Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,809 Year: 3,066/9,624 Month: 911/1,588 Week: 94/223 Day: 5/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   How do you define the word Evolution?
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 406 of 936 (805986)
04-21-2017 11:50 PM
Reply to: Message 326 by Dredge
04-20-2017 2:05 AM


Re: Desperate evolutionists desperately need proof
Davidjay: "Desperate Evolutionists will twist anything."
Well said; you hit the nail on the head, imo. You can't trust them.
Funny, we say that same thing about creationists.
Seen creationists do it constantly over the span of three decades. There was one creationist I tried to carry on an email correspondence with for about 20 years. The guy lied about ... just about everything. I mean verifiable lies. Like about who had just said what. Like my response would be to send him the actual text of what we both had just written (my time on CompuServe when they were charging by the minute for connect time led me to the practice of capturing everything to a text file).
Needless to say, my three decades of experience have left me with a very bad opinion of creationists.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 326 by Dredge, posted 04-20-2017 2:05 AM Dredge has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 407 of 936 (805987)
04-22-2017 12:58 AM
Reply to: Message 394 by Dredge
04-21-2017 8:22 PM


Re: Are creationists anti-science?
I asked you to name a creationist belief that would prevent a creationist from becoming a competent professional in the field of applied biology. You responded by claiming that a young-earth creationist would not make a very effective geologist.
Firstly, not all creationists are young-earthers - me, for example; I'm an old-earth creationist.
Secondly, I was talking about applied biology, not geology.
Thirdly, I suspect that there is no reason why a young-earth creationist wouldn't make a competent professional in the field of applied geology.
First, thank you for pointing out that you are not a YEC. Most creationists we encounter tend to be. However, they also avoid discussing young-earth claims, since those are extremely vulnerable. For example, that creationist I had that 20-year email correspondence with. He is a dyed-in-the-wool young-earther. In two decades, he absolutely refused to discuss the age of the earth. He knew to avoid it. Too bad, because those claims are the most fun.
Thirdly, I suspect that there is no reason why a young-earth creationist wouldn't make a competent professional in the field of applied geology.
How's 'bout a real-life example: Glenn R. Morton. I already mentioned his presentation at the 1986 International Conference on Creationism in Message 404. You can find his story in his own words immediately below. Let me just say that that his presentation was the first indication that I had ever had that creationism is deadly to its believers' faith.
Here are those two links:
Here's his basic story which should jive with those two links, though it's been a while since I've read them so I'm going on memory here. He graduated from college with a bachelor's in physics (our university systems may differ, so please bear with me), but the job market was tight and he couldn't find work. Somewhere along the line he had converted and had become a YEC. He had also received "geology training" from the Institute for Creation Research (ICR), quite literally the creators of "creation science." -- you know, Gish, Morris. He wrote a number of geology articles for YEC publications, about 28 of them (check those links for his actual figures!) and ghost-wrote the evolution section of an evangelist's book -- Josh McDowell?
Somewhere in that chain of events or afterwards he found employment as a field geologist working for a petroleum company doing oil exploration work. He describes all that in those two links. And for support staff he hired several YECs who had been in his geology classes with the ICR.
Let's go back to the 1986 International Conference on Creationism (ICC) and ICR's John Morris' response to Morton's question about the age of the earth:
quote:
If the earth is more than 10,000 years old then Scripture has no meaning.
(http://cre-ev.dwise1.net/quotes.html#JMORRIS)
Glenn R. Morton's response was to describe his own experience and the experiences of all those ICR-trained geologists as they faced, day after day after day after day mountains of rock-hard geological data that the ICR had taught them did not exist and could not exist or else "Scripture had no meaning."
At the time, Morton described those ICR-trained geologists as suffering "severe crises of faith", though his other writings do no play it in quite those terms. Morton himself described what he had gone through after the 1986 ICC as having been driven to the verge of atheism. The only thing that saved his faith was to come up with some kind of harmonization. My understanding is that it was unorthodox, but since I have not need to harmonize anything, I dug no further.
Then later Glenn R. Morton unfortunately experienced some kind of existential or religious meltdown. He had built up a website with several articles of how the geological evidence contradicts Noah's Flood. But then, apparently, he learned that atheists were using his article to "attack Christianity". Whatever. The end result is that all we have of his pages are what archive sites had saved away.
Even though he took his site down, archives do abound.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 394 by Dredge, posted 04-21-2017 8:22 PM Dredge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 408 by CRR, posted 04-22-2017 2:33 AM dwise1 has replied
 Message 448 by Dredge, posted 04-24-2017 12:37 AM dwise1 has not replied

  
CRR
Member (Idle past 2242 days)
Posts: 579
From: Australia
Joined: 10-19-2016


(1)
Message 408 of 936 (805992)
04-22-2017 2:33 AM
Reply to: Message 407 by dwise1
04-22-2017 12:58 AM


Re: Are creationists anti-science?
There are Young Earth Creationists who are competent in all fields of science including biology and geology.
Since a lot of evolutionary biology deals with microevolution they probably work there too.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 407 by dwise1, posted 04-22-2017 12:58 AM dwise1 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 409 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-22-2017 9:24 AM CRR has not replied
 Message 410 by ringo, posted 04-22-2017 11:59 AM CRR has not replied
 Message 411 by dwise1, posted 04-22-2017 2:13 PM CRR has replied
 Message 434 by dwise1, posted 04-23-2017 10:10 AM CRR has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 409 of 936 (806016)
04-22-2017 9:24 AM
Reply to: Message 408 by CRR
04-22-2017 2:33 AM


Re: Are creationists anti-science?
There are Young Earth Creationists who are competent in all fields of science including biology and geology.
"There are people who think that 2 + 2 = 5 who are competent in arithmetic."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 408 by CRR, posted 04-22-2017 2:33 AM CRR has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 410 of 936 (806046)
04-22-2017 11:59 AM
Reply to: Message 408 by CRR
04-22-2017 2:33 AM


Re: Are creationists anti-science?
CRR writes:
There are Young Earth Creationists who are competent in all fields of science including biology and geology.
Name 300.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 408 by CRR, posted 04-22-2017 2:33 AM CRR has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


(2)
Message 411 of 936 (806066)
04-22-2017 2:13 PM
Reply to: Message 408 by CRR
04-22-2017 2:33 AM


Re: Are creationists anti-science?
There are Young Earth Creationists who are competent in all fields of science including biology and geology.
I do not doubt that for a moment. A few, such as Dr. Kurt Wise (no relation to me), are (or were) notable. The ability of the human mind to compartmentalize and to rationalize is truly amazing. So I do not doubt that such YECs can