenet of this theory is the concept of macro-evolution - that organisms can change on the order of particle to people.

"As far as the former view - there are many creation stories in this world, with varying degrees of scientific testability and authenticity as historical literature. In this class, we'll discuss the creation account as described in the Bible. I've chosen this one for several reasons - I wanted to have a story that is written down as opposed to oral, and it has very high credentials as a piece of ancient literature, according to standards applied to all ancient literature, and it has the highest degree of relevance to our own culture and history here in the United States, and it has some very testable parts. This model is often referred to as Young Earth Creationism (YEC), which, in a nutshell, says that God was somehow here and in a one-time supernatural act created the universe with certain characteristics, as described in the Biblical book of Genesis. This model is also not entirely scientifically testable, but it has some testable parts, such as proposed age of the earth, and features of animal reproduction, and we will study and discuss these.

"A third model that is becoming more and more popular falls into the former category but does not tie into any particular extraterrestrial intelligence; rather, it seeks to find hallmarks of intelligent design in the world around us, in the same way as archaeologists and anthropologists and SETI scientists and Mars rover scientists look for hallmarks of intelligent design. This model is titled Intelligent Design (ID). Again, this model is not entirely scientifically testable, but it has some testable parts, such as irreducible complexity and specified complexity.

"ALL of these models have a starting point that we can't explain (IOW, where did God come from, or where did the chemical soup come from, or where did the extra-terrestrial intelligence come from?) - but since we ARE here, we'll just have to grant each model its starting point. And again, given the historical nature and inherent non-testability of many of the important features, maybe NONE of these are right! But certainly one of the two top-level concepts is right - either we're here through intelligent intent or we're not here through intelligent intent.

"All three of these models, I again stress, have intelligent scientists behind them. Again, neo-Darwinism is by far the most widely held model, and we will spend the most time on it, but there have been many widely-held theories in the past that have been overthrown, and I don't think we should limit ourselves to only the most widely-held model, ESPECIALLY given the historical nature of the subject and that we CANNOT TEST to see if what the model said happened, actually happened. Let's treat each other as true scientists should - with consideration and respect, and only attack the data or the metholodology, not the person.

"Keep open minds, keep free of bias, conduct your experiments with care, review data with open minds, let the data take you where it naturally goes instead of trying to force it to where you THINK it should go, be considerate of others' opinions, and ... let's start!"


refpost

[rohirrim TR]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

here's some on the flood idea... which seems central to much of the young earth claims

it is all very easily explained click here

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Macro-evolution is a part that is NOT testable. Would you agree?

macro-evolution is testable, it has just not be proved... in time we may even observe it on our own planet, since the theory would imply that it should continue to occur as time goes on

and remember "testable" means observable physical evidence from which theories can be implied... not necessarily proofs of absolute right or wrong

here's the link i gave before concerning the evidence... theories are implied from evidence, just like many other scientific observations (i.e. we do not "truly know" that the sun is 93,000,000 miles from the sun, but based on other things we can observe here on earth (like the speed of light), we can make a pretty good guess)

[brownjenkins]

Evolutionary biology, in contrast with physics and chemistry, is a historical science - the evolutionist attempts to explain events and processes that have already taken place.

and, theoretically, continue to take place

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

"As far as the former view - there are many creation stories in this world, with varying degrees of scientific testability and authenticity as historical literature. In this class, we'll discuss the creation account as described in the Bible. I've chosen this one for several reasons - I wanted to have a story that is written down as opposed to oral, and it has very high credentials as a piece of ancient literature, according to standards applied to all ancient literature, and it has the highest degree of relevance to our own culture and history here in the United States, and it has some very testable parts. This model is often referred to as Young Earth Creationism (YEC), which, in a nutshell, says that God was somehow here and in a one-time supernatural act created the universe with certain characteristics, as described in the Biblical book of Genesis. This model is also not entirely scientifically testable, but it has some testable parts, such as proposed age of the earth, and features of animal reproduction, and we will study and discuss these.

you miss the main point from my last post... even if evidence pointed to the earth being 6,000 years old... and the "historical" parts of the bible are accurate (both of which are very debateable)... there is no logical reason to imply "creation" from the evidence (remember, proving 90% of the bible true does not make it 100% correct)

the real question is this... can things be created or can they evolve?

once again, evolution can be tested (i.e. if it happens now, it might have happened in the past)... creation can not be until it has at least been observed in some small way, shape or form in our current world

micro to macro evolution may be too big of a jump for you to accept, but at least it is a jump from something... can you present any present day evidence that implies "creation" (not particle to people, but nothing to people) is even possible?

