How to teach evolution & Evidence for Creationism

[Rían]

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.

I agree!

I quite disagree. From my bones people can estimate my age, with the bones of the earth it's not much different.

Yes it is, tho - think about this. You know how old people are, and you can examine their bones. You can only extrapolate with the bones of the earth.

(gtg - in-laws here!)

[Blackheart]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

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.

Let me put it this way.... If you wanted someone's opinion on whether the wiring in your house was safe, would you ask your theologian? Some opinions are more relevant than others. It's not just my opinion, but it is an opinion none the less. One that has a professional, evaluated, weighted slant based on informed observation.

Absolutely! And macroevolution is not observable, except second-hand (by deduction), and obviously a deduction can be wrong. -excerpted analogy- Macroevolution is a deduction from evidence, NOT a scientific observation - and it CAN be wrong - there ARE other options out there.

Macroevolution is a theory that currently models the facts as they have been observed. There are no other competing theories that currently do that. It is a scientific observation. It is the observation that the theory explains the data and predicts other data. I dont know how plainly that can be stated.

Oy! No imagination ...

Haben Sie kein Erfassen?

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).

Apparantly not.

Wrong. No. The basic premise is not philosophical. It is quite based on empiricism. What you state is not the basic premise of the theory. It is a conclusion.

Conclusions that are based on empirical data and theories, but remain untestable, are philosophical, however. But they do carry an awful lot of weight in philosophical arguments, because they are based upon good, solid arguments.

By stating the conclusion as the basic premise of the theory you are doing a disservice to logical argument, not to mention school children all over the country. The basic premise of the theory is that species change over time.

[Nurvingiel]

Yeah, the Theories of Evolution all started with Darwin's studies on Galapagos island finches IIRC. That's not a theological idea.

[BeardofPants]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

Yeah, the Theories of Evolution all started with Darwin's studies on Galapagos island finches IIRC. That's not a theological idea.

Haven't read this thread recently, but what do you mean, it started with Darwin? There are clear predecessors to Darwins work.

[Nurvingiel]

I guess I don't RRC... . I think I actually knew that once... back in first year... I knew so much then.

Alright, Darwin's theories and his mentor who defended them publically (whose name escapes me ATM) brought a lot of material to the theory and also a lot of public attention.

[Earniel]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Yes it is, tho - think about this. You know how old people are, and you can examine their bones. You can only extrapolate with the bones of the earth.

I think the time frame is the tricky part here. Humans live in avarage about 75 years (if you're fortunate to live in the Western world) and have had sufficient advanced civilisations and written history for several thousand years. My 23 years of life are thus well within an observable lenght of time. If not from my bones (which would not be able to give you my age to the day) my age can be determined from my birth record.

The earth is thousands of years old, millions even, well outside any frame we humans can percieve. It doesn't come with a birth certificate. All we know is that it was here when we got here and quite a long time before hand. The time scale is immensly longer than one human life span, so the estimate of age will unavoidably be much rougher and more inaccurate.

[Blackheart]

Originally Posted by Eärniel

The time scale is immensly longer than one human life span, so the estimate of age will unavoidably be much rougher and more inaccurate.

Agreed. However there is a significant difference between an estimate of 10,000 years + or - a couple of millenia, and 4.5 billion years, + or - a couple hundred million. It's hard to make that kind of mistake unless everything we know about physics is completely cocked up.

If it is, then the age of the earth is the least of our problems...

[mewhmag]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

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.

well, a tree starts from a seed, then grows and becomes a "complete" tree. so you could say that the whole tree already "is" in the acron, but only potentially. in evolution, the telos is already there, but not actually.

this is all very simplified, please forgive me that i cannot elaborate much at the moment. when i find the time to read the whole thread, i might post more.

another good example would be any human actions. the idea what has to be done is already "there", before it is actually done.

what i liked to point out was that evolution and creationism are not strict opposites. to elaborate on the ontological premises (Plato, hey!) i have not the time at the moment.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Blackheart

Let me put it this way.... If you wanted someone's opinion on whether the wiring in your house was safe, would you ask your theologian? Some opinions are more relevant than others. It's not just my opinion, but it is an opinion none the less. One that has a professional, evaluated, weighted slant based on informed observation.

Did you think I was going to ask the opinion of a theologian on the question of evolutionism/creationism? (at least the scientific parts) Why would I do that? I read scientific opinions on scientific questions, and I make my own conclusions on their conclusions. One does not need a scientific degree to analyze some of the conclusions made by scientists. If a scientist holds up a bone of a dinosaur and says, "I have studied this bone by all the latest techniques, and I conclude that this dinosaur died while dancing the tango!", one doesn't need to be a scientist to decide that this is a faulty conclusion! It MAY be true, but then again, it certainly may NOT be true! And that's all I fight for on this question - macroevolution MAY be true - but then again, it certainly may NOT be true! And IMO, anyone with any amount of scientific integrity would agree with this. Do you?

