Should evolution be taught in schools?

[Rían]

Originally posted by Lizra
My eyes. They are beautifully chiped and chiseled arrowheads, with lovely curved bases for tying. They look like elves made them. They do not look like pointy rocks. I would think erosion would make for smoothness, not an arrow shape. As I mentioned, my farm was once part of the Miami Indians first reservation, there are native american artifacts all about the area. We have a musuem for all this type of stuff in the small burg where my son goes to school. Erosion looks different.

Yes, I believe that your eyes are indeed intelligently (and beautifully!) designed, and NOT the result of time and chance. In fact, Darwin himself says the following about the eye:

from Origin of Species, by Charles Darwin
To suppose that the eye, [with so many parts all working together] ... could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.

(I'll be talking more about this area later)

It's funny that you brought up the arrowheads when you did, and I would certainly expect you to see that they are NOT the product of time and chance, as you definitely did. Here's some quotes from the Morris book about arrowheads and design:

What do I mean by 'evidence of creation?' Isn't creation something you either believe or don't believe? How can we talk about scientific evidence of creation?

He then goes on to talk about a person walking along and finding a pebble shaped like a cowboy boot.

As you roll the pebble around in your hand, you notice that the softer parts of the rock are more worn away than the harder parts, and that the lines of wear follow lines of weakness in the rock. Despite some appearance of design, the boot shape of the tumbled pebble is clearly the result of time, chance, and the processes of weathering and erosion.

(and I would add you could gather similar type rocks and in the lab, subject them to water and sand and see a similar result.)

But then you see an arrowhead, and

Immediately it stands out as different. In the arrowhead, chip marks cut through the hard and soft parts of the rock equally, and the chip line goes both with and across lines of weakness in the rock. In the arrowhead, we see matter shaped and molded according to a design that gives the rocky material a purpose.

and

You have just done what many people dismiss as impossible. In comparing the pebble and the arrowhead, you were easily able to recognize evidence of creation. .... Using your knowledge of erosional processes and your observations of hard and soft rock, you were able to distinguish a result of time and chance (the tumbled pebble) from an object created with plan and purpose (the arrowhead).

And a very important conclusion:

If we had found such objects as arrowheads on Mars, all scientists would have recognized them immediately as products of creation, even though in that case we would have no idea who made them or how.

[Rían]

And the last post for tonight - the book then goes on to discuss Carl Sagan's book Contact (which was recommended to me by an evolutionist that has posted on this thread, and which I thoroughly enjoyed!)

What do the astronomers listen for to indicate an intelligent being? Random noise? Of course not! They are listening for complexity and design, and when they finally hear it, they are thrilled, because the logical inference from their scientific observations is that an intelligent being is behind that signal!

Morris' conclusion to this section:

You don't have to see the creator, and you don't have to see the creative act, to recognize evidence of creation. Even when we don't know who or what the creative agent is, then, there are cases where "creation" is simply the most logical inference from our scientific observations.

[Anglorfin]

That's why math is the universal language. Any advanced species would have an understanding of the concepts of numbers above all else.

[Rían]

I agree. I minored in math in college, BTW - great subject!

[Lizra]

Rian, I hate climbing in this squeaky hamster wheel again! If I knew nothing of science (and what I know is just the very tip of the iceburg! ) and didn't consider the effects TIME has on natural processes.....the inevitible and logical selection of what works well for a situation thriving over what doesn't, and that this constantly occuring process gets built upon in an ever-expanding manner, over all directions, situations and possibilities, for eons...allowing amazing yet logical things to occur (IMO) I might go for the "anything complicated must be made by a magic man in the sky" route. But for some reason... that's about the last thing I would consider! Sorry, evolution is not an over simplified "things just happen by chance" process, and not the only process that has brought about the "apparent" wonders we see. I don't know what all has happened in the universe anyway! ....but to attribute the universe to an invisible, all knowing, all powerful thing that just "is" a la Tom Bombadil or something (and who has also conveniently disappeared from the planet) is about the most ridiculous thing (IMO) I can imagine.

[Earniel]

You don't have to see the creator, and you don't have to see the creative act, to recognize evidence of creation. Even when we don't know who or what the creative agent is, then, there are cases where "creation" is simply the most logical inference from our scientific observations.

