How to teach evolution & Evidence for Creationism

[Rían]

(and please do NOT accuse me of being deceitful; I may not be a 100% perfectly clear writer (but neither are you!!) but my motives are totally goodhearted and honest in these discussions. I do NOT "spin" (unless you think spin means giving an honest opinion, in which case you do, too); I do NOT tell you to "shut up"; I am NOT "being misleading" (at least intentionally, which it seems like you're implying; as far as unintentional, we can both be misleading, as is clearly shown by the evidence ); I do NOT set "traps", and please do NOT call what I write "crap".

[Rían]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

i've highlighted "the difference"

and in the same way, ID defines these beings as "lifeforms like us, more or less", because if they weren't, we wouldn't be able to recognize their design! ID does NOT define who they are in terms of "well, they would be what we call gods"; it just looks for the SAME type beings as SETI does - ones with an intelligence we could recognize.
Maybe they are of similar abilities, maybe of more, maybe of vastly more; the relevant part is that they have a similar intelligence such that we can recognize it.

[Spock]

Tone It Down Guys

Debate The Issues

Don't Flame Or Incite Nor Make Condesending Remarks In Violation Of The Rules.

[Rían]

Caution acknowledged

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Spock

Don't Flame Or Incite Nor Make Condesending Remarks In Violation Of The Rules.

who asked you!!






i'm kidding, of course

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Maybe they are of similar abilities, maybe of more, maybe of vastly more; the relevant part is that they have a similar intelligence such that we can recognize it.

creating the universe and all that it entails is waaay more than "vastly more" ... and it goes back to your crochet example... a scarf is created from yarn... what is a universe created from?

science is the study of our universe, not what is beyond it... this does not mean that there is nothing beyond it... it is just outside the realm of observation and scientific theory... once again, it is the realm of philosophy

if ID people wish to theorize that aliens engineered life on earth, it could be considered scientific to an extent... but it wouldn't really answer any of the big questions

whether you admit it or not, ID people want to point to the "godlike being", which is why it will never be accepted as science

[Rían]

and whether you admit it or not, most evolutionists want to point to there being no god.

"What is a universe created from?"
IMO, ID (rightly) doesn't concern itself with the question, just like evolution (or so you guys say so often) doesn't concern itself with how the goo got there.

"science is the study of our universe, not what is beyond it... "
Yes, we study what is IN our universe and try to discern, through analysis, if we think an intelligence is behind it.

"if ID people wish to theorize that aliens engineered life on earth ... "
So if we get a readable signal from outer space, we'll just ignore it?

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

and whether you admit it or not, most evolutionists want to point to there being no god.

i'd say it's pretty split... in fact, a large majority of people believe in god in some shape or form... and i'd think most scientists place god at around the big bang or some other theorectical origin of the universe... athiest/agnostics represent an awfully small portion of most populations (even scientists)... they just keep that part separate from their studies

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

"What is a universe created from?"
IMO, ID (rightly) doesn't concern itself with the question, just like evolution (or so you guys say so often) doesn't concern itself with how the goo got there.

evolution (in terms of darwin) is a theory about the process of life forming on earth from basic elements to what it is now... there is a beginning and and ending, and both are defined (and observable in a physical sense)... it does not have to answer the "What is a universe created from?", 'cause it is not a theory about how the universe came about... just life on planets

ID is a theory of everything we see... so it does have to answer that question

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

"science is the study of our universe, not what is beyond it... "
Yes, we study what is IN our universe and try to discern, through analysis, if we think an intelligence is behind it.

evolution studies from point A (elements) to point B (life) ... both of which are physical, observable and within our universe

ID studies from A (creator) to B (life, the universe and everything) ... in the latter, A is not a part that is physical, observable or within our universe

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

"if ID people wish to theorize that aliens engineered life on earth ... "
So if we get a readable signal from outer space, we'll just ignore it?

i miss your point on this comment

[Count Comfect]

I think the basic difference between SETI and ID (and between "humanlike" and "godlike") is that SETI is looking for evidence of things that we could do or we think we will be able to do soon - radio broadcasts, power plant emissions, etc - while ID is looking for evidence of something we have no expectation of being able to do in the future - the (intelligent) design of life over a span of epochs. The former is humanlike activity - we can or will be able to do it, and so we can say "that looks like us, and is therefore intelligent (we assume)." The latter is godlike - we can't do it, we don't expect to be able to do it, and we have no idea if it has intelligence behind it.

