Should evolution be taught in schools?

[GrayMouser]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
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?

Yep, just like if they came across an organism their first thoughts would be "grown, not made"; artifacts and living things being very different.

BTW, Paley's "watch on the beach" depends on the analogy that living things and artifacts share certain characteristics that differentiate them from the surrounding environment which has been shaped by merely physical, purposeless processes.

Therefore, the argument is actually saying that while Life may be the product of a Creator, the Universe at large isn't.

[GrayMouser]

Originally posted by RÃ*an


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.

From the Statement of Belief of the Creation Research society to which members must agree.

1. The Bible is the written Word of God, and because it is inspired throughout, all its assertions are historically and scientifically true in the original autographs. To the student of nature this means that the account of origins in Genesis is a factual presentation of simple historical truths

AnswersinGenesis also has a Statement of Faith, which includes:

The 66 books of the Bible are the written Word of God. The Bible is divinely inspired and inerrant throughout. Its assertions are factually true in all the original autographs. It is the supreme authority, not only in all matters of faith and conduct, but in everything it teaches. Its authority is not limited to spiritual, religious or redemptive themes but includes its assertions in such fields as history and science.

What would such a Statement by a biologist, or any other scientist for that matter, say?:

I promise to examine the evidence presented, to draw conclusions only from this evidence, and to be prepared to change my conclusions if the evidence warrants.

The last phrase is the kicker, of course- all scientific belief is held conditionally, and subject to revision.

Anyone taking one of the Creationist Pledges would be affirming that there are some facts about the Universe that are not held conditionally- IOW, non-scientific.

[GrayMouser]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by RÃ*an
*continuing back*

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




Not Always!!!

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?

By some point or points I meant to cover the belief in supernatural intervention in the Beginning, of course, but also at later times.

Some OECs believe in many extinctions and new creations of life.
Some "Progressive Creation" believers, including some IDers, believe that God has intervened at various points to cause cchanges in organisms.

But , yes, it would be clearer if it read creationists believe "in the Beginning, and possibly at later points, supernatural intervention was necessary."

[Cirdan]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
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.

My point of bringing god into this scenario is precisely that creation isn't limited to god so that even showing intelligent design, if possible, doesn't neccessitate god as creator. My specific point regarding the arrowhead on Mars is that without any other supporting evidence (arrowheads lodged in animal bones, hearths, flakes of waste rock from the making of the arrowhead, any sign of life capable of producing the arrowhead, etc) then I would have to leave open the possibility of a natural process. (Have you seen the history channel commercial where the couple are arguing over a rock as to whether it is an artifact? - "yes, it is." : "no, it isn't") All one could say without supporting facts is that it looks like an arrowhead. The "logical inference" is just a subjective guess, in this scenario.

[Cirdan]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
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".
So would you say that Sagan thinks that it's "scientific" to look for signs of intelligence?

Like I said, they are looking for unexpected signals, concluding that, these might be artificially created. This implies only things we have not founfd naturally occuring. It also assumes evolution happens anywhere in the universe the conditions are similar to earth's. The search is scientific, and I'm sure the author would have told you, very limited in scope. They would consider 1-0-1-1-1-0-1-0-0 to be an artificial pattern. It's similar to searching for gold. It doesn't imply that gold will always be found in these conditions. One looks for the right conditions so as to narrow the search area.

Their methods are scientific, regardless of the conclusions they draw. Considering the vastness of space, the time and distances involved, i don't think one could be very optimistic, at our current level of technology, to have any success. Sagan's quotes are very prosed, and not applicable to hard science. It rasies the question again. How can one discern "natural" and "artificial" in the larger sense, if they are both design? Then the obverse conclusion becomes apparent that nature is readily "reconizable" and different from designed systems. They may have similarities and human design may imitate some natural process but they are different.

Of course that arguement is as logically weak as "it is easily recognizable as design" because it is based on subjective and non-scientific assumptions. This sort of arguement has popular appeal as "common sense" but is not very useful in any methodical analysis.

[afro-elf]

http://www.secweb.org/asset.asp?AssetID=297


A quick easy read on the Intelliegent Design/ Fine Tuning argument.

[cassiopeia]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
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?

Yes, I read the whole book.

In Texas there is a limestone bed on the Paluxy River which (say creationists) has human footprints with the footprints of dinosaurs. These footprints were misinterpreted, and are not human footprints coexisting with dinosaur footprints. No such track anywhere had withstood serious investigation. I may be wrong, but I think Morris mentions this.
More often it seems Morris twists the facts. But I'll wait till you post some arguments to respond to that.