Macroevolution is a theory that currently models the facts as they have been observed.

Yes, it is certainly a theory.

There are no other competing theories that currently do that.

Sure there are - creation by intelligent design.

It is a scientific observation.

Macroevolution isn't a scientific observation. It is a theory formed to explain scientific observations. And as I noted before, in the example of a model airplane being assembled on a windy night, it certainly could be wrong.

It is the observation that the theory explains the data and predicts other data.

Well, considering that important parts of the current theory (such as punctuated equilibrium) were formed AFTER the data was observed, I don't think you can brag about "predicts" very much!

I dont know how plainly that can be stated.

Since we know that an important part of theories/hypotheses is that they should be falsifiable, how does one falsify the idea that there was no intelligent design involved?

I don't have problems with most of the theory of evolution. It's the part where supposedly one-celled thingys change from one-celled thingys to humans thru things like beneficial mutations and natural selection that I object to. It's a nice theory, but that's all it is - it certainly isn't observable.

Haben Sie kein Erfassen?

Of what? All I said is that you don't have any imagination. I could have thought of some other options. The option you presented is not the only option out there!

(and btw, Der Mensch allerdings ist die Krone der Schopfung!)

Wrong. No. The basic premise is not philosophical. It is quite based on empiricism. What you state is not the basic premise of the theory. It is a conclusion.

There are all types of conclusions - including wrong ones. Are you saying that the current theory does NOT contain statements saying things like we came about thru beneficial mutations and natural selection? Or are you saying that it says things like we came about thru things like beneficial mutations that may or may not have been directed?

Conclusions that are based on empirical data and theories, but remain untestable, are philosophical, however.

Wouldn't you agree that macroevolution falls into this category?

By stating the conclusion as the basic premise of the theory you are doing a disservice to logical argument, not to mention school children all over the country.

I'm not stating the conclusion as the basic premise of the theory. The basic premise of the theory is that species (which is an arbitrary definition made by men, in the evolution worldview) change over time via beneficial mutations and natural selection.

The basic premise of the theory is that species change over time, and certainly does a disservice to those poor schoolchildren!

This is an inaccurate, incomplete statement. No one doubts that species change over time - we can SEE that in the lab. No bait and switch, please! Non-professional followers of evolution tend to try to oversimply and say evolution is only about change. This is entirely untrue. Evolutionism proposes that certains TYPES of change takes place via certain MECHANISMS.

[Nurvingiel]

I had no idea you spoke German RÃ*an! I'm impressed.

One short comment...

Originally Posted by Blackheart

Macroevolution is a theory that currently models the facts as they have been observed.

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Yes, it is certainly a theory.

You say "theory" like it's a bad thing. Though in the context of your post I think I see where you're going with it.

However, I think you and I have expounded the nature of scientific theory in this thread ad infinitum.

[Rían]

Theories are wonderful things, and we learn a lot by positing theories and testing them. There's nothing wrong with a theory! except when people confuse it with a fact!!

If Blackheart agrees that evolution is a theory that could possibly be wrong, and in addition, contains some elements that are entirely beyond the scope of scientific investigation and flatly in the realm of speculation (based upon the obvious fact that we're talking about things that are in the past and cannot be scientifically tested themselves, tho their "remains" can), then I'll be happy! I'm easy

Do you agree with this, Blackheart?

[Blackheart]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

And that's all I fight for on this question - macroevolution MAY be true - but then again, it certainly may NOT be true! And IMO, anyone with any amount of scientific integrity would agree with this. Do you?

I will say without a doubt, that truth has nothing at all to do with science. If you think that, then you have completely misunderstood the difference between science and philosophy.

I don't CARE if macro-evolution is true. It is currently the best working theory, and is quite unlikely to change without some startling new evidence. I have yet to see any credible scientific analysis of data that supports a
competing theory.

Sure there are - creation by intelligent design.

Now I'm absolutely sure you've misunderstood the difference between science and philosophy. ID is a philosophical argument. Not a scientific theory. No matter how much people want it to be a scientific theory, it isn't. It's no more scientific theory than the undirected or random portion that people keep refering to. Yes the mutations are random and occur at random
intervals, but any other conclusions drawn form that are philosophical. (And it's notoriously difficult to empirically verify that ANYTHING is actually random)

Macroevolution isn't a scientific observation. It is a theory formed to explain scientific observations. And as I noted before, in the example of a model airplane being assembled on a windy night, it certainly could be
wrong.

Oi... How do you think that scientific theorys are tested. BY observation on how they predict data. A scientific theory IS a form of observation...
That's why they are often referred to as models...

