Should evolution be taught in schools?

[cassiopeia]

Rian, I assume you're going to quote some bits from Morris' book; I look forward to them.
Morris is supposed to be a impartial scientist, but I just found a quote of his:

The final and conclusive evidence against evolution is that fact that the Bible rejects it. The Bible is the word of God, absolutely inerrant and verbally inspired.... The Bible gives us the revelation we need, and it will be found that all the known facts of science or history can be very sastisfactorily understood within this Biblical framework.

Seems like he has his mind already made up. I was going to PM this to you, Rian, but since you brought up the book in this thread, I thought the quote was relevent.

[Rían]

OK, I'm ready to tackle the evolution thread! I think I'll work most-recent to oldest for today's posts.

cassiopeia - I see what your concern is, and I'll address it last, because the points I'll bring up first will bear on it.

1 - I think Morris' statement (where is it, BTW?) is not relevant to this thread, because it's not a scientific statement. I'm going to present some scientific evidence (note - evidence, not proof - same as for evolution - there's no proof, just evidence) for creationism, and the evolutionist people here have said they would consider it (and I assume they mean in a scientific, impartial manner). I hope they will keep their word.

2 - Please note his phrase "final and conclusive evidence" - now I haven't read the whole book cover-to-cover in order, but I have pretty much read the whole book. And as far as the scientific evidence, I don't see him asking people to accept it "because God said it was that way". I see him presenting scientific evidence carefully and impartially and logically. And he presents a heckuva lot of evidence, IMO! And as a Christian who believes in the Bible, the final capstone (although out of the realm of science) would be the Bible, and I guess that's why he mentions it.

Note the use of the word FINAL - it means the last in a long line of evidence. Now as a non-Christian, you don't need to evaluate this bit of info, because you don't believe it to be true. And again, I hope you will be willing to impartially evaluate the other evidence he presents, because that's what science is about.

3 - I would guess your major objection is that Morris has his mind already made up about the matter, and is twisting the data to reflect his preconceived notions; is that right? Now wouldn't you say that evolutionists also have their minds made up? They're willling to change the mechanisms, but not the guts of the theory (macroevolution), because they believe it, beforehand, to be true, and they believe it without any direct scientific proof whatsoever! No one has EVER seen macroevolution in the lab, have they? They believe it to be a LOGICAL INFERENCE, just like Morris' beliefs in Christianity. And many evolutionists have also said they don't believe in God, either.

All we can do, since we can't read the minds of the scientists, is to hope that neither the creationists nor the evolutionists are twisting the data around to fit their already-held beliefs, and do our best to honestly evaluate the data that we see. I hope they can operate with scientific integrity. I believe that Morris does, from what I can tell.

[Rían]

Originally posted by afro-elf
Rian, I only replied so newbies might know that I am a skeptic.

OK

[Rían]

(continuing back thru the thread)

Hobbit -

[Rían]

Draken - *nothing to reply to, as there is nothing scientific, intelligent, or interesting in his post, IMO. In addition, it's unkind. *

[Rían]

*continuing back*

GrayMouser - well worth replying to, since he is kind, intelligent and thoughtful.

To save time, I'll skip over the first part of the post and go to the last part:

Originally posted by GrayMouser
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.

I think I'm ok with your evolution def; the creationism one I think needs a little work, because I think an important aspect is that the intervention was at the BEGINNING, not "at some point or points". Do you want to suggest something else, or I could try, but it might take longer....

Does anyone else wish to offer an opinion on these defs?

[Rían]

GrayMouser again ....

Originally posted by GrayMouser
From Rian : [partial Darwin quote]

What Darwin himself says: [quote with dots filled in and some following sentences]

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.

Thanks for the complete quote! I found it very interesting. I was wondering myself what the missing section was.

And I think that I can show that it was NOT taken out of context, by quoting further from the Morris/Parker book.

The context that they gave that quote was in a section talking about adaptations requiring several traits all depending upon one another, and the difficulties that it posed for evolutionists. Here is the text immediately preceding the quote:

from What is Creation Science?, by Henry Morris and Gary Parker
Darwin himself was acutely aware of this evidence of creation and the problem it posed for his theory. In a chapter of Origin of Species called "Difficulties With the Theory,", he included traits that depend on separately meaningless parts. Consider the human eye with the different features required to focus at different distances, to accomodate different amounts of light, and to correct for the "rainbow effect." Regarding the origin of the eye, Darwin wrote these words: [insert the quote I posted]

Considering that Darwin wrote this in a chapter entitled Difficulties With the Theory", and considering that their point was that Darwin was aware of difficulties in this area, do you think that, in this instance, Morris/Parker were guilty of quote-mining? I don't. Now if they said that this quote proved that Darwin thought his theory was invalid, that's another story.

I suppose I should have been more careful when I quoted that section, but it was really just a casual post made in reaction to Lizra's talk about her eyes, and made in the same casual mood as her post was.

