How to teach evolution & Evidence for Creationism

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by Elemmire

I agree with RÃ* here. We can't prove the world is 6000 years old. We can't even prove that the world is five minutes old.

For all we know, the world could have come into being 5 minutes ago. Everything we believe and think (and think we know) could be nothing more than false memories, so to speak. If there's a power in or outside of the universe that's strong enough to bring everything into existence, it can certainly bring it in the blink of an eye.

Sorry guys... My philosophy class is messing with my head... But I still hold that with stuff like this, we can't really know anything.

See now if it comes down to THIS as your argument FOR creationism (namely that it might ALL be one big giant illusion and all this evidence for evolution could be a nifty trick by god) well then you arent going to get much credibility from the scientific community. thats called postulating a possibility based on no evidence whatsoever while rejecting outright that which we have painfully surmised (imperfectly or not) through scientific study and observation.

[Elemmírë]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

See now if it comes down to THIS as your argument FOR creationism (namely that it might ALL be one big giant illusion and all this evidence for evolution could be a nifty trick by god) well then you arent going to get much credibility from the scientific community. thats called postulating a possibility based on no evidence whatsoever while rejecting outright that which we have painfully surmised (imperfectly or not) through scientific study and observation.

Hey! I'm not a Creationist!

I'm not even a Christian, IR! I'm on your side!

Well... sort of, and when I want to be.

I'm just pointing out that nothing can be proven beyond doubt, one way or the other.

[edited]The idea that everything we see might not be real or as we perceive it certainly does not support Creationism. The Bible and any other religious texts or ideas certainly get included in the things of which we can't be sure.

All the same, I believe in evolution. I don't believe in Creationism, or Intelligent Design... or even God the way that most people do. Still, I won't discount the chance that I could be wrong and someone like RÃ*an, inked, or Lief could be right.

Still, I don't trust science very much, but it gets me much further than religion does (usually). Yeesh... I can't imagine what I'm going to be like in about three years if I stick with this philosophy major...

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Elemmire

I agree with RÃ* here. We can't prove the world is 6000 years old. We can't even prove that the world is five minutes old.

In one sense, yes, but I think it is reasonable to rely on historical record.

For all we know, the world could have come into being 5 minutes ago. Everything we believe and think (and think we know) could be nothing more than false memories, so to speak.

But why bother to talk about anything, if that is true. I think it is reasonable to assume that basically our senses are reliable. In fact, that is what science is based upon.

Sorry guys... My philosophy class is messing with my head... But I still hold that with stuff like this, we can't really know anything.

But that's not what I'm talking about at ALL. I'm talking about things that can be known scientifically. And macroevolution is NOT one of them, because it CANNOT fit into a test involving the scientific method. Just a simple fact - nothing against macroevolution as an idea, but it CANNOT be scientifically proven.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Evolutionism? Dont tell me yer being seduced into thinking like them now. come on be strong now. use your head.

I echo this Think for yourselves, people! Look at the evidence, being SURE to be aware what is ACTUALLY scientific evidence and what is conjecture. Macroevolution is conjecture. Many intelligent scientists believe it, and there is a fair amount of evidence pointing to it, but it will ALWAYS be conjecture, because it CANNOT be proven scientifically. Anyone that cannot admit this has, IMO, some serious unscientific biases that are coloring their opinion on this issue. And one's worldview beliefs (Christianity, atheism, agnosticism, etc.) should not color how they look at scientific evidence, IMO.

You know, IRex, it amazes me how vehemently you oppose any questioning of evolution. I thought a big part of science was about questioning and keeping an open mind!

eloquant words.

Yet you miss that MASSIVELY unproved ASSUMPTION that evolution occurred. Perhaps it didn't. Perhaps we came about thru creation by intelligent design. If that is true, the entire theory of evolution is wrong. Saying (incorrectly) that evolution actually occurred is not only unscientific, it is closeminded! And also it eliminates consideration of any other possibility, which is not a good thing to do, IMO.

you can make the argument that oh evolution hasnt been PROVED yet so we cant think of it as anything more then a silly idea but youd be deluding yourself in a massive way.