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

"A third model that is becoming more and more popular falls into the former category but does not tie into any particular extraterrestrial intelligence; rather, it seeks to find hallmarks of intelligent design in the world around us, in the same way as archaeologists and anthropologists and SETI scientists and Mars rover scientists look for hallmarks of intelligent design. This model is titled Intelligent Design (ID). Again, this model is not entirely scientifically testable, but it has some testable parts, such as irreducible complexity and specified complexity.

on irreducible complexity

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

"ALL of these models have a starting point that we can't explain (IOW, where did God come from, or where did the chemical soup come from, or where did the extra-terrestrial intelligence come from?)

the "starting point" for creation is what you are missing... it is not "where did god come from?"... it is "is there any scientific reason to imply that a creator exists?"... the answer being no... thus it is not a scientific line of reasoning

science is about seeing how much we can explain without having to revert to the unknowable (not the unknown)... once you hit the unknowable, it is no longer in the realm of scientific discussion

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by rohirrim TR

it is all very easily explained click here

i see a lot of god references in those "explanations" (i.e. delivering the animals)... once again, right or wrong, they are not scientific

[Rían]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

macro-evolution is testable, it has just not be proved... in time we may even observe it on our own planet, since the theory would imply that it should continue to occur as time goes on

Sure, it's testable given perhaps thousands of years, and if we don't see it in thousands of years, evolutionists will declare we need millions of years to see it. And seeing if God exists is testable, too, if we knew where heaven was and had an instrument to look into heaven. For all practical purposes, neither one is testable.

And the idea that macroevolution brought about what we see today is NOT -repeat NOT - testable. We're talking something that happened in history. As the quoted paragraph pointed out, just because something CAN happen doesn't mean it DID happen. If we could actually SEE macroevolution (and IMO, we've had more than enough chances to see it, if it COULD happen, in things like fruit flies), then I would have a lot more respect for the theory of evolution.

and remember "testable" means observable physical evidence from which theories can be implied... not necessarily proofs of absolute right or wrong

I have a lot of scientific background, and I must say that I have NEVER come across that definition of "testable" before, until I've started reading things that biological evolutionists have come up with in defense of their theory that apparently needs all the help it can get. Seriously - can you come up with some references for that? I've never seen that before - not in my physics labs (fun!), not in my organic and inorganic chem labs (smelly!) - and I certainly don't agree with it. It's certainly not in the scientific method.

Now given the RESULTS of a testable hypothesis, the original hypothesis might be modified, but that's about as close as you can get to what you're saying.

Did you see my response about the transmission of germs? That addresses this, too.

here's the link i gave before concerning the evidence... theories are implied from evidence, just like many other scientific observations (i.e. we do not "truly know" that the sun is 93,000,000 miles from the sun, but based on other things we can observe here on earth (like the speed of light), we can make a pretty good guess)

And once again - we can observe the speed of light NOW. Yes, we do not "truly know" that the sun is that distance away, but light, and its properties, can be observed NOW and exist NOW. This is NOT the case with macroevolution - or if you want to say macroevolution is going on NOW, then it is unobserveable because we don't have enough time to observe it NOW. Actually, again, I think if it was actually going on now, we could have observed it by now, but we do NOT observe it.

I keep hearing examples like indirect measurements in astronomy, and I keep repeating that light is around NOW and we can observe and measure its properties NOW. That's a huge difference from what we have in the macrevolution idea. At the MOST, if we saw macroevolution occurring, we could say that it is a good candidate for what happened in the past. But we do NOT see macroevolution occurring, in the particle-to-people sense (which is the only sense that is controversial; microevolution is no problem).