So? I don't think I see the point you're trying to get at. Some things can easily be determined to be created. Others are not. I don't think anyone argues that. Some tools in rock made by our early ancestors are nearly impossible to be determined as created. Mostly because they're very primitive and look a lot like stones that underwent some natural proceses. It takes a skilled eye to spot one and even then there's still much doubt. You can easily find a stone and be convinced it's made and used by prehistoric people. It might even look convincingly that way too. But it can just as easily be an ordinary piece of rock formed by natural proceses. The distinction between a creation and nature are not always as clear.

But to use this analogy to say the world is created is a big leap. Just because one beautiful thing is created does not mean all the other beautiful things are created.

Don't be sorry, Lizra. It's great that you can find something like that in your garden. The ground of our garden just isn't good for preservation of any fossil. And finding arrowheads sounds very exotic to me. No indians here. But I once did find a stone with a round hole in it. I used to pretend it was made by a caveman. That's about the extent of fossils you'll find on the ground around here.

[Rían]

Originally posted by Lizra
Rian, I hate climbing in this squeaky hamster wheel again!

Then don't, Lizra, but some people have asked to see evidence of creationism (which I'll start presenting today), and have promised to consider it, and so I am going to start presenting some later on today.

Have you seen that Darwin quote on the eye before?

[Rían]

Originally posted by Eärniel
(1)So? I don't think I see the point you're trying to get at.
(2)Some things can easily be determined to be created. Others are not. ....
(3)But to use this analogy to say the world is created is a big leap.
(4)Just because one beautiful thing is created does not mean all the other beautiful things are created.

1 - I haven't presented any evidence for creationism yet - I just wanted to show that it's natural and logical to sometimes infer creation from scientific observations/knowledge (such as the knowledge of erosion and how it works). I'm in such a HUGE minority on this thread (and I hope you guys will at least give me some credit for having the guts to jump in!) that I felt that I needed to illustrate this point.

2 - I agree, and I also agree with when you said further down that sometimes we can't tell or might make errors. But I think the arrowhead is a great example of when creation is the most logical inference, don't you?

3 - Yes, it's a HUGE leap, and I didn't make it, and I don't intend to make it.

4 - I agree

[Cirdan]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
Immediately it stands out as different. In the arrowhead, chip marks cut through the hard and soft parts of the rock equally, and the chip line goes both with and across lines of weakness in the rock. In the arrowhead, we see matter shaped and molded according to a design that gives the rocky material a purpose.

So why would one believe that the arrowhead was not made by god? It is obviuosly created and without prior knowledge of arrows, primative peoples and cultures, tools etc. it would seem obvious that only god could have placed it there. The simply initial evaluation should lead to more questions than answers. The reason we know the arrowhead was created by man is all the other supporting information we posess.


and:

If we had found such objects as arrowheads on Mars, all scientists would have recognized them immediately as products of creation, even though in that case we would have no idea who made them or how.

Why? They would not be very good scientists to make conclusions without corroborating facts.


I applaude your attempt to present the creationist side, Rian. I will be patient but I don't want to wait for too many posts to respond, so don't get discouraged if it seems like getting attacked before you've made the case.

[Cirdan]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
And the last post for tonight - the book then goes on to discuss Carl Sagan's book Contact (which was recommended to me by an evolutionist that has posted on this thread, and which I thoroughly enjoyed!)

What do the astronomers listen for to indicate an intelligent being? Random noise? Of course not! They are listening for complexity and design, and when they finally hear it, they are thrilled, because the logical inference from their scientific observations is that an intelligent being is behind that signal!

They are looking for anomalies to what they expect to find. They know the patterns of EMR they expect to find from known astronomical bodies. The observations may be scientific but the inference, without corroboration, is not. They signal could be some undiscovered type of astronomical phenomenon. It isn't assumed that it is intelligent life, only that it might be.

[HOBBIT]

Rian:But why would you want Creation taught in science classes as a scientific theory when it is not one? ? Where would you fit it in science books? At the beginning of a biology book? "And now a theory that makes absolutely no sense and does not relate to the rest of the book: (and is not even a scientific theory) 'god created everything,' please disregard" :P well thats how i would picture it as.... or at leas that is what I would think of it.

Creation is based on faith..it is not scientific at all. Without a god creationism does not work.... oh well.

and just in case you didn't notice, I replied to what you asked me near the bottom of page 73.

[GrayMouser]

Originally posted by RÃ*an



A further refinement would be that:
In the evolution model, the entire universe is considered to have evolved by natural processes into its present state of high organization and complexity.
In the creation model, there is at least one period of direct creation in the beginning, during which the basic systems of nature were brought into existence in completed, functioning form right from the start.