I don't think it's a "silly idea" at all. I think it's incorrect, but I've never insulted it, or the people that think it's true.

Time to join the scientific world and see how things work.

Can you tell me what the scientific method is?

you can be wrong on bits here and there but it doesnt torpedo the whole concept which has an underlying buttressing of an uncountable amount of evidence.

Yet the conclusions drawn, such as macroevolution occurred, are unscientific - it can't be helped, because it's in the past. Scientists do the best they can in this area, but the important parts remain mere conjecture. I think it's very important to realize this truth, and keep an open mind on the subject.

[Nurvingiel]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Evolutionism? Dont tell me yer being seduced into thinking like them now. come on be strong now. use your head. as for that "fact" statement Im pretty sure weve been back and forth on this many many many times now. Your sounding the old creationist reply of "dont care! its still not a FACT there for its faulty!" Well take a look at this. It sums it up pretty well since I dont have time right now for a big explanation myself:

I'm just calling it like it is - a theory. It's a very solid and well-developped theory, and one that I believe, but it's still a theory.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by Elemmire

Hey! I'm not a Creationist!

Oh i didnt think you were. Was just piggybacking on your philosophy argument to make my point. Was probably more directed toward others really. Sorry for stepping on your face in the process.

I'm not even a Christian, IR!

what do you consider yourself?

I'm just pointing out that nothing can be proven beyond doubt, one way or the other.

absolutely. But you can come so infinitely close that it does you a great disservice to discount certain things because of this. Give evolution its due (which I know you do as you said above). When you weigh the evidence for it versus the evidence for creationism its not even a contest.

Still, I don't trust science very much

what is it about science that you dont trust?

Oh and nothing wrong with looking at things philosophically and being skeptical. Its a very healthy approach. As long as its true skepticism and not simply shutting out certain ways of thinking by default. wouldnt you agree?

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Macroevolution is conjecture. Many intelligent scientists believe it, and there is a fair amount of evidence pointing to it, but it will ALWAYS be conjecture, because it CANNOT be proven scientifically.

so how close do we need to get to “proof� by weight of evidence before it becomes more or less accepted as a given? 75%? 99%? 99.999%?

You know, IRex, it amazes me how vehemently you oppose any questioning of evolution. I thought a big part of science was about questioning and keeping an open mind!

please question away. That’s what science is all about. I do it all the time. But I don’t say well we cant prove it so we need to scrap the whole thing. People can argue over say if evolution was punctuated and to what degree. They can argue over lineages of species based on fossil evidence. They can certainly argue over evolutionary theory as applied to human psychology. That’s a fun one. But most creationists are bent on bringing down the whole of evolution girder and nail. And that’s not “questioning and keeping an open mind� as I see it.

Yet you miss that MASSIVELY unproved ASSUMPTION that evolution occurred. Perhaps it didn't. Perhaps we came about thru creation by intelligent design.

but the evidence… what about ALL the evidence… how can you just brush it off as “MASSIVELY unproved�?

Can you tell me what the scientific method is?

you’ve asked me this before when we were talking about this and I posted a huge response for you. In fact maybe even in this thread somewhere. Want me to repost it?

Yet the conclusions drawn, such as macroevolution occurred, are unscientific - it can't be helped, because it's in the past. Scientists do the best they can in this area, but the important parts remain mere conjecture. I think it's very important to realize this truth, and keep an open mind on the subject.

and I patently disagree. It’s the most likely scenario by far of any other. there is no evidence for all life being created even the 99% that has gone extinct. What would be the point of that? It looks MUCH more like a natural phenomenon not an artificially controlled one. So in this way it IS very very much a part of science and widely accepted.

[Blackheart]

When you begin to argue over the epistemological meanings of prove and fact, it's a good sign that the argument is bogging down.
Sure you can slip right off into solipsism and argue that all the rest of you nutters are figments of my imagination...