Well, considering that important parts of the current theory (such as punctuated equilibrium) were formed AFTER the data was observed, I don't think you can brag about "predicts" very much!

Surely you are joking. It must be the text medium. Predict does NOT mean prognosticate... It means that it explains the data and that any new data will not contradict the model. SO FAR nothing has appeared that contradicts
the model, nor has anyone come up with one that does so better. Nor is it expected that any data will EVER arise that does contradict it, HOWEVER, you just cannot say that. Because at that point you are crossing into the realm
of philosophy and metaphysics.

Which is why, no matter how much data, scientific models are reffered to as theories. You just can not specify that no data will ever appear that contradicts the model; Therefore you cannot OBSERVE that no data will appear. At least until the universe ends. At which point it's a moot discussion.

Since we know that an important part of theories/hypotheses is that they should be falsifiable, how does one falsify the idea that there was no intelligent design involved?

That's just it. You can't. Which is why it's a philosophical argument, not a scientific theory. The same thing for ID. It cannot be falsified. People who argue against evolution being taught in science classes in school or who want creation or ID to be taught in a science class are like people arguing their appels are just too damned orange. They just aren't making any sense.

I don't have problems with most of the theory of evolution. It's the part where supposedly one-celled thingys change from one-celled thingys to humans thru things like beneficial mutations and natural selection that I
object to. It's a nice theory, but that's all it is - it certainly isn't observable.

Want to bet? Happens thousands of times every day. Inside a uterus. It's not a long jump from there to theorizing how such a thing could happen in the outside environment over a couple of billion years. Actually the surprising part is that it's not a lot more common. And, interestingly enough it explains many more observable phenomena, which is in itself an observation that the theory "predicts" the data.

Of what? All I said is that you don't have any imagination. I could have thought of some other options. The option you presented is not the only option out there!

Imagination isn't of primary concern when you are testing a theory. The fact that you state that "the basic premise of the theory of evolution is philosophical" is exactly what I mean when I asked if you have no understanding of the difference.

It is currently the only empirically based (scientific) option out there. With any credibility that is...

There are all types of conclusions - including wrong ones. Are you saying that the current theory does NOT contain statements saying things like we came about thru beneficial mutations and natural selection? Or are you
saying that it says things like we came about thru things like beneficial mutations that may or may not have been directed?

The idea of direction, whether for or against, is not empirically verifiable. It is not testable either, not regarding non-physical manipulation anyway, so yes I am saying that that is not part of the scientific theory. People who make that argument have gone off into the realm of metaphysics.

However the ability to test for physical manipulation does pose problems for certain philosophical ideas that the data does not support... Specifically things like saying the earth is only 5000 years old, or that humans are from another planet... Sure you could postulate that the aliens, or whoever, falsified evidence, but there is no data to support that theory either, and it is currently untestable, so it still remains in the realm of metaphysics...

Wouldn't you agree that macroevolution falls into this category?

No. It is testable, as testable as anything in "theoretical"physics or astrophysics. But I don't see people standing around screaming for legislation on the teaching of bosons or singularity mechanics. Simply because they don't feel threatened by these ideas. They are too far removed form their reality. But you tell someone that their distant ancestors were primates and suddenly they display.. remarkably primate like fear reactions...

I'm not stating the conclusion as the basic premise of the theory. The basic premise of the theory is that species (which is an arbitrary definition made by men, in the evolution worldview) change over time via
beneficial mutations and natural selection.

Species isn't as arbitrary a classification as it used to be. There is good solid reproducable data about DNA differences. While true that some organisms have a different phenotype but similar enough genotype that they can breed fertile offspring, the current model is that these different populaitons are in the process of speciating. Which means that the theory takes into account, and has at it's core, speciation. In other words, the origin of species. New Species.

This is an inaccurate, incomplete statement. No one doubts that species change over time - we can SEE that in the lab. No bait and switch, please! Non-professional followers of evolution tend to try to
oversimply and say evolution is only about change. This is entirely untrue. Evolutionism proposes that certains TYPES of change takes place via certain MECHANISMS.

And how would you regard that as fundamentaly different from what I have been pointing out? Or are you suggesting that there is a better model for how new species originate?
There isn't (a credible) one that I'm aware of. Certainly not one supported by any empirical data.

[Nurvingiel]

I don't think RÃ*an is saying Evolution shouldn't be taught in schools here. Also, it doesn't matter all the much to me whether Intelligent Design is called a theory, a philosophy, or Bob.

However, my problem with the theory/philosophy/Bob is this: it's too simple of a method to explain the origins of life. I strongly believe that God made life, and its processes, much more complicated than Intelligent Design suggests.

Interesting note: while still a foetus, humans have gills. Why? We don't breathe inside the womb. Observations like this indicate that macro-evolution is a very sensible idea. But I know you're not saying it's not a sensible idea RÃ*an.