[HOBBIT]

Cass - thats what it seemed like from the first several pages of the book :P My opinion was that he was an idiot (see post on previous page )

[cassiopeia]

Well, I wouldn't call him an idiot (not outloud anyway ), but I cannot see how he wouldn't manipulate the facts, given he thinks the Bible is inerrant. The Bible says the Earth doesn't move, but it does! What would Morris say to that?

[Rían]

Originally posted by cassiopeia
Well, I wouldn't call him an idiot (not outloud anyway ), but I cannot see how he wouldn't manipulate the facts, given he thinks the Bible is inerrant.

Then shall we just ignore AE's link, because the author states in the title of the piece that he is an athiest? Same principle, wouldn't you say?

The Bible says the Earth doesn't move, but it does! What would Morris say to that?

I don't remember if Morris dealt with it or not, but considering that it is a word used for being steady, stable, etc., and that the same exact word is used in another place where the psalmist says that HE is not moved - would you think that the psalmist stayed rooted to the same spot for his entire life? That's "quote-mining", to say the least (not YOU, cass, but the people that say that that phrase proves the Bible is "scientifically" wrong w/o looking into it some more.)

I'll find out more about that section if you want, but I really think what I explained should clear it up.

See you guys tomorrow!

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
Then shall we just ignore AE's link, because the author states in the title of the piece that he is an athiest? Same principle, wouldn't you say?

Why would it? There should be no reference of god in scientific study. God is a belief - so what would it matter if a person doesn't believe I don't even have a problem with people doing research if they do believe in god. As I have said many times before - as long as the person leaves their beliefs at the lab door - and does TRUE scientific research - then it is truly science. Too many theist scientists only want to look at the evidence that supports their established religious beliefs.

[Rían]

*working back thru the thread*

Originally posted by jerseydevil
As I have said many times before - as long as the person leaves their beliefs at the lab door - and does TRUE scientific research - then it is truly science.

I agree.

.... Too many theist scientists only want to look at the evidence that supports their established religious beliefs.

And I say the same about atheist/agnostic scientists. Better yet, let's just talk about scientists w/o putting tags on them. Let's judge them the same way - by their body of works.

[Ararax]

i agree atheist scientist can be as blinded by their beliefs as religious ones, it depends on the individual scientist. no one group is free of scientists that are influenced by their beliefs, also their conclusions of data is often based upon their beliefs, if one sees a strange skeleton one will say its evolution, because thats natural to him to think, the other will say thats poor diets and old age, because thats what he sees, is either free from his beliefe no its all about purging your beliefs form each incident. but then again its what you believe in that forms your life beliefs

[Rían]

*some quick responses, or I'll never get anywhere!*

Cass - did you see my response to the "earth moving" thing?

Also, re the footprints - the only ref. I found to footprints were ones in Laetoli in east Africa. They are discussed in National Geographic April 1979 and Science News Feb 9, 1980.

Thanks for the info on Carl Sagan - I didn't know that. And I would agree that he is voicing his views via Ellie. 5 bucks, eh? Good deal!

and re "I see what you're getting at, but I don't think it's valid in regards to evolution." -- Why not?


Cirdan - I disgree that the assumption of design is "based on subjective and non-scientific assumptions", if you're saying totally based on. In the arrowhead example, scientific knowledge of rock characteristics and the way erosion works enable you to make a more definite judgement of "created".


and "My point of bringing god into this scenario is precisely that creation isn't limited to god so that even showing intelligent design, if possible, doesn't neccessitate god as creator".
I agree; my point is that there is intelligence behind it in the scenario, not necessarily God.

and again, I was NOT saying "conclude" about the arrowhead.

[GrayMouser]

Let's get down to the red meat of the evidence - the vultures are circling, and getting hungry!!

[Rían]

*why do I feel like I'm looking down the barrels of about 20 shotguns?*

OK, but first, GrayMouser, since you're online, did you read my post on quote-mining, and would you agree that Morris is NOT quote-mining in this example?

I will await your answer, then start with evidence

(believe it or not, I was JUST getting to your posts, and there's something else there I want to cover while you're responding to this)

[Rían]

Originally posted by GrayMouser
[B]BTW, Paley's "watch on the beach" depends on the analogy that living things and artifacts share certain characteristics that differentiate them from the surrounding environment which has been shaped by merely physical, purposeless processes.

Therefore, the argument is actually saying that while Life may be the product of a Creator, the Universe at large isn't.

I disagree. The universe CONTAINS physical, "purposeless" processes, but they were intelligently designed. W/in the universe, whatever comes into contact with one of these processes, like erosion, will be impartially and unintelligently treated, though, because erosion is unintelligent.