But unless you have some shared contextual reality, then it all becomes meaningless.

Since it's all meaningless I shall now give out my personal opinion.

Evolution studies a mechanism for change in species (change means population changes and speciation). It is the most likely mechanism based on all of the knowledge and evidence that we as human beings have been able to collect. It is as certain as any other scientific theory (gravitation, electromagnetic theories etc). Which means that if contradictory empirical evidence appears the theory will be reformulated to accommodate the evidence.

Because evolution is a study of mechanism, it does nt address certain philosophical issues that many people want to see addressed. That's too bad, you want cake, but it's plain dry bread. it's supposed to be plain dry bread.

You can't mix philosophy and science. That hasn't flown since the middle ages. Science deals with repeatable observable phenomena, and the conclusions drawn from them.

Philosophy is a completely different realm. It still has logic, rationale, and "evidence", but it deals with the non-empirical. Intent of origin is in the philosophical realm. And sometimes the line gets very blurry for people.

For example, just because 99% of all known species have gone extinct is not evidence against a directing force. It's only evidence that if there WERE a directing force, it doesn't care about those particular forms for whatever reasons you may choose to apply.

This is of course WHY science is not (or shouldn't be) concerned with such questions. They are untestable. And I think that's exactly what annoys some people who don't understand why they can't interject philosophical questions into a scientific debate...


If you want to talk about intent of origin, it's a philosophical discussion from the get go.

As for string theory I have finally developed a fair understanding of the basic principles. However since it involves massive amounts of energy to tap into the underlying principles, I have shelved plans to use it to take over the world, and gone back to working on my giant robot for now...

But if you have questions about it I will try to answer them.

[Earniel]

Originally Posted by Elemmire

I agree with RÃ* here. We can't prove the world is 6000 years old. We can't even prove that the world is five minutes old.

I quite disagree. From my bones people can estimate my age, with the bones of the earth it's not much different. We may not be able to give the exact age of the world but we can prove she's older than 5 minutes.

[Elemmírë]

Ah... just so all of you know, I'm probably going to be kind of strange in a thread like this (and the What You Believe)... Half of the time, I'll be against all of you, and the other half I'll be with IR and science...

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

In one sense, yes, but I think it is reasonable to rely on historical record.

But why bother to talk about anything, if that is true. I think it is reasonable to assume that basically our senses are reliable. In fact, that is what science is based upon.

Yes... but our senses are not always reliable. After all, the world isn't flat, and we're not the centre of the solar system.

I'm not trying to say that nothing is real and that we shouldn't talk about anything. I'm simply pointing out that no matter what we're talking about, we can't be completely sure of it. This doesn't mean to stop searching, just to realise you might be wrong.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Oh i didnt think you were. Was just piggybacking on your philosophy argument to make my point. Was probably more directed toward others really. Sorry for stepping on your face in the process.

what do you consider yourself?

It's okay, IR. I don't subscribe with any religious group, though my own personal beliefs coincide most closely with Taoism.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

absolutely. But you can come so infinitely close that it does you a great disservice to discount certain things because of this. Give evolution its due (which I know you do as you said above). When you weigh the evidence for it versus the evidence for creationism its not even a contest.

I agree. All the same, I think a lot of the world's problems would be solved if people just admited that they might possibly be wrong.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

what is it about science that you dont trust?

Oh and nothing wrong with looking at things philosophically and being skeptical. Its a very healthy approach. As long as its true skepticism and not simply shutting out certain ways of thinking by default. wouldnt you agree?

Yes, I do agree... I think in part that is what I distrust about science. I get the impression that science is as good at shutting things out as religion. If something doesn't fit in with a theory... discard it. If it can't be "proved" (something like ESP... not every scientist, mind you), then it doesn't exist.

Hey, Blackheart... you do realise that 200 years ago, science and philosophy were the same thing, don't you? I still hold that they're more closely related than you'd like to admit... but that might be because I kind of have to...