Intelligent Design is very WYSIWYG. The spaces between dinosaurs and mammals etc. seem to be discounted. Maybe you can shed some more light on that for me RÃ*an.

(Ooh, this reminds me of a question for the Theology thread... I'll go resurrect that now...)

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

I don't think RÃ*an is saying Evolution shouldn't be taught in schools here. Also, it doesn't matter all the much to me whether Intelligent Design is called a theory, a philosophy, or Bob.

I resent that.

[Nurvingiel]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

I resent that.

lol!

Okay, Steve then. I apologive in advance to anyone named Steve.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

lol!

Okay, Steve then. I apologive in advance to anyone named Steve.

Hey - my cousin's named steve. You're really batting a thousand here nurv.

[Nurvingiel]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

Hey - my cousin's named steve. You're really batting a thousand here nurv.

Aha, but I already apologized! Okay, Perilla then. (Will it be another hit...)

Erm... yes... now where did we put that topic. Yes... um... w00t for Evolution!

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

hey my dragon's called perilla

[Blackheart]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

There's nothing wrong with a theory! except when people confuse it with a fact!!

fact Pronunciation Key (fkt)
n.

1. Knowledge or information based on real occurrences: an account based on fact; a blur of fact and fancy.
2. Something demonstrated to exist or known to have existed.
2b. A real occurrence; an event
2c. Something believed to be true or real
3. A thing that has been done, especially a crime: an accessory before the fact.
4. Law. The aspect of a case at law comprising events determined by evidence: The jury made a finding of fact.

Facts aren't as hard and fast as you might think. You will notice definitions 1 and 2c readily covers scientific theories as facts. The knowledge is based on observable data.

Facts can also be wrong. It was a known FACT that radio and light waves traveled through the ether at one point.

If Blackheart agrees that evolution is a theory that could possibly be wrong, and in addition, contains some elements that are entirely beyond the scope of scientific investigation and flatly in the realm of speculation (based upon the obvious fact that we're talking about things that are in the past and cannot be scientifically tested themselves, tho their "remains" can), then I'll be happy! I'm easy Do you agree with this, Blackheart?

I'm afraid that we are talking at cross purposes here. You still seem to be confusing the scientific theory of evolution and the philosophical conclusion some people derive from it. They are not the same thing.

Of course it's POSSIBLE that scientists are completely wrong about everything we believe about the fundamental nature of the universe. Fairy's could suddenly start to fly out of my ass too. It's just not very bloody likely.

Anything remotely connected with the empirical portions of the theory of evolution can be empirically tested and falsified. Even if it did happen in the remote past. One can literally think of hundreds if not thousands of tests to perform, given enough money and time.

What cannot be tested, and therefore remains in the realm of metaphysics, are ideas involving why certain universal functions and laws are the way they are. Questions like why and issues of intent are likely going to remain philosophical for a very long time.

But then again, fairys may just start flying out of my butt any moment now...

[Blackheart]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

I don't think RÃ*an is saying Evolution shouldn't be taught in schools here. Also, it doesn't matter all the much to me whether Intelligent Design is called a theory, a philosophy, or Bob.

She may not be. But many, many people are, for exactly the reasons I pointed out. They have difficulty distinguishing philosophy form science. Whether from ignorance or wishful thinking it hardly matters.

What does matter is that it would engender students who are confused. Which is why you should care what ID is referred to. And Bob is hardly a dignified name for what is actually a very useful and interesting philosophical argument. While it may have no empirical basis, there is nothing wrong with it as a philosophical argument.

However, my problem with the theory/philosophy/Bob is this: it's too simple of a method to explain the origins of life. I strongly believe that God made life, and its processes, much more complicated than Intelligent Design suggests.

You do realize that you are trying to use a tautology to contradict itself here....?

The idea of an intelligent designer doesn't specify whether it's aliens or a supreme being. All you're saying is that this creator/designer made things more complicated than that creator/designer...

Interesting note: while still a foetus, humans have gills. Why? We don't breathe inside the womb. Observations like this indicate that macro-evolution is a very sensible idea. But I know you're not saying it's not a sensible idea RÃ*an.

The empirical answer (one that has some observable data to support it) is that humans have marine vertabrate DNA that expresses itself during development. How it got there is still the subject of discussion. Retroviral infection, spontaneous mutation, and archaic heritage are the three leading contenders. Of those 3, archaic heratige is the favored contendor, because it makes the most connections with other observable data and madels.

Intelligent Design is very WYSIWYG. The spaces between dinosaurs and mammals etc. seem to be discounted. Maybe you can shed some more light on that for me RÃ*an.

Err.. I'm puzzled. What spaces between archaeosaurs and mammals?