How to teach evolution & Evidence for Creationism

[Nurvingiel]

This thread needs a bump incase we want to continue the O/T discussion from the GLB thread...

Here's an interesting point... IIRC, micro-evolution fits in both Creationist theories and Evolutionist theories.

Another interesting point: Evolutionists argue with each other on the fine points of the theory and so do Creationists.

I bet Ri has a good explanation of Intelligent Design somewhere, so I'll unearth it... (otherwise, care to re-iterate?)

Personally, I like Evolutionism theories to try to explain our origins. Though Creationism theories are also good, I feel that ultimately, they are too easy of an answer. (Though, perhaps I'm misunderstanding the theory.....)


There. That should revitalize the discussion.

EDIT:
(edit moved to new post)

[Rían]

ooooohhhhh nnnnoooo, the topic that won't die!

My main concern in this topic is that people get rid of the false idea that evolution is somehow a scientific fact, when by its very nature of being in the past, it CANNOT be a scientific fact. I think this is important, because if one thinks (wrongly) that evolution is a fact (and I'm talking the most common form of evolution - one that is entirely naturalistic and non-directed), there are important and far-reaching implications that affect every day life.

If people accept that, I"m pretty happy! If anyone wants more details on why I think the evidence supports creationism more, here's where I start discussing it:

summary posts on why I believe the evidence supports creationism.

Originally Posted by Nurvi

Here's an interesting point... IIRC, micro-evolution fits in both Creationist theories and Evolutionist theories.

Yes, I agree. I think there is a lot of overlap, and in the differing areas, it's just the interpretation of the data that is different in many cases. Good scientists have fallen on both sides of the question, and as many of you have stated, sometimes the less-popularly-held opinion turns out to be the right one Keep an open mind, and be aware of what is scientific fact and what is an educated guess!

[Nurvingiel]

Muahaha...

After much URL tweaking, I have a handy link to Ri's detailed posts about different aspects of Creationism.
Excellent and handy link

Here are some other of your summary posts from later in the thread.

[Insidious Rex]

Oh are we tilting at wind mills again? Lance anyone?

[Elemmírë]

Here's a lance!

Anyone here heard of string theory?

[mewhmag]

first of all, i am from Europe, so the specifically lead discussion in the US is a rather unknown and from the little i know rather strange debate, ideologically overcharged.

my take on the creationism - evolution debate: if one sees evolution as a teleological process, hence a process development that leads to a certain goal, like a higher form of compexity, or a state of perfection, or to put in other words, that a distinct something develops into another distinct something, i see no insurmountable gap between the both concepts. on the contrary, teleology is the point of view that perfectly connects the question of what being itself is and the plurality of things that are.

i am sure most of that has already been said, but that sums up my general point of view.

[Nurvingiel]

I've heard of the string theory Elemmire. I have a feeling that one doesn't overlap with Creationism.

Don Quixote de la Mancha has joined the debate?

[Rían]

Nurv- could you fix your link? You link to a post that is about the fourth or fifth from the starting post. Check out my link above yours - if people are going to read what I wrote, I'd like them to start from the beginning

El - Yes, we've mentioned string theory on this thread - not that any of us understand it!

Originally Posted by mewhmag

if one sees evolution as a teleological process...

I think that's a contradiction in terms, mew! I suppose the God-driven evolution view could be considered a teleological process, but I think that position is somewhat of a cop-out. It's the garden-variety theory of evolution I'm addressing, which is by definition NOT driven by design or intent.

IRex - do you disagree with anything I said here: "My main concern in this topic is that people get rid of the false idea that evolution is somehow a scientific fact, when by its very nature of being in the past, it CANNOT be a scientific fact. " Is there anything in this statement that you think is wrong?

[Insidious Rex]

Tons of things have happened in the past that are now FACTS. I dont really see your meaning there at all.

[Elemmírë]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

El - Yes, we've mentioned string theory on this thread - not that any of us understand it!

Where? It didn't come up in a search...

I'm still trying to get a grasp on it myself. It seems really interesting... There was a tv show on it once, and I didn't realise what they were talking about until there were only 20minutes left... So I kind of understand the implications of the theory, without knowing the background of it! How dreadful...

And no, Nurvs... I really don't think that one would go with Creationism myself...

[Nurvingiel]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Tons of things have happened in the past that are now FACTS. I dont really see your meaning there at all.

Yeah, but Evolutionism as a theory isn't a Law. The theory itself isn't a fact, it is a theory based on many facts and sensible conclusions from said facts.