[Elemmírë]

Originally Posted by Eärniel

I quite disagree. From my bones people can estimate my age, with the bones of the earth it's not much different. We may not be able to give the exact age of the world but we can prove she's older than 5 minutes.

Wow... did I really take 16 minutes to post?

I think you missed my point, Eärniel. It was the old, annoying, philosophical "what is really real" question. All evidence points to the age of the world, but if you let yourself question that evidence, and basically question everything.

Well... it's not something I suggest thinking about unless you like thinking in circles and ending up possibly nihilistic and depressed...

I don't think it should be in this thread anymore, but my point comes from reading Descartes' first Meditation (which is the only one I like). Everything we know comes from what we can perceive with our five senses, but how can we know beyond any doubt that the world we see in front of us is really as it appears?

I'm not saying to throw away everything just on the off chance that it might be wrong... just to understand that just because it looks right doesn't mean that it necessarily is.

Because sometimes it simply is not. *Think Galileo*

[Earniel]

Originally Posted by Elemmire

I think you missed my point, Eärniel. It was the old, annoying, philosophical "what is really real" question. All evidence points to the age of the world, but if you let yourself question that evidence, and basically question everything.

Well... it's not something I suggest thinking about unless you like thinking in circles and ending up possibly nihilistic and depressed...

No, I understood you (I think). The thing is I'm not one for this sort of philosophy, it does funny things to my brain. I've had many discussions with friends in high school whether we were real or whether we were figments of someone's imagination or someone's dreams and then who of us would be the dreamer and how we could ever find out.

It's fun at first but you get into the thinking in circles indeed pretty quick. It kills about every discussion after a while because if nothing's real you have no base to start from or theorise about or study, compare to, etc....

It's all nice to think about but it's rather worthless in practise, at some point you're going to have to believe that something is real.

[Elemmírë]

Originally Posted by Eärniel

No, I understood you (I think). The thing is I'm not one for this sort of philosophy, it does funny things to my brain. I've had many discussions with friends in high school whether we were real or whether we were figments of someone's imagination or someone's dreams and then who of us would be the dreamer and how we could ever find out.

It's fun at first but you get into the thinking in circles indeed pretty quick. It kills about every discussion after a while because if nothing's real you have no base to start from or theorise about or study, compare to, etc....

It's all nice to think about but it's rather worthless in practise, at some point you're going to have to believe that something is real.

The dream question is one of my favourites. But then again, I personally love thinking in circles.

Of course... at least one of my friends quickly want to start throwing things at me. Especially since I've developed quite the habit of turning almost every conversation back to philosophy... I think she finds it even more annoying than me turning everything back to Tolkien...

[Blackheart]

Originally Posted by Elemmire

Hey, Blackheart... you do realise that 200 years ago, science and philosophy were the same thing, don't you? I still hold that they're more closely related than you'd like to admit... but that might be because I kind of have to...

Closer to 400. That whole Renaissance thing was slow to get rolling in other parts of the world though....

Philosophy is the love of wisdom. It does include under it's umbrella the idea that empirical facts are a form of wisdom, however it does not subscribe in and of itself to a rigid objectiveness (Science does, but that doesn't mean that it's practicioners are always able to adhere to those priciples).

That is because the ultimate questions, the types of wisdom it most lusts after, are not empirical, but metaphysical. Why is a question that science rarely asks. How, or When, or Where, are more it's Bailiwick. It's perfectly reasonable for Science to ask how the universe started. But asking why the unvierse started is a question that it really can't answer, and shouldn't be expected to answer.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by Blackheart

For example, just because 99% of all known species have gone extinct is not evidence against a directing force. It's only evidence that if there WERE a directing force, it doesn't care about those particular forms for whatever reasons you may choose to apply.