Sorry I'm taking so long to get to evidence, but really now - why even bother if the consensus will be either
(1) - ANYTHING I present will immediately, w/o any examination, be declared "unscientific" if it's supporting creationism, or
(2) ANYTHING I present will immediately, w/o any examination, be declared false because creationist scientists believe in God.

THOSE are the two things I'm trying to deal with before presenting evidence, so I waste as little of my time as possible.

[Rían]

Originally posted by 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.

Why do you think it's quote-mining? Because you believe in evolution? If that is the ONLY reason, then it's unfair on your part to claim quote-mining. I think you're over-assuming what he is saying, like what happened about the eye quote. In the book, they were ONLY saying that Darwin saw difficulties, and provided the eye as an example. They were NOT saying that the complexity of the eye disproves evolution, which WOULD be quote-mining, IMO.

He also basically says "no one has ever seen evolution happen therfore it does not exist."

At least you DO say "basically" - because I don't see that quote in the book. They're talking about scientific proofs, and frankly, it's true that no one has seen evolution in the lab, isn't it?

He also says that rocks are dated by their fossils - not so.

I disagree. From what I've read, it seems that they sometimes are.

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

Just got his PhD by sheer luck, huh?

[Earniel]

Originally posted by GrayMouser
Let's get down to the red meat of the evidence - the vultures are circling, and getting hungry!!

SQUEAK!

*flaps wings slowly*

*eyes thread hungrily with her beady little eyes*

[Rían]

Well, no answer from GrayMouser yet, but I'll start.

First, a couple of quick notes on ideas that were around when Darwin was forming his theory. I think it's important to realize these 2 ideas, now scientifically disproven, were around at that time.

Pangenes
When it came to the origin of new traits (on which natural selection would then operate), Darwin wrote that it was "from use and disuse, from the direct and indirect actions of the environment" that new traits arose. (I don't have a ref. for this quote, so I assume it's from O. of Sp.) So acc'd to Darwin, the giraffes basically got their long necks because a drought dried things up and the animals started stretching their necks to get to the green leaves on the tops of trees. OK so far, but Darwin thought that the longer neck (from stretching) could be passed on to the next generation. He thought that at reproduction each organ produced "pangenes" that would collect in the blood and flow to the reproductive organs. So a more-stretched-out neck would make more neck "pangenes"

Is this still in school textbooks today? I think it should be. It's very interesting and informative information about WHY Darwin proposed certain parts of this theory.

Now I'm not contrasting creationism to this original Darwinism, but to neo-Darwinism, which is that new traits come about by mutations.

Spontaneous Generation
Also, as far as the famous primordial soup mix from which life supposedly came, back in Darwin's time it was widely thought that life could naturally develop from non-life. The classic example was that people thought that maggots would spontaneously develop from decaying meat. But right around the same time that Darwin published O. of Sp., Francesco Redi showed that maggots would NOT develop from meat that was kept away from flies, and Pasteur showed that air contains microorganisms that can multiply in water, giving the illusion of spontaneous generation. So it was very understandable that Darwin thought that life could come from non-life, as it was a common thought in his time.

So let's dive in! (But please keep your manners )

(I'll be using mostly the Morris/Parker book, What is Creation Science, for reference, because I think it's well-written for laypeople with scientific backgrounds, like many of us here. I don't know of any Mooters that have PhDs in any of the sciences.)

Fossil Evidence for Creationism
I think there's several areas that can be covered first - according to the creationist model, you should find variation among type, not changes from type to type. Also, extinction is evident, just as it is today. Also, the same types of classification should work for complete-enough fossil remains as well as today's specimens. Also, constructs should be tied to use, not evolutionary development.

The simplest bunch of plants and animals to leave lots of fossil remains is in the age/zone of Trilobites, or the Cambrian system. And what is found in this zone? A wide variety of things, including very complex invertebrates, nautiloids, and highly complex trilobites. Already in one of the earliest layers, acc'd to evolutionists, there exist very complex creations.

Another interesting thing is that, as Parker puts it,

from What is Creation Science?, Gary Parker
Extinction, not evolution, is the rule when we compare fossil sea life with the sort of marine invertebrates we find living today. In fact, all major groups, except perhaps the groups including clams and snails, are represented by greater variety and more complex forms as fossils than today.

I think this is a very important point, and consistent with creationism.

The point is that you can search back for how these sea creatures originated, and you find them originating from .... the same type!

And this is why punctuated equilibrium came about (I guess it would now be called "modified neo-Darwinism) - because the expected transitional forms were NOT found in the fossil record. As Parker notes,

ibid.
In fact, few scientists, if any, are still looking for fossil links between the major invertebrate groups. The reason is simple. All the groups appear as separate, distinct, diversified lines in the deepest fossil-rich deposits.

And this seems to be an excellent support for creationism.