[Rían]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

and, theoretically, continue to take place

Absolutely! I'm willing to grant that with no problem.

Here's my problems:

1. Even if we DID see macroevolution happen today, that still does not mean that that's how we got here, although it would make it the strongest candidate, IMO. But ...

2. We do NOT see it happen today, and the cry of "well, we don't have enough time to observe it" does NOT give it a free pass, IMO. It wouldn't in any other scientific discipline; why should it here?

you miss the main point from my last post... even if evidence pointed to the earth being 6,000 years old... and the "historical" parts of the bible are accurate (both of which are very debateable)... there is no logical reason to imply "creation" from the evidence (remember, proving 90% of the bible true does not make it 100% correct)

No, I didn't miss it; perhaps you missed my response to it. I addressed it in the transmission of germs from a dead body example. In the minds of many, many brilliant scientists, both today and in the past, there are VERY logical reasons to infer creation from the evidence.

the real question is this... can things be created or can they evolve?

I think the real question is this: Things were either created with intent, or came about without intent; looking at the available evidence, making and testing hypotheses for the parts that are testable, with the constraints necessarily involved with it being historical, which do we think more likely?

once again, evolution can be tested (i.e. if it happens now, it might have happened in the past)... creation can not be until it has at least been observed in some small way, shape or form in our current world

Yes, the proposed mechanism for particle-to-people evolution (i.e., macroevolution) can be tested for to see if it exists TODAY. We do NOT observe it, so all I hear are things like "we don't have enough time to observe it!" Sorry, but again, that won't give you a free pass. IMO, if it still existed today, we WOULD have observed it in some recognizeable form. But we don't.

Elements of a creation theory can also be tested in the same way. And we HAVE observed creation in some small way, shape or form in our current world - arrowheads, for example. We infer creation of arrowheads vs. natural occurrance of arrowheads by looking for things that would go against it occurring naturally, such as a chip going across the stone and a vein of another type of rock in the stone at the same place, when they have different weathering rates naturally, and if it had happened naturally, the (supposed) chip line would not be even. Also, as I pointed out with my example of archaeologists, anthropologists, SETI scientists and Mars rover scientists, the inference of intent and design by observation of data is by NO means disallowed in science.

micro to macro evolution may be too big of a jump for you to accept, but at least it is a jump from something... can you present any present day evidence that implies "creation" (not particle to people, but nothing to people) is even possible?

As I said in my "biology teacher opening quote" - the nothing part is not a problem - or it is an equal problem to both theories. Creation doesn't say "nothing to people" - it says God to people. Evolution doesn't say nothing to people - it says particle to people.

This should be a very simple point.

on irreducible complexity

Read it, it's been misrepresented *sigh*
Yes, dolphins have one less element in blood clotting than humans - but IT WORKS IN DOLPHINS!
Yes, other living creatures have less elements in the flagella - BUT IT WORKS IN THEM!
And cow tails - their "proof" is the statement that tails evolved before flies? IOW, their "proof" is their unproven theory of evolution?

I get downright angry when I read most of talkorigins' articles (which is where this one is from, altho it's on talkdesign's site). The level of proof they accept just astounds me, and the way they sidestep the actual issue to attack a strawman just astounds me.

the "starting point" for creation is what you are missing... it is not "where did god come from?"... it is "is there any scientific reason to imply that a creator exists?"... the answer being no... thus it is not a scientific line of reasoning

Anthropologists et al. certainly use their scientific training to infer that things are created. And again, there is NO requirement that I've been aware of that says that ideas can only come from certain places. An idea is either scientifically testable or it's not.

science is about seeing how much we can explain without having to revert to the unknowable (not the unknown)... once you hit the unknowable, it is no longer in the realm of scientific discussion

This "unknowable" argument is just as valid with parts of neo-Darwinism.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Why do you keep dragging my name into this? Are you saying that jeffrey dahmer thought it was ok to eat people because of science? Are you saying most scientists support this concept? Why would you reference someone who is completely insane to knock science anyway? Is that really a good source to use? Can i use David Corech for christianity? Or Reverand Fred Phelps who says gays should all be killed? And neither of them are (nearly as) insane as Dahmer.