Im always amused how you enjoy knocking the stools from under those who essentially think exactly along the same lines as yourself (90% of your post was arguing the very same thing I was before it). Is this from a drive to be The Recognized Source without peer or an instinct to be contrarian/lone wolfish or is there just a perfectionist streak in you? Seems to stem more from a social (anti?) aspect of your personality then anything else. And in that I can identify to SOME extent…

My point in stating: the vast majority of life on earth has gone extinct seems to me to make it less likely that everything was simply created by a god, was simply a common sense one. And remember there is a gulf between a “directing force� (which could mean one of a number of things) and a “creating god� who weaves beings out of nothing in an instant. That “directing force� guy can fit a wide range of behavior if you think about it after all. But why have this monumentous event of Creation if 99.99% of your creations are going to die because they don’t work well in their ever changing environment. Or are you suggesting that he purposefully killed them all. if so why? That’s the common sense illogic thing that makes the idea of extinction seem a problem for the whole creationist model. I mean I suppose you could say well it us not for us to ask why god does what he does but you and I both know that’s a cop out. The logical thing would be to create stuff and let it go. Why have stuff die then create new stuff just a bit different then the old stuff then let THAT stuff die and make more stuff even more different from the original stuff… etc. etc. Seems a colossal waste of time and energy. A smart god would create once (which by the way is how its stated in the bible: there was ONE creation episode not billions) and then weave into his creations the ability for his creations to adapt and change over time if necessary. So a smart god, a logical god would make evolution part of nature (and this part of science). Where as if there was no creation and there was no creatOR then evolution seems to be the answer by default according to the data. So… I think I just logically proved that no matter how you slice it it has to be evolution. Im sure someone will poke a hole or two in it though… If to distance themself from agreeing if not for nothing else...

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by Elemmire

Yes, I do agree... I think in part that is what I distrust about science. I get the impression that science is as good at shutting things out as religion. If something doesn't fit in with a theory... discard it. If it can't be "proved" (something like ESP... not every scientist, mind you), then it doesn't exist.

well i think thats more about human nature then about science per se.

[Rían]

I think this is the fourth round (at least for me) on this topic, but I like how it's shaping up this time, and the questions that are going around, and the thoughts that are being thunk

Unfortunately, my in-laws are arriving in 1 hour and I have tons to do, so I prob. won't be back until next week. In the meantime, think away, everyone, and I'll catch up when I get back!

[Blackheart]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Im always amused how you enjoy knocking the stools from under those who essentially think exactly along the same lines as yourself (90% of your post was arguing the very same thing I was before it). Is this from a drive to be The Recognized Source without peer or an instinct to be contrarian/lone wolfish or is there just a perfectionist streak in you? Seems to stem more from a social (anti?) aspect of your personality then anything else. And in that I can identify to SOME extent…

It's more of a perfectionist thing. Puny mortal! Actually the closest thing I have to a guiding life philosphy is agnostic skepticism: You can't know anything for sure, and you shouldn't trust it anyway.... especially the idea that you can't know anything for sure...

My point in stating: the vast majority of life on earth has gone extinct seems to me to make it less likely that everything was simply created by a god, was simply a common sense one. And remember there is a gulf between a “directing force� (which could mean one of a number of things) and a “creating god� who weaves beings out of nothing in an instant. That “directing force� guy can fit a wide range of behavior if you think about it after all. But why have this monumentous event of Creation if 99.99% of your creations are going to die because they don’t work well in their ever changing environment. Or are you suggesting that he purposefully killed them all. if so why?

That's anthropomorphic. I see no real difference between the idea of a god, and a directing force. I think what you mean however is "why would a directing force/supreme being with human characteristics such as empathy etc..."

Even if you posit that situation, however, consider the example of a human programmer. He has empathy, he probably cares deeply about his code even. But the nature of programing means that the code needs to be adjusted because the environment of the code changes by the very nature of it's existence. It has to in order to be "run". Yet I doubt that the Coder grieves overly much because some bits get discarded... unless it causes his code to break.

Entropy exists inside the universe, therefore defacto it is not a stable matrix. Any thing that exists is therefore subject to change. It is in fact a very similar situation. Now if you want to ask WHY it's that way, then we have to get all philosophical...