Fact: Fossils exist
Theory: Macro-Evolution
Law: Gravity

I have actually only heard 2 major theories about how life on Earth came to exist in its present form.
1. Religious-based ones. Creationism is the only one I know in any significant detail.

2. Darwin's theories of Evolution, now expanded. I think a significant part of Evolution was scientists who followed Darwin doing their own experiments using the ideas he put forth. The Urey-Miller experiment was one such experiment, and I think we talked about it in this thread.

Aside from Evolutionism and Creationism, I actually haven't heard any other explanations. (Of course there are different takes on both theories, so maybe that counts as "another explanation". Such as whoever added up the generation time periods in the Bible to determine the Earth is 6000 years old.)

[Rían]

Nurv- - could you please change your link in post 1153 to this one :


summary posts on why I believe the evidence supports creationism.

Your link points to a post about 4 posts into the discussion. You've missed the entire opening statement and some other stuff. Thanks

[Nurvingiel]

Sorry RÃ*an, I didn't see your post there. Link = fixed. Stupid url...

In the last "round" of discussions, I think we agreed that Creationism and Evolution were both valid but ultimately unproveable theories, shook hands, and allowed this thread to drift to the bottom.

Or maybe I just imagined this because I'm a Bliss-Ninny.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Tons of things have happened in the past that are now FACTS. I dont really see your meaning there at all.

My meaning is that by the very definition of the scientific method, we cannot prove things, like macroevolution, scientifically. One can do a scientific test on bones - but only about things in the present about that bone. You CANNOT prove scientifically that birds came from fish or dinosaurs or whatever the current guess is, because it cannot be scientifically tested in a lab! That's just a simple fact. Now scientists can made educated GUESSES about this (and the bird thing is a good example - it's gone both ways, and I think is about half/half now), but we will NEVER be able to prove it. It's just that simple.

And I will freely admit that many good scientists, doing the best they can with what they DO have and what they CAN test scientifically, think that macroevolution DID happen - i.e., that man, for example, came from a one-celled thingy. But this CANNOT be proven, and that's all I'm plumping for - a simple admission that evolution CANNOT be proven - and MIGHT be wrong.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

Sorry RÃ*an, I didn't see your post there. Link = fixed. Stupid url...

Thankee!

In the last "round" of discussions, I think we agreed that Creationism and Evolution were both valid but ultimately unproveable theories, shook hands, and allowed this thread to drift to the bottom.

That's all I push for. Whenever I see things like "evolution is a fact", my alarm button goes off, because I believe in scientific integrity.

Or maybe I just imagined this because I'm a Bliss-Ninny.

heehee!

[Nurvingiel]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

That's all I push for. Whenever I see things like "evolution is a fact", my alarm button goes off, because I believe in scientific integrity.

Me too. I have a button like that. It also goes off when people insist the world is X number of years old. The world is pretty old, but we're not exactly sure how old. And we can prove, through valid scientific technique that it is older than 6000 years.

I think it's appropriate to say "prove" in this case.

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

Me too. I have a button like that. It also goes off when people insist the world is X number of years old. The world is pretty old, but we're not exactly sure how old. And we can prove, through valid scientific technique that it is older than 6000 years.

I think it's appropriate to say "prove" in this case.

that it is


<runs off down corridoor>

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

I think it's appropriate to say "prove" in this case.

I don't - it's extrapolation.

[Elemmírë]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

I don't - it's extrapolation.

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.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

Yeah, but Evolutionism as a theory isn't a Law. The theory itself isn't a fact, it is a theory based on many facts and sensible conclusions from said facts.

Fact: Fossils exist
Theory: Macro-Evolution
Law: Gravity

I have actually only heard 2 major theories about how life on Earth came to exist in its present form.
1. Religious-based ones. Creationism is the only one I know in any significant detail.

2. Darwin's theories of Evolution, now expanded. I think a significant part of Evolution was scientists who followed Darwin doing their own experiments using the ideas he put forth. The Urey-Miller experiment was one such experiment, and I think we talked about it in this thread.

Aside from Evolutionism and Creationism, I actually haven't heard any other explanations. (Of course there are different takes on both theories, so maybe that counts as "another explanation". Such as whoever added up the generation time periods in the Bible to determine the Earth is 6000 years old.)

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:

Sorry, but once again, the "theory" of evolution involves how we evolved, not that we evolved. That we evolved is accepted as fact in every single evolutionary theory. It's the interpretation of fact that's the problem. It is a "fact" that the sun will rise each morning, until the morning it doesn't. The fossil record is clear, the DNA evidence is unquestionable (except to those who have a vested interest in questioning it). Define "proof." I suspect the only proof you would accept is to be able to watch it happen, and it happens far to slowly for that.

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