(finally getting around to addressing the last part of this)

Once again, I am NOT knocking science in any way, shape or form. I was only pointing out that people make decisions based on science, so scientists better be careful about what they say.

You can certainly use David Korresh (sp?) and Fred Phelps to illustrate the same point that I'm trying to illustrate - people make decisions based on what perceived authorities say, so authorities should be careful about what they say, and we better not just swallow what authorities say without thinking about it.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

Sorry, Rian, if you're saying that scientific worldview caused Jeffrey Dahmer to eat children then I would seriously question your judgment.

I"m saying that Dahmer took the scientific theory of evolution, made some logical inferences from it, and came up with behavioral decisions based on it. How can you doubt that? You have his own words on it.

I'm NOT saying that every person would do this, or even if I think he made a logical inference or not (actually, I think in a strictly logical sense, there is no problem with his inference - the difference is that in most normal people, their sense of morality stops them.) What I am saying, and I hope you can agree with, is that people take things that "science" (and other authorities say) and make behavioral decisions based on them, so those authorities better be darn careful what they pass off as true.

There is no logical connection between absence of morality and absence of belief in God.

I totally disagree with this, and this gets back to what I've trying to get back to about the difference between logical (because we see it all the time) and logical (a valid inference from a statement). I think you're making your statement in the FIRST sense of the word "logical". IOW, you see people who don't believe in God, and they're very moral people. So do I. So it's "logical" based on experience to say what you said ("There is no logical connection between absence of morality and absence of belief in God.") Am I making sense so far?

However, in the second sense, there is certainly a logical connection between morality and belief in God. (We have to be careful to make sure we use "morality" in its most inclusive sense; i.e., a system of right and wrong. We can't use it as an abbreviation for the specifically Christian system of right and wrong, or else things will get confused.) Dahmer believed that evolution was true and we came from slime, and he made the perfectly logical inference of "so why should I bother to regulate my behavior?" Now that's "illogical" in the sense of most people don't make that inference, but it is NOT "illogical" at ALL in the true sense of the word "logic".

If we came from slime, why SHOULD he bother to regulate his behavior, Gaffer? Can you give me any logical reason why he should not do what he wants to do? You do what YOU want to do; why should he not do what HE wants to do, as long as he's willing to face the consequences?

[Insidious Rex]

Science is independent from being "careful about what you say" (geez how scary is that. Tell it to Galileo...). Science just displays what we get from the data. Nothing more. Saying its science's fault (or evolution's) that Jeffery Dahmar killed and ate people is preposterous.

[brownjenkins]

science ~ a method of learning about the physical universe by applying the principles of the scientific method, which includes making empirical observations, proposing hypotheses to explain those observations, and testing those hypotheses in valid and reliable ways

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

As the quoted paragraph pointed out, just because something CAN happen doesn't mean it DID happen.

this is exactly the point you seem to be missing... science is used to explain how things may have come about in the world without having to introduce divine intervention

can what we observe today have arisen without divine intervention?

this is the question science attempts to answer... it attempts to develop logical real-world solutions to what we see around us... evolution is one of those... you can argue the evidence, as this thread shows

you can not argue the "creation" premise, because it is based on nothing any human can observe or test... if i missed some kind of present day situation that infers that something can come from nothing (which seems to me to be what you are claiming god did when making us), please post it

[Spock]

..it's called "the poof factor"

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

What I am saying, and I hope you can agree with, is that people take things that "science" (and other authorities say) and make behavioral decisions based on them, so those authorities better be darn careful what they pass off as true.

i'd have to say that the true "authority" in any person's life is themself... you can not control what other people say... an, on top of that, we live in a country where people can say whatever they like... from scientists, to the KKK, to neo-communists, to catholics

it is up to the listener to be careful... personally, i do not wish to live in the other kind of society

[Spock]

Oh so words mean something; I'm glad to hear that.
....I did not have sex with that woman

Take a breath guys and gals, this thread is beginning to warp the heat tiles of the motherboard.