That’s the common sense illogic thing that makes the idea of extinction seem a problem for the whole creationist model. I mean I suppose you could say well it us not for us to ask why god does what he does but you and I both know that’s a cop out.

Not for science. For philosophy it is. Which is why creationism and Intelligent design should not be seriously discussed in a science class. Maybe what high schools need to do is offer philosophy classes... although that might have the horrible side effect of teaching the masses to think for themsleves, and who knows what chaos could result from that....

The logical thing would be to create stuff and let it go. Why have stuff die then create new stuff just a bit different then the old stuff then let THAT stuff die and make more stuff even more different from the original stuff… etc. etc. Seems a colossal waste of time and energy.

Philosophically speaking- you are correct. It is a colossal expenditure of energy. However you are interjecting the idea that it is to no purpose, which is open to argument. It may or may not be a waste, depending on unknowable factors. One can again, philosphically, provide congruent examples that do not prove anything, but they do keep ideas in the realm of possibility.

A smart god would create once (which by the way is how its stated in the bible: there was ONE creation episode not billions) and then weave into his creations the ability for his creations to adapt and change over time if necessary. So a smart god, a logical god would make evolution part of nature (and this part of science). Where as if there was no creation and there was no creatOR then evolution seems to be the answer by default according to the data. So… I think I just logically proved that no matter how you slice it it has to be evolution. Im sure someone will poke a hole or two in it though… If to distance themself from agreeing if not for nothing else...

You proved something? Pardon me, I need to go hammer out some lightning bolts...

All you have done is state what you view as the most logical course of action given a limited set of assumptions.

-Assuming that there would be no limitations, even on omniscience, for example. (I don't want to get mired deep in the quicksand of Free Will v Omniscient Determination, so I'll leave it too you to imagine how or why an Omniscient Being would impose limitations upon itself)

-Assuming that there are no reasons for further intervention (Boredom, correcting for self imposed limitations such as free will etc.)

The point of all this crap is: While there is no better model of species change, it is an empirical model, driven by empirical data, designed by humans to explain empirical data.

It is not intended to answer philosophical questions, so while it is fair grist for the mill, one should not be surprised that it falls short in answering philosophical questions. That's not what it was intended for.

And in tandem- One shouldn't be surprised that a philosophically derived theory of creation fall short at the task of explaining empirical data.

Wanting something to be other than what it is is a deep seated part of the human condition, a rejection of self. Reality is only a reflection of self after-all. But don't take it personally, it's a widespead trait, and it has it's benefits. If it weren't that way, things like art, compassion, and technical invention probably wouldn't exist.

[Rían]

(in-laws running late ...)

Originally Posted by Blackheart

It is as certain as any other scientific theory (gravitation, electromagnetic theories etc).

Good thing you noted that this was your "opinion" or I would have had to point that out! It is MY opinion that this is totally untrue, at least the macroevolution part of the theory.

Science deals with repeatable observable phenomena, and the conclusions drawn from them.

Absolutely! And macroevolution is not observable, except second-hand (by deduction), and obviously a deduction can be wrong. It's like saying, "I put the parts of this model airplane outside on a windy night and go to bed. When I wake up in the morning, they're properly assembled! Therefore, the wind has assembled them!" You can do this over and over on many windy nights, and think that your conclusion is correct, but there are other possibilities out there - perhaps your neighbor is coming over and assembling them while you're asleep! Macroevolution is a deduction from evidence, NOT a scientific observation - and it CAN be wrong - there ARE other options out there.

It's only evidence that if there WERE a directing force, it doesn't care about those particular forms for whatever reasons you may choose to apply.

Oy! No imagination ...

This is of course WHY science is not (or shouldn't be) concerned with such questions. They are untestable. And I think that's exactly what annoys some people who don't understand why they can't interject philosophical questions into a scientific debate...

Yes, the basic premise of the theory of evolution is philosophical (i.e., that what we see today is the result of entirely naturalistic, non-directed means).

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

it CAN be wrong, but the evidence, so far as i know points to it NOT being wrong, in my educated opinion