We have no idea if there is intelligence behind it because we don't know what to compare it to. I can compare an arrowhead to a rock, or a radio broadcast to the radio emissions of a radioactive element, and say "the first one is what the second one looks like after intelligence has acted on it." However, there is nothing I can look at next to life and say "this is life before intelligence designed it."

Also, since there is no being I know of (God excepted) with the ability to intelligently design life, and there is a theory out there that posits a naturalistic evolution of life, Occam's Razor demands that I not multiply entities by theorizing about the existence of such a being without further proof.

(And I did update the Wheel thread)

[brownjenkins]

i could not have summed it up better CC!

it's a matter of degree really... ID is just too much of a "leap of faith" as opposed to something like SETI or evolution theory

[rohirrim TR]

Basically we all have theorys and there is inconclusive evidence for both theorys, the evolutionist side believes in the works of darwin. Intelligent Design advocates believe in the bible and more recent evidences. But since no one knows anyone who was around a million years ago (or even six thousand years ago) there is no absolute, proof for either side. Yet on both sides there is faith to their theory (for whatever reasons) a firm atheist is not going to be moved by anything but the most absolute evidence for creation; on the side other of the coin neither is a firm creationist going to be convinced of evoulution. My point is that even though there is no absolute proof for either side of the origin debate both sides have a belief system of certain things that you simply have to believe(without proof)
and if you define religion by faith in things not seen then it would make evolution another religion(maybe they can get a tax exemp status )

[brownjenkins]

both are certainly theories, and as such inconclusive

the question is which is a scientific theory and should be taught extensively in science class (as opposed to just mentioned and explained somewhat briefly)

scientific theory does not depend upon "truth", it depends upon observability and testablility of the causes and effects implied in the theory... i.e. for evolution we can observe the basic elements in our universe and observe life... evolution theory attempts to connect the two... can elements become life?

ID attempts to connect life with and unobservable and untestable "cause"... this doesn't make it wrong, or even "not a theory"... but it does make it "unscientific"

CC brought up Occam's Razor, which is a useful line of thought here...

William of Occam (or Ockham) (1284-1347) was an English philosopher and theologian. His work on knowledge, logic and scientific inquiry played a major role in the transition from medieval to modern thought. He based scientific knowledge on experience and self-evident truths, and on logical propositions resulting from those two sources. In his writings, Occam stressed the Aristotelian principle that entities must not be multiplied beyond what is necessary. This principle became known as Occam's (or Ockham's) Razor or the law of parsimony. A problem should be stated in its basic and simplest terms. In science, the simplest theory that fits the facts of a problem is the one that should be selected.

This rule is interpreted to mean that the simplest of two or more competing theories is preferable and that an explanation for unknown phenomena should first be attempted in terms of what is already known.

A real life example of Occam's Razor in practice goes as follows:

Crop circles began to be reported in the 1970s. Two interpretations were made of the circles of matted grass. One was that flying saucers made the imprints. The other was that someone (human) had used some sort of instruments to push down the grass. Occam's Razor would say that given the lack of evidence for flying saucers and the complexity involved in getting UFOs from distant galaxies to arrive on earth (unseen and traveling faster than the speed of light I suppose) the second interpretation is simplest. The second explanation could be wrong, but until further facts present themself it remains the preferable theory. As it turns out, Occam's Razor was right as two people admitted to making the original crop figures in the 1990s (and the rest have apparently been created by copy-cats). Despite this fact, some people still ignore Occam's Razor and instead continue to believe that crop circles are being created by flying saucers.

The simplest model is more likely to be correct--especially when we are working with unusual phenomenon.