And BTW, I really think it's misleading to say "a Creationist practise", because that implies that evolutionists never do it. Do you think that's true? I certainly don't.

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.

That's a good idea, and I gave a ref. for the Darwin quote on the eye. And the Morris/Parker book talks about how they feel that misquoting is wrong, and is careful to provide references for their quotes.

I checked out your second link and it looks well worth reading - I'll take a look at the others, too.

[Rían]

*continuing back*

Cirdan -

Well, it's now 1 am, and A-E may see me as tenacious, but now I'm just .... tired. But it's been interesting and enjoyable, because (with a minor exception) it's been a polite and intelligent discussion, IMO.

I'll have to get to your posts tomorrow - uh, later today

[afro-elf]

been interesting

Hell, HOBBIT and I are even on the same side.

[cassiopeia]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
OK, I'm ready to tackle the evolution thread! I think I'll work most-recent to oldest for today's posts.

cassiopeia - I see what your concern is, and I'll address it last, because the points I'll bring up first will bear on it.

1 - I think Morris' statement (where is it, BTW?) is not relevant to this thread, because it's not a scientific statement. I'm going to present some scientific evidence (note - evidence, not proof - same as for evolution - there's no proof, just evidence) for creationism, and the evolutionist people here have said they would consider it (and I assume they mean in a scientific, impartial manner). I hope they will keep their word.

I believe the quote is from Evolution and the Modern Christian.
I think it is relevent, because he seems to think, no matter what, that the Bible is right. Scientists, I would hope, are willing to change thier beliefs, given the evidence. Morris seems to have made up him mind; it also to me implies that he would pick the evidence that suits his theory, and throw away the evidence that contradicts it.

2 - Please note his phrase "final and conclusive evidence" - now I haven't read the whole book cover-to-cover in order, but I have pretty much read the whole book. And as far as the scientific evidence, I don't see him asking people to accept it "because God said it was that way". I see him presenting scientific evidence carefully and impartially and logically. And he presents a heckuva lot of evidence, IMO! And as a Christian who believes in the Bible, the final capstone (although out of the realm of science) would be the Bible, and I guess that's why he mentions it.

I agree that he presents the book in a scientific manner, with no mention of the Bible or God. But that doesn't mean he has correctly interpreted the evidence. And that's why I still believe that evolution best explains all the diversity in the world.

3 - I would guess your major objection is that Morris has his mind already made up about the matter, and is twisting the data to reflect his preconceived notions; is that right? Now wouldn't you say that evolutionists also have their minds made up? They're willling to change the mechanisms, but not the guts of the theory (macroevolution), because they believe it, beforehand, to be true, and they believe it without any direct scientific proof whatsoever! No one has EVER seen macroevolution in the lab, have they? They believe it to be a LOGICAL INFERENCE, just like Morris' beliefs in Christianity. And many evolutionists have also said they don't believe in God, either.

I would hope that scientists would carefully consider the evidence, then make up thier minds.
I don't think it matters if scientists believe in God or not. They should leave thier beliefs at the door (I think somebody has already said that.) Anyway, I don't think that evolution rules out a God, just that he didn't directly create all the animals in the world. I can almost see a God who made up all the laws so we could be here. But those aren't matters of science.

[Rían]

OK - 10pm and all is well so time for a little 'Mooting!

And to finish from last night -

Originally posted by Cirdan
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.

It doesn't matter if you think that it was made by god or a person, because both God and people are "makers" (God's just a little better at it! ) - the idea is that you, as a person who makes things, recognize characteristics of a "made" thing. And I'm not talking conclusion, either - I'm talking about that the logical inference is that it has been MADE by someone, and is NOT just a product of time and chance.

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

Did they say "conclude?" *note - check back on thread* I wouldn't say "conclude", but I would say that it would be a very logical inference, as described above.

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.

Thank you very much, Cirdan, that was really kind of you to say that. It was very encouraging to me to read that from you. I certainly DO feel rather outnumbered here, but because I believe there's some good data on the creationist side that generally gets ignored, I'm willing to make the effort. Truth and people are important to me, and I'm willing to make an extra effort to share what I think is true with people that I like I don't ask you guys to believe it on my word - I don't think you should - but I do ask you to please impartially and scientifically evaluate what I'll be sharing, as a favor to an Entmoot friend.

[Rían]

ps - I checked back in the thread, and it didn't say "conclusions" (your word), it said: "would have recognized them immediately as products of creation".

You're perhaps putting a stronger reading on "recognized" than I am. I think that if scientists discovered a well-shaped arrowhead on Mars, their first thought would immediately be that it was "made", don't you? Now a conclusion at this point would be premature, IMO, but I DO think that in that scenario, a hypothesis of "created" would be the most logical one. Do you? Anyone else?

[Gwaimir Windgem]

I do.

[Rían]

Originally posted by Cirdan
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.

But would you agree that they are looking for anomalies of a certain type? Here's some words used in the book: "pattern", "manufactured", "artificial", "conceived", "specific".

