How to teach evolution & Evidence for Creationism

[Rían]

brownie - the term is called "apparent age". If one believes it is reasonable that God could create Adam and Eve as adults, instead of starting out as babies (or egg and sperm, for that matter), then one can see how the rest of the universe was also created with "apparent age" - trees came into being full-grown instead of seeds, and far-away galaxies had their light show up at earth.

As far as the empirical evidence that might lead one to think creation is a reasonable thing to consider, I'd say the complexity of the universe, and the fine-tuning of the universe, and the fact that we see varying levels of intelligence around us (so why limit it to humans being on the top?) Mainly, I think the incredible complexity and balance of the universe we can see around us. And as far as the Biblical account, I'd say mainly things like how genetics work - that getting half from each parent tends to cancel out mutations, that changes in species are limited to existing characteristics becoming more or less prevalent depending upon the environment, etc.

Now - I'd like to turn your question to me around and ask YOU - what empirical evidence led to people thinking that macroevolution occurred?

[The Gaffer]

Hi Rian.

Because I can, and do. Then lots of others do the same. Then you know what? We get together and discuss and argue and organise ourselves and before you know it people are saying that these views of right and wrong didn't come from us but from God.

Yes, I probably didn't understand what you mean by the two types of logic.

You can have a logical if P then Q type statement; you can have a more everyday use of the word to mean that something "makes sense" in a practical setting.

I don't think we should get into the relative/absolute thing, or else well have to merge about half a dozen other threads as well

[Rían]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

Yes, I probably didn't understand what you mean by the two types of logic.

You can have a logical if P then Q type statement; you can have a more everyday use of the word to mean that something "makes sense" in a practical setting.

yes, that's what I mean.

example of first - "all fathers are men; Gaffer is a father; therefore Gaffer is a man."
If the first two statements are true, then the third is logically true. Do you agree?

example of second - "I think each person should decide for themselves what is right or wrong to do because there is no higher authority like God, and I also think it's wrong for anyone to murder and eat kids."
If the first is true, then the second is NOT logically true (like it was in the above example - i.e., it's not a valid logical deduction from the first statement); it's only "logically" true in the sense of "it's logical to think this because most people I've observed think this way." Do you agree?

Thanks for hanging in there with me on this; to me, it's extremely important to discuss these points and to point out the important difference between the two types of logic, because ... well, we'll get to that once we can agree on my examples (or yours, if you want to come up with some)

[The Gaffer]

Yeeeessss, I would agree with that

* ducks, expecting ambush *

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

brownie - the term is called "apparent age". If one believes it is reasonable that God could create Adam and Eve as adults, instead of starting out as babies (or egg and sperm, for that matter), then one can see how the rest of the universe was also created with "apparent age" - trees came into being full-grown instead of seeds, and far-away galaxies had their light show up at earth.

so my comment that maybe everything was created last tuesday and "the past" was created along with it would be a scientific theory too, eh?

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

As far as the empirical evidence that might lead one to think creation is a reasonable thing to consider, I'd say the complexity of the universe, and the fine-tuning of the universe, and the fact that we see varying levels of intelligence around us (so why limit it to humans being on the top?) Mainly, I think the incredible complexity and balance of the universe we can see around us.

complexity exists all around us, much of it not created by us, the only "intelligent" thing we know of... look at a spider creating a spider web... is it "intelligent"... look at the star we call the sun... extremely complex, yet explainable by natural theories

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

And as far as the Biblical account, I'd say mainly things like how genetics work - that getting half from each parent tends to cancel out mutations, that changes in species are limited to existing characteristics becoming more or less prevalent depending upon the environment, etc.

i don't remember anything in the bible about genetics or mutations

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Now - I'd like to turn your question to me around and ask YOU - what empirical evidence led to people thinking that macroevolution occurred?

i've already give you a bunch... here's another... read the section about anatomical vestigial structures... it includes some of the debate from the creationist side and responses too it... once again, it is evidence, not proof

[brownjenkins]

it's logical to think this because I've observed that most people think this way

that's an illogical statement because no single individual in the world has observed "most people" ... or even the tinest fraction of "most people"

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Gaffer

Yeeeessss, I would agree with that

* ducks, expecting ambush *

So would you agree that it's perfectly logical (in the first sense) for a person to conclude that:

1. if there is no God or other higher-type being, then he, himself, is the highest authority on what behavior is right or wrong for him?

and/or

2. if people came here through the process of chance, then he, himself, is the highest authority on what behavior is right or wrong for him?