[The Gaffer]

Originally Posted by rohirrim TR

Basically we all have theorys and there is inconclusive evidence for both theorys,

If that's the case, where are the articles in peer-reviewed scientific literature about ID?

[rohirrim TR]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

both are certainly theories, and as such inconclusive

the question is which is a scientific theory and should be taught extensively in science class (as opposed to just mentioned and explained somewhat briefly)

scientific theory does not depend upon "truth", it depends upon observability and testablility of the causes and effects implied in the theory... i.e. for evolution we can observe the basic elements in our universe and observe life... evolution theory attempts to connect the two... can elements become life?

ID attempts to connect life with and unobservable and untestable "cause"... this doesn't make it wrong, or even "not a theory"... but it does make it "unscientific"

CC brought up Occam's Razor, which is a useful line of thought here...

But surely you realize that the many claims of evolution are also untestable and unobservable, so that saying ID is unscientific because there are aspects that are untestable is somewhat closeminded and hypocritical (and don't take that personal i know you are not a closeminded person)


and to answer your question about teaching evolution (how did we get back here?) all theorys should be taught with the understanding that they are only theorys

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by rohirrim TR

But surely you realize that the many claims of evolution are also untestable and unobservable, so that saying ID is unscientific because there are aspects that are untestable is somewhat closeminded and hypocritical (and don't take that personal i know you are not a closeminded person)

But we have lots of evidence for evolutionary mechanisms in nature. In fact we CAN observe it by simply looking at dna and lineages. Its right there in front of your eyes. Also, the simple fact that you can genetically manipulate living things shows you that evolution works. testable observable evidence... You can do no such thing for creationism. You cant even begin to. So theres frankly no comparison scientifically between the two.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by rohirrim TR

But surely you realize that the many claims of evolution are also untestable and unobservable, so that saying ID is unscientific because there are aspects that are untestable is somewhat closeminded and hypocritical (and don't take that personal i know you are not a closeminded person)

it's not so much "untestable and unobservable" aspects in ID as it is the cause

the cause in evolution theory is time ... or specifically, the idea that things change over time... you can argue that a particle can not become a living thing over time... but all the parts the theory is based on are things we know exist... i.e. particles, life, the passage of time

ID includes a big fat "part" we do not know exists... and can not even imply exists from anything we view in the real world... the "intelligent designer"

and to answer your question about teaching evolution (how did we get back here?) all theorys should be taught with the understanding that they are only theorys

just trying to stay "on topic"

and i agree... i said much earlier and many times before that i really think religion should be required study in the middle and latter years of schooling... i think it is just as important as reading, writing, math, history and science... but give it it's own spot, and let others keep theirs

[rohirrim TR]

there is no larger a part missing from ID than from evolution, It is a proven fact that something can not come from nothing. There are no experiments that took absolutely nothing and came out with not so much as a single cell much less a living organism

and i agree we are not taught enough about religion in normal school.

[rohirrim TR]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

But we have lots of evidence for evolutionary mechanisms in nature. In fact we CAN observe it by simply looking at dna and lineages. Its right there in front of your eyes. Also, the simple fact that you can genetically manipulate living things shows you that evolution works. testable observable evidence... You can do no such thing for creationism. You cant even begin to. So theres frankly no comparison scientifically between the two.

similar dna and lineages could also imply a common designer (very possibly an intelligent one to create such creatures) not just a common ancestor

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by rohirrim TR

similar dna and lineages could also imply a common designer (very possibly an intelligent one to create such creatures) not just a common ancestor

What do you mean? How would it imply a designer? Whats the point exactly of makeing chimpanzee dna look almost identical to human dna if everything was just created? And whats the point of having so much junk dna by the way? i mean if mutations are not important and creation is the way things happen then why have all that uneccessary mess?

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by rohirrim TR

there is no larger a part missing from ID than from evolution, It is a proven fact that something can not come from nothing. There are no experiments that took absolutely nothing and came out with not so much as a single cell much less a living organism

i'll agree to disagree with this for Lotesse's sake