And this indicates that there ARE signatures of intelligence, acc'd to Sagan's narrator:

from Contact, by Carl Sagan
Every now and then an electronic intelligence aircraft ... would fly by, and Argus would suddenly detect unmistakable signatures of intelligent life.

Another quote:

from Contact, by Carl Sagan
She also hoped to examine a few nearby stars for possible signals of intelligent origin. ...... She was hard pressed to name a more important scientific problem. .... Project Argus was the largest facilitiy in the world dedicated to the radio search for extraterrestrial intelligence.

So would you say that Sagan thinks that it's "scientific" to look for signs of intelligence? (I know it's a work of fiction, tho - but I wonder what his real views on SETI are - does anyone know?)

And I think we're using "inference" in slightly different ways. I think you're thinking of it in a conclusion sense, and I"m thinking of it in a premise sense.

But enough of this - it is, after all, a work of fiction, altho a very good one, IMO! Have you read it? And what do you think of what I said here?

[Rían]

Originally posted by Gwaimir Windgem
I do.

Obviously a brillant fellow!

[Gwaimir Windgem]

-takes a bow-

[Rían]

Originally posted by cassiopeia
I believe the quote is from Evolution and the Modern Christian.

That makes sense, then, that he would mention it for that audience, IMO.

I think it is relevent, because he seems to think, no matter what, that the Bible is right. Scientists, I would hope, are willing to change thier beliefs, given the evidence. Morris seems to have made up him mind; ....

But we're not debating scientific evidence for God/Bible in this thread, and Morris is not evaluating scientific evidence for God/Bible in either book (or at least in mine, and I doubt in yours). Just because you believe that God exists (like many scientists do) does not mean that you cannot evaluate scientific evidence for a theory like evolution or creationism with integrity.

.....it also to me implies that he would pick the evidence that suits his theory, and throw away the evidence that contradicts it.

Well, that's a pretty strong implication. On what evidence do you base that? I think you read most of What is Creation Science, didn't you? Did Morris or Parker, in your opinion, pick or throw out evidence in a deceitful way?

I agree that he presents the book in a scientific manner, with no mention of the Bible or God. But that doesn't mean he has correctly interpreted the evidence.

Of course. And you spot a MAJOR point, that "interpretation" of data can be subject to error (or unfortunately, sometimes to deliberate falsification). That's why YOU need to look at the data for both sides and draw your own conclusions. Also look at past histories of the scientists involved - both personally and as a group, IMO.

I would hope that scientists would carefully consider the evidence, then make up thier minds.

Me too.

I don't think it matters if scientists believe in God or not.
They should leave thier beliefs at the door (I think somebody has already said that.)
Anyway, I don't think that evolution rules out a God, just that he didn't directly create all the animals in the world.
I can almost see a God who made up all the laws so we could be here.
But those aren't matters of science. [/B]

I agree
I agree
But I think creationism explains the data better (your interpretation is evolution; mine is creationism).
OK
I'm not sure what you're including in "those", so I won't worry about it. Instead, I'll start - in the very next post - to present data! Yay! Go me!

[cassiopeia]

Carl Sagan was a a member of the board of directors of SETI, so I would imagine he felt very strong of the validity of searching for extraterrestrial life. I see 'Contact' as a book that voices his views fairly strongly via Ellie's. (And I managed to buy it last week for only $5, so now I have it handy to reference.)

You're perhaps putting a stronger reading on "recognized" than I am. I think that if scientists discovered a well-shaped arrowhead on Mars, their first thought would immediately be that it was "made", don't you? Now a conclusion at this point would be premature, IMO, but I DO think that in that scenario, a hypothesis of "created" would be the most logical one. Do you? Anyone else?

Of course I would agree, if it was studied thoroughly, and it was determined that it was very unlikely to be natural. I see what you're getting at, but I don't think it's valid in regards to evolution.

[Rían]

Oh well, my husband just got home from the movies (a guy movie he saw with my bro-in-law) and he says to tell you guys that it's his turn now , so .... later!

(and I was SOOOOOO close to starting! Oh well, it will prob. be Monday now, because tomorrow's Father's day.)

I'll just say I'm starting with fossils, and I like how Parker words this:

From What is Creation Science, by Henry Morris and Gary Parker
They represent the closest we can come to historical evidence in this matter of origins, so they are of prime importance in discussion creation and evolution.

Have a good rest of the weekend, everyone!

[HOBBIT]

I just read some samples from that book rian, and well.... it is my opinion that Morris is an idiot, no offense. The first few pages are examples of quote mining at its finest. He also basically says "no one has ever seen evolution happen therfore it does not exist." He also says that rocks are dated by their fossils - not so. He also says some other really stupid things - like evolution is some mystery with absolutely no fossil evidence supporting it. It doesn't seem like this guy has any basic knowledge of evolution - or anything really

Here is a link to the sample first 7 or so pages:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg...er#reader-link

maybe ill get the book so i can make fun of this guy some more. :P

Maybe this guy makes some real points as the book goes on?