[Rían]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

that's an illogical statement because no single individual in the world has observed "most people" ... or even the tinest fraction of "most people"

OK, I worded that wrong - you can change it to "it's logical for me to think this because most people I've observed think this way."

[Rían]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

so my comment that maybe everything was created last tuesday and "the past" was created along with it would be a scientific theory too, eh?

No, I didn't say that part was scientifically testable

i don't remember anything in the bible about genetics or mutations

reproducing after their own kind - the genetics support this.

(can't get to the rest now - got 6 kids over here, and they want to go swimming - gtg!)

[rohirrim TR]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

so my comment that maybe everything was created last tuesday and "the past" was created along with it would be a scientific theory too, eh?



complexity exists all around us, much of it not created by us, the only "intelligent" thing we know of... look at a spider creating a spider web... is it "intelligent"... look at the star we call the sun... extremely complex, yet explainable by natural theories



i don't remember anything in the bible about genetics or mutations



i've already give you a bunch... here's another... read the section about anatomical vestigial structures... it includes some of the debate from the creationist side and responses too it... once again, it is evidence, not proof

i can't believe you brought up vestigial organs but here we go click here or here

[Rían]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

i've already give you a bunch... here's another... read the section about anatomical vestigial structures... it includes some of the debate from the creationist side and responses too it... once again, it is evidence, not proof

ooohhhh nnnnooooo - not talk origins again!

*says to herself, "I will keep my temper, I will keep my temper, even when reading unfair writeups!!"*

vestigal organs would certainly be an indication of microevolution, which is observeable today and compatible with both creationism, ID and evolution.


You've given me things before that IYO support evolution, but I don't think they were really thought of before Darwin's theory was formulated, were they, except for vestigal organs?

(sorry, am rushed!)

[The Gaffer]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

So would you agree that it's perfectly logical (in the first sense) for a person to conclude that:

1. if there is no God or other higher-type being, then he, himself, is the highest authority on what behavior is right or wrong for him?

and/or

2. if people came here through the process of chance, then he, himself, is the highest authority on what behavior is right or wrong for him?

If I understand it correctly, the first (formal logic) sense is an abstract. You can say "all boys are men" because of how these categories are defined. Therefore, we can only say "if P then Q" if we either know all the possible states where P is true and Q is also true, or we can infer it from a priori knowledge of what P and Q are.

So, in order to apply these statements to this situation we cannot get away from consideration of the terms: the second, "pragmatic" sense of logic.

So, we need to define what we mean by "God" or "higher type being", "he himself", "authority" and "right or wrong".

Nitpicking aside, we can also explore these statements by looking for falsifying information. As you know, people have a tendency to look for information which confirms their beliefs. Popper, Russell et al emphasised the importance in science of looking for falsifying information.

Dahmer got busted; therefore he is not the highest authority on what is right and wrong for him. QED. There could be endless other examples. But in the formal sense, clearly we can define the terms in ways that would falsify the statement. In order to make it unfalsifiable, IMO, you would have to define "higher authority" and "God" as the same thing. This would be like saying:

"if there is no God or other higher-type being, then he, himself, is the God or other higher-type being on what behavior is right or wrong for him?"

Which would be a contradiction in terms.

I would contend that 2 is evidently false in the light of the evidence.

That's not to say that belief in God may be associated, and may cause, people to behave in a more moral way. However, I also think that a strong case could be made for absolutism causing more immoral behaviour than relativism:
Absolutist 1) "I'm right"
Absolutist 2) "No, I'm right"
Absolutist 1) "Come here and say that"
Absolutist 2) "You want a piece of me?"
* smack stab blam nuke *

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by rohirrim TR

i can't believe you brought up vestigial organs but here we go click here or here

those linked articles are loaded with misinformation... one example...

Furthermore, as Ian Taylor has pointed out, many of our alleged ancestors, including monkeys and apes do not have appendixes, while rabbits, wombats and opossums do. If this organ were a part of some evolutionary chain, where could it possibly fit in?

they do have appendixes, they are actually larger than ours since monkeys (who are herbivorous) actually have much more of a need for them

see here

once again, you must look at all the evidence, not just pick and choose the stuff you prefer

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

No, I didn't say that part was scientifically testable

once again, that is the point... a "creator" is not scientifically testable

evolution is scientifically testable (obviously, since i find the tests as being mostly positive and you find them as being mostly negative)

[Rían]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

If I understand it correctly, the first (formal logic) sense is an abstract. You can say "all boys are men" because of how these categories are defined.

No, it's not "abstract" - a boy is a boy! In another language, it's another group of letters, but a boy is a boy, so much so that people have decided to give it a name. What's this abstract thing? Thing have names because they ARE things!

