|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,915 Year: 4,172/9,624 Month: 1,043/974 Week: 2/368 Day: 2/11 Hour: 1/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Why creationist definitions of evolution are wrong, terribly wrong. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.7 |
Hi Dr Adequate,
Dr Adequate writes: But it should not be included in their definition. Why not? It is a part of the process, isn't it? You can't get from a single cell life form to where we are today without it.
Dr Adequate writes: That is merely a historical fact about what evolution has brought about. Are you saying macroevolution is a fact? If so please present the empirical testable reproducable experiments that make it a fact. Otherwise it is an assumption. God Bless, "John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
marc9000 Member Posts: 1522 From: Ky U.S. Joined: Member Rating: 1.4 |
One wonders why creationists don't use the definitions used by scientists instead of these hackneyed versions. Because hackneyed versions are often used by scientists as they use evolution as a weapon against religion. All creationists often do is simply repeat what they’ve been told by scientists. I have a copy of The Blind Watchmaker by Richard Dawkins. Here is most of the first paragraph of chapter 3, page 61;
quote:[capitalizations mine] I also have a copy of Victor Stenger’s How Science Shows That God Does Not Exist. On page 232, he’s showing hypothetical observations that would have favored the God hypothesis. Observation number 3 reads like this;
quote:[capitalizations mine] Why is it okay for militant atheists like Dawkins and Stenger to use the words simple and complex in describing evolution, and it’s not okay for creationists to simply repeat it/agree with it? Those are the only two books of that type that I have held my nose and bought for reference some time ago, but of course there are scores of other similar ones that seek to destroy religion, and are saturated with evolution more than anything else. If we go to amazon.com, and look at the first review listed of Dawkins The God Delusion, by Publishers Weekly, we see it stated that he is using evolution again to rebut the notion that without God there can be no morality. The definition of evolution is intentionally kept vague and confusing BY SCIENTISTS, so that it can be switched back and forth between being innocent empirical science to an aggressive weapon against religion. Then, when called on its aggression, that aggression is flipped off like a switch, and creationists are blamed for it. That creationists are blamed for the vagueness should be an inspiration to any open-minded person to take a critical look at all the metaphysics that are going on in the publicly established scientific community today. Who is really more at fault concerning the "wrong" definitions of the word "evolution", creationists, or atheists in science?
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2136 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
The definition of evolution is intentionally kept vague and confusing BY SCIENTISTS, so that it can be switched back and forth between being innocent empirical science to an aggressive weapon against religion.
I think your objections can be boiled down to a simple fact: your religious beliefs do not reflect reality. So when scientists describe reality, and provide explanations for how various parts of it work (using theories), you think you are being attacked. Perhaps if your beliefs were in accord with reality you would fare better, eh? Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi ICANT, please remember that the topic is why creationist definitions are wrong ...
... not what you believe is the current status of science in general and evolution in particular.
"Micro"evolution is a fact. "Macro"evolution is an assumption. Can you please provide a definition of these? In order to assess the validity of your statements we first need to know if we are using the same definitions.
Message 9 Why don't you ever refer to this part of the equation found at Berkeley Because it is not part of the definition. What this shows is how the definition of evolution as used by scientists in general and Berkeley in particular explains the diversity of life as we know it.
When creationists talk about evolution this is included in their argument. And is the part that they can not accept as having happened. There is no first hand evidence only musings and assumptions. Which makes the last paragraph a huge assumption. Macroevolution - as used by scientists, biologists, and evolutionists - is the change that occurs after speciation, as daughter populations become more diverse over time due to microevolution - as used by scientists, biologists, and evolutionists - within each species. In both cases the changes are due to descent with modification or the change in frequency of hereditary traits in breeding populations from generation to generation. There is massive amounts of evidence of this type of change in the fossil record. You've seen it. Every transitional fossil is evidence of macroevolution - as the term is used by scientists, biologists, and evolutionists. The Transitional Fossils Show Evolution in Process thread discusses such transitional fossils. Therefore, either your definitions are different - and you are looking for evidence of something that is not relevant to evolution as used by scientists, biologists, and evolutionists, or you are in denial of the evidence. If you are using a different definition, then what make you think basing an argument on it is valid? What is your definition?