(these defs were from the Morris book. I'm using them because I think they represent the two models well.)

The evolution model: I'm assuming by evolution you're talking about biological evolution. In that case, it doesn't really have anything to say about the entire Universe, or whether the Universe is organized or complex.

Evolution is concerned with the development of life on Earth.

If you substitute "science" for "evolution" in the quote you'd be getting more accurate.

In the creationist model, it all depends on what you mean by the "basic systems of nature".

If you mean the laws of the Universe, then of course it would apply to everyone from Deists, who believe God created the Universe and then left it to run on its own, to mainstream Christians who believe in Theistic Evolution, all the way to Young Earth Creationists- basically ANYONE who believed the Universe was created by a higher power- including many people who thoroughly support neo-Darwinian evolution

If by "completed, functioning form" you mean complex forms of life which have not changed over time then this is basically YEC, and you are excluding many Old Earth Creationists, as well as most advocates of Intelligent Design (people such as Michael Behe ).

So, no, the definitions suggested by Morris are not very useful.

How about this:

Evolution, the believe that life on Earth developed from simple to complex and varied forms over long periods of time through the operation of natural selection on random variations, solely through naturalistic means.

Creationism, the belief that it is not possible that life on Earth could have developed solely through natural means; at some point or points supernatural intervention was necessary.

I think this is a big enough tent to include everyone from the Flat-Earthers through YECs, OECs and IDers, while excluding Theistic Evolution.

[GrayMouser]

From Rian

Yes, I believe that your eyes are indeed intelligently (and beautifully!) designed, and NOT the result of time and chance. In fact, Darwin himself says the following about the eye:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
from Origin of Species, by Charles Darwin
To suppose that the eye, [with so many parts all working together] ... could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What Darwin himself says:

"To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of Spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree. When it was first said that the sun stood still and the world turned round, the common sense of mankind declared the doctrine false; but the old saying of Vox populi, vox Dei ["the voice of the people = the voice of God "], as every philosopher knows, cannot be trusted in science. Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certain the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case; and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, should not be considered as subversive of the theory."

There is a Creationist practise known as "quote-mining" in which statements by scientists are torn out of context, rhetorical questions treated as doubts, quotes are re-arranged and parts snipped out without acknpwledgement (the standard three or four dots, to show something has been cut), and are constantly cited even when the scientists quoted object that their meaning has been twisted.
From Steven Jay Gould, himself a continual victim of this practise:

"Anti-evolutionists continually cite this passage as supposed evidence that Darwin himself threw in the towel when faced with truly difficult and inherently implausible cases. But if they would only read the very next sentence[s], they would grasp Darwin's real reason for speaking of absurdity 'in the highest possible degree.' (Either they have read these following lines and have consciously suppressed them, an indictment of dishonesty; or they have never read them and have merely copied the half quotation from another source, a proof of inexcusable sloppiness. Darwin set up the overt 'absurdity' to display the power of natural selection in resolving even the most difficult cases -- the ones that initially strike us as intractable in principle. The very next liner, give three reasons all supported by copious evidence for resolving the absurdity and accepting evolutionary development as the cause of optimally complex structures."

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/ce/3/part8.html

For Creationist quote mining:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/#s1-6

And the adoption of this tactic by IDers

http://www.ncseweb.org/article.asp?category=12

http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/art...t_4_5_2002.asp

Of course, I'm not suggesting dishonesty by anyone posting here; just that the field is so contentious and full of half-truths and misquotes that it would be nice to see a reference for any quotes.

[Draken]

GrayMouser: give it up mate! They ain't worth the effort. 30 seconds spent contemplating the Mesozoic Era is better spent than 30 hours wasting your time on this lot.

They are truly the Agents of the one true anti Christ; Ignorance, bent on diverting smart people like you from doing better things with your time!

[Cirdan]

Hey! Spreading knowledge is never a waste of time, even if it doesn't take.

GM, I enjoyed the links you posted. Killed several hours following them.

[afro-elf]

Though I have long since retired from the field, it nice to see that the there are others who carry the battle onward.

Carry on servants of reason.

[Rían]

OK, A-E, I will.

[afro-elf]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
OK, A-E, I will.

You have switched sides?

I like you a person, but you are a Servant of Faith young lady.

Though, I will say you are tenacious,

[afro-elf]

Rian, I only replied so newbies might know that I am a skeptic.

[HOBBIT]

rian as voice of reason: "teach creation in science classes" 'nuff said. :P