So, we need to define what we mean by "God" or "higher type being", "he himself", "authority" and "right or wrong".

I think the standard definitions will do.
Or we can just define those terms for you and me, for our discussion, and not get into "well, maybe everyone in the world doesn't agree with us." I would imagine both you and I could agree on the meaning of these terms. Do you really think you and I need to define them, or shall we agree that we both know what they mean?

Sometimes, it seems to me that I'm the only one willing to openly and honestly and logically consider concepts, even if they go against what I currently think is right. For example, I considered brownie's comment on vestigal organs and said yes, I could see how that supported the concept of microevolution taking place. You guys are so defensive - what are you defensive about? What happened to being willing to abandon biases and truly consider an idea?

Nitpicking aside, we can also explore these statements by looking for falsifying information. As you know, people have a tendency to look for information which confirms their beliefs. Popper, Russell et al emphasised the importance in science of looking for falsifying information.

Yes, but I"m not talking science here, I"m talking logical thinking, which should be used in science. I'll go with what you're saying for now, though...

Dahmer got busted; therefore he is not the highest authority on what is right and wrong for him.

So if Dahmer's best friend did the same thing and did NOT get caught, then Dahmer is NOT his own highest authority and his friend IS his own highest authority? What does being caught have to do with it? You're just saying that the majority rules. I'm not talking majority. If all people are equal, what gives people the logical right to tell SOMEONE ELSE that they're "wrong" or "right"? And if there's no absolute right or wrong, why is Dahmer's act wrong? As I said before, perhaps he's just evolved further than the rest of us. How can YOU call it wrong for him to do that? After all, don't YOU decide what's right for YOU?

But in the formal sense, clearly we can define the terms in ways that would falsify the statement. In order to make it unfalsifiable, IMO, you would have to define "higher authority" and "God" as the same thing. This would be like saying:

"if there is no God or other higher-type being, then he, himself, is the God or other higher-type being on what behavior is right or wrong for him?"

Which would be a contradiction in terms.

I think you're working to NOT try to understand this and think about it; are you? If so, that's a shame; I think people should try to understand things. However, let me clear up my terms, then. You're not taking into account that we were talking about humans, so both "higher authority" and the commonly accepted view of "God" would be above humans in power and knowledge. When talking about God, the only applicable term would be "higher authority" since God is not a higher authority to God. And since there is no higher authority than God (given the definition you and I would agree on, I imagine), then God is His own highest authority.

I would contend that 2 is evidently false in the light of the evidence.

As I said above, being caught doesn't mean that there is a logical authority over one; it just means that you got caught and there's a strong enough majority to physically restrain you. Do you see what I mean? Who would YOU, Gaffer, say has a logical right to be an authority over you?

That's not to say that belief in God may be associated, and may cause, people to behave in a more moral way. However, I also think that a strong case could be made for absolutism causing more immoral behaviour than relativism:
Absolutist 1) "I'm right"
Absolutist 2) "No, I'm right"
Absolutist 1) "Come here and say that"
Absolutist 2) "You want a piece of me?"
* smack stab blam nuke *

Yet I still prefer "I'm right" to "nothing is right" ... because if the latter is true, then of course nothing is wrong ...

Do you think nothing is wrong, Gaffer? Do you really?

[Rían]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

complexity exists all around us, much of it not created by us, the only "intelligent" thing we know of... look at a spider creating a spider web... is it "intelligent"... look at the star we call the sun... extremely complex, yet explainable by natural theories

Please remember that we're trying to give some bases for theories being formulated, according to your definition of science. We're not talking proving; we're talking is there any observable evidence to formulate this theory? You just seem so defensive about even considering a theory that many, many brilliant scientists thought reasonable. Do you really, really think that the observable complexity and balance of the universe gives absolutely NO reason for a reasonable person to consider creation?