Message 16 Are you saying macroevolution is a fact? If so please present the empirical testable reproducable experiments that make it a fact. Again - as the term is used by scientists, biologists, and evolutionists - macroevolution has been observed in the continued divergence of species after speciation, and as such it is an observed empirical fact. If you dispute this, then you need to provide the basis on which your dispute rests - your definition of macroevolution - and then you need to show why it is a valid argument. Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : added we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. • • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3322 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined:
|
ICANT writes:
Then give us the definition of these words and we'll go from there.
"Micro"evolution is a fact. "Macro"evolution is an assumption. It was not observed and no experiment can be run to reproduce the claimed results. Thus there is no empirical evidence. You got a good example there if the sword evolved into the fighter jet. Instead of the jet being created by mankind.
Are you seriously this dense or you're lying for jesus here? The analogy wasn't about who created what. It was about lots of small changes that accumulated into large changes over time. Do you or do you not agree that the romance languages started out as Latin? Do you or do you not agree that it took thousands of years through very small accumulated changes in those languages in different regions to result in the romance languages today? Do you or do you not agree that we don't have documentation of all the small changes that took place between Latin and modern day Spanish? Do you or do you not agree that no controlled experiment has ever been performed to "prove" that a language can indeed change by thousands of years of small accumulated changes to become another completely different language? The analogy is about your objection that we have never seen macroevolution happen. I'm simply using your objection to show that we don't have to see or prove in the lab of something that will logically happen from things that we can already prove. Small changes can and do happen from one generation to the next in biological populations just like small changes can and do happen in the spoken language of a population. Through time (lots and lots of time), these small changes accumulate that result in a population with completely different genetic make up just like through lots of time small changes accumulate in a language that result in a completely different language in a population? Edited by Taz, : No reason given.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3322 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
marc9000 writes:
Because the militant atheists use those words in a completely different context than what creationists use them for. Simply repeating the word in a sentence does not make it a quotation in context.
Why is it okay for militant atheists like Dawkins and Stenger to use the words simple and complex in describing evolution, and it’s not okay for creationists to simply repeat it/agree with it?
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi marc9000,
Because hackneyed versions are often used by scientists as they use evolution as a weapon against religion. Yet neither of the quotes you provided involve a definition of evolution, only a discussion of what some of the observed consequences are.
Why is it okay for militant atheists like Dawkins and Stenger to use the words simple and complex in describing evolution, and it’s not okay for creationists to simply repeat it/agree with it? Because they can be wrong too? Note: I've stopped reading Dawkins as he has gone more into being a militant antitheist than a biologist, and as such is making himself irrelevant in my opinion. More particularly because they are observing what has occurred, not claiming that it must occur. There is a big difference between explaining what has occurred and saying that the end result we see must inevitably occur -- the post hoc ergo propter hoc logical fallacy. Possibilities and probabilities versus inevitabilities. It is probable that some increase in overall complexity will arise from variations, but it is not inevitable that it will continue to do so. Cyanobacteria similar to the first known life still exist, and evolution explains this. Dawkin's also characterizes evolutionary processes as a drunken walk. And curiously, the Dawkins and the Stengers do not define the field of evolutionary biology. Berkeley University also discusses the results of evolutionary processes and how the observed diversity of life can be explained by evolution: An introduction to evolution - Understanding Evolution
quote: Evolution - as defined by the science of evolution - explains what has happened. It is this power to explain the past that makes the definition used by scientists valid and the ones used by various creationists wrong. Compare (again) the explanatory power of evolution as used in science with the creationist definition you had provided:
quote: Let's call your website definition by a more appropriate name: "creolution" (the creationist misinterpretation of evolution)
Creolution: - is the progressive development of more complex lifeforms from simpler ones by various suggested mechanisms. Evolution: - is the change in frequency of hereditary traits in breeding population from generation to generation. ... and see how "creolution" compares with evolution in their ability to explain the diversity of life around us and what biologists study:
I could go on, and I expect many people here can provide many additional examples where creolution fails to explain what evolution explains, but I think that should be sufficient to demonstrate the absolute failure of creolution as a viable alternate formulation of evolution. Now if you think creolution can explain any one of those items where a "no" is in the creo column, then proceed to do so ... without using the change in hereditary traits in breeding populations from generation to generation. If you have any doubts about evolutions ability to explain any of the items where there is a "yes" in the evo column, then ask. If you think that evolution should explain items where there is a "no" in the evo column, then ask. Note that the actual lack of direction and purpose in biological systems shows that, not only is a system that explain direction and purpose unnecessary, it gives the wrong impression. Any explanation of the diversity of life as we know it, from the life around us, to history, prehistory, the fossil record and the genetic record that fails these simple tests to the extent that your website definition does, does not qualify as "statements that were made to appeal to laypersons in an abbreviated way," but either evidence of a poor grasp of reality, intentional falsehoods, delusional distortions of reality, or profound ignorance. Your choice.
Those are the only two books of that type that I have held my nose and bought for reference some time ago, but of course there are scores of other similar ones that seek to destroy religion, and are saturated with evolution more than anything else. If we go to amazon.com, and look at the first review listed of Dawkins The God Delusion, by Publishers Weekly, we see it stated that he is using evolution again to rebut the notion that without God there can be no morality. So you are confusing the work of anti-theistic atheists with the science of evolution?
The definition of evolution is intentionally kept vague and confusing BY SCIENTISTS, so that it can be switched back and forth between being innocent empirical science to an aggressive weapon against religion. Then, when called on its aggression, that aggression is flipped off like a switch, and creationists are blamed for it. There is nothing vague about Darwin's original definition - descent with modification as a result of natural selection - and there is nothing vague about the modern definitions that include the hereditary process by which traits are passed from parent to offspring - the change in frequency of hereditary traits in breeding populations from generation to generation can be measured in any population and documented. What other definition is used? Edited by RAZD, : added we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. • • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Granny Magda Member Posts: 2462 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.1 |
Hi Marc9000,
I think you are a little unclear about what it is that evolutionists are objecting to in the quotes detailed in the OP. Let's take a look at one of those quotes again;
quote: Now that definition is being criticised because it is wrong. There is nothing in the Dawkins quote you bring up that is wrong. That's why Dawkins isn't being criticised. They are not saying the same thing. The creationist quote, with its "technical terms", is an attempt at a succinct definition of evolution. However it is deeply wrong. It gives a very clear impression that evolution is all about increasing complexity. It gives no indication that evolution can decrease complexity (which it can and does), but defines evolution into a corner as though increasing complexity was all evolution can do - that's just wrong. The Dawkins quote is not. Dawkins is not attempting to define evolution but to provide an explanation for complex biological entities. No-one has said that the word "complexity" should be taboo in discussions about evolution. That is not why the creationist quote was selected for criticism. The creationist claim makes a false claim about evolution. Dawkins does not. It's really very simple. As for Stenger's quote, well, the point is the same. Do you acknowledge that complex biological organisms exist? Yes? Then Stenger's comments make perfect sense. He, again, is not attempting to provide a definition of evolution, nor does he claim, as the creationist quote did, that evolution is the process of creating complexity. Evolution can and does create complexity. The objection here is that hat is not all it does nor is it the purpose or definition of evolution. That is a creationist strawman.
Why is it okay for militant atheists like Dawkins and Stenger to use the words simple and complex in describing evolution, and it’s not okay for creationists to simply repeat it/agree with it? They are not in agreement. The quotes you cherry picked do not even remotely say the same thing as RAZD's creationist quotes.
The definition of evolution is intentionally kept vague and confusing BY SCIENTISTS, so that it can be switched back and forth between being innocent empirical science to an aggressive weapon against religion. Then, when called on its aggression, that aggression is flipped off like a switch, and creationists are blamed for it. All that is needed to refute this absurd paranoid fantasy is the observation that most scientists are religious. You seem to imagine scientists as being a dedicated group of atheist conspirators. You are very, very wrong in this. Scientists are not some monolithic entity. Not all scientists are Richard Dawkins.