I don't think evolution is true, yet I will grant that some reasonable people could look at vestigal organs (most of which have now been proved to NOT be vestigal, but rather to have very important functions) and think that living beings have changed over time, and make a HUGE extrapolation to say that maybe they've changed from particle to people. I'm not afraid of that theory being considered; I"m willing to grant that some people might think it is reasonable and want to look into it further. Yet I only seem to get defensiveness from you, and I look at other evolutionists and see absolute hysteria - WHY, WHY is there so much emotion tied up in THIS PARTICULAR area, as opposed to non-evolutionary topics? To me, it looks like desperate measures from desperate people.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

once again, that is the point... a "creator" is not scientifically testable

And once again, neither is particle-to-people macroevolution.

evolution is scientifically testable (obviously, since i find the tests as being mostly positive and you find them as being mostly negative)

parts of it are, as are parts of creationism, and I don't hear anything from you about my comments on SETI scientists and looking for intelligent life on Mars, which are totally applicable to the situation, since we currently don't know any Martians to ask them, "How would you make this thing?" Yet we DO have experience of intelligence, and signs of intelligence, and THAT is what I think an open-minded person, who truly loves science (knowledge), would be willing to consider. BOTH THEORIES have untestable parts; both theories are something a reasonable person could think possible and be willing to consider the evidence for; both theories will never be proven or proveable in our lifetimes here on earth.

but I expect my choice of theories to be shown true after I'm gone from this earth!

[Rían]

btw, to be brutally honest (which I think everyone should be; self-deception is a terrible thing), natural selection is going on quite demonstrably in New Orleans.

Do you evolutionists object? If so, what are your logical reasons for objecting? If it's just that you feel bad because you evolved with a tendency to help others, and it's not like there's any real absolute truth that it's wrong for all time to come up to a woman holding her baby and then kill the bothersome baby and rape the woman, then why are you sending your aid and your condolences over here? Why? Since you're now enlightened and you realize that your compassion is merely a by-product of natural selection and doesn't really mean anything, then I hope you'll get back into your senses and keep your money for yourselves.

Shouldn't you rejoice that your theory is being supported?

(I'm playing the devil's advocate here - I'm truly horrified at what is taking place over there yet I think we need to THINK about it! If we can wring some good out of it by making people think more about things, then good! That Katrina lady sure wrung some good out of it - I think it warmed many hearts here to hear what she had done. Yet her "natural" choice should have been to take the money... is she a fool to have done what she did?)

[Insidious Rex]

What kind of nonsense...

What does whats going on in New Orleans have ANYTHING to do with creationism exactly? If anything it clearly shows that we ARE animals at base. When pushed into desperate situations we tend to do horrible things to survive. When law and order breaks down and more opportunity for getting away with things avails itself, people WILL take advantage. Human nature. Instinct. Documented over and over by simply turning on CNN and watching whats going on down there. And when people see other people suffering and in such a horrible state it is also our instinct to feel anguished and want to help. We are a social species. This is perfectly normal and expected. We survive by supporting each other. Its to OUR benefit. It fits in perfectly. To say that theres no point to helping them is an absurd statement. We EVOLVED to help each other and we EVOLVED to kill each other. And heres a perfect example of both right in front of you.

Now personally Im a little leary of using the catastrophe in New Orleans right now to attack evolution and promote creationism or christianity. Some people still have missing friends and relatives and may find this offensive or hurtful.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Please remember that we're trying to give some bases for theories being formulated, according to your definition of science. We're not talking proving; we're talking is there any observable evidence to formulate this theory? You just seem so defensive about even considering a theory that many, many brilliant scientists thought reasonable. Do you really, really think that the observable complexity and balance of the universe gives absolutely NO reason for a reasonable person to consider creation?

as i've said many times before, but will again... believing in a creator is fine, and it's not about truth... it's about what is science

science says "how could x,y,z" have come about naturally... or, to put it in your terms: is it possible for what we see today to have come about naturally

once you hit the point of "the creator did it", you are ceasing to be scientific... you can call it a theory, but it is not a scientific one

saying the earth is 6,000 years old can be a scientific theory... saying that a creator "created" it 6,000 years ago is not (but you can still believe it)

saying the earth is billions of years old can be a scientific theory... saying that a creator "created" it billions years ago is not (but you can still believe it)

i'm sorry if you take it as defensive, i really don't mean it that way

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

I don't think evolution is true, yet I will grant that some reasonable people could look at vestigal organs (most of which have now been proved to NOT be vestigal, but rather to have very important functions) and think that living beings have changed over time, and make a HUGE extrapolation to say that maybe they've changed from particle to people. I'm not afraid of that theory being considered; I"m willing to grant that some people might think it is reasonable and want to look into it further. Yet I only seem to get defensiveness from you, and I look at other evolutionists and see absolute hysteria - WHY, WHY is there so much emotion tied up in THIS PARTICULAR area, as opposed to non-evolutionary topics? To me, it looks like desperate measures from desperate people.

speaking against evolution and/or trying to disprove it is fine... but calling something a scientific theory (creationism, not young-earth stuff) that is completely untestable and not based upon and observable evidence is not... it takes away not only from the study of evolutionary science, but from the study of any alternative, including young-earth stuff