That creationists are blamed for the vagueness should be an inspiration to any open-minded person to take a critical look at all the metaphysics that are going on in the publicly established scientific community today. Who is really more at fault concerning the "wrong" definitions of the word "evolution", creationists, or atheists in science? Great. I urge you to ask those questions. But please, go and get some real experience of science before jumping to ludicrous conspiracy theory conclusions as you have so far. I think if you were to actually study science and observe how scientists operate on a day-to-day basis, you would find that they actually spend a lot less time trying to disprove your religious notions than you think. Like, for most of them, no time at all. Mutate and Survive Edited by Granny Magda, : Typo. "A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Granny Magda Member Posts: 2462 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.1 |
Hi RAZD,
And curiously, the Dawkins and the Stengers do not define the field of evolutionary biology. Especially since Stenger is a physicist, not a biologist! Mutate and Survive
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi Coyote,
Obfuscation, misrepresentation, and outright falsehoods are some of the tactics used on creationist websites in order to support their beliefs ... Yet just stating this does not accomplish much in a debate. The typical creationist that reads and uses such websites is incapable of determining their actual validity due to their lack of knowledge about the science of evolution, and just saying it is false makes little impression. What is needed is to show how and why such definitions are false. Enjoy. we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. • • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.7 |
Hi RAZD,
Hope you are doing well. My aim in Message 9 was to point out that creationists include macroevolution in any discussion of evolution. Also that macroevolution had no first hand accounts and anything that put forth is by assumption.
RAZD writes: "Micro"evolution is a fact. "Macro"evolution is an assumption. Can you please provide a definition of these? Short formMicro evolution, changes that occur in species. Macro evolution changes that occur above species.
RAZD writes: There is massive amounts of evidence of this type of change in the fossil record. You've seen it. Every transitional fossil is evidence of macroevolution - as the term is used by scientists, biologists, and evolutionists. The only thing you observe in the fossil record is a complete species of a creature. Other than having some similarities to other species the only way you can say one came from the other is by assumption.There is no firsthand accounts. They can not be reproduced. They are not in a continual process today, therefore can not be observed. God Bless, "John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22506 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
marc9000 writes: Why is it okay for militant atheists like Dawkins and Stenger to use the words simple and complex in describing evolution, and it’s not okay for creationists to simply repeat it/agree with it? Good God, Marc, you've misunderstood the whole point of this thread. There's nothing wrong with the words "simple" and "complex" when talking about evolution. What's wrong is creationist definitions of evolution. The example provided by RAZD errs when it says evolution "deals with the suggested mechanisms for the progressive development of more complex life forms from simpler ones." That's not the correct definition of evolution! It's not wrong because it used the words "simple" and "complex." It's wrong because evolution is not directed toward complexity. Evolution is a process that produces better adaptation to the environment. The adaptation could be simpler, it could be more complex, evolution doesn't care. Better adaptation is better adaptation, and that's all that matters. So use the words "simple" and "complex" as much as you like when discussing evolution, just don't use them to misdefine it. --Percy
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
Why is it okay for militant atheists like Dawkins and Stenger to use the words simple and complex in describing evolution, and it’s not okay for creationists to simply repeat it/agree with it? Evolution can explain how complex things can form from simple things. Evolution does not suggest that complex things must form. That's the difference. Creationists migh say, as an example 'evolution is when something simple becomes more complex'. Evolutionists say 'if something simple has become more complex this can be explained by evolution by means of natural selection'. If creationists said the latter - I'm sure there'd be no problems.
The definition of evolution is intentionally kept vague and confusing BY SCIENTISTS, so that it can be switched back and forth between being innocent empirical science to an aggressive weapon against religion. Heh - I called it in message 5 of this thread:
quote: Could you give me an example of this vagueness? The quotes you gave weren't really very vague.
That creationists are blamed for the vagueness should be an inspiration to any open-minded person to take a critical look at all the metaphysics that are going on in the publicly established scientific community today. Who is really more at fault concerning the "wrong" definitions of the word "evolution", creationists, or atheists in science? The creationists, I think. The two examples of 'atheists in science' you brought up were not saying things that are untrue. Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2136 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
Hi Coyote,
There is a place for that, but I detest posts that take up three or four screens of text, addressing each and every point in great detail; and in fact I rarely read beyond the first couple of paragraphs of such posts. Obfuscation, misrepresentation, and outright falsehoods are some of the tactics used on creationist websites in order to support their beliefs ... Yet just stating this does not accomplish much in a debate. The typical creationist that reads and uses such websites is incapable of determining their actual validity due to their lack of knowledge about the science of evolution, and just saying it is false makes little impression. What is needed is to show how and why such definitions are false. Sometimes shorter is better. Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22506 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
Agreed. I don't know why some people work so hard to obscure their points in torrents of detail. Respondents should take into account their correspondent's level of understanding, and responses should be at roughly the same level of detail.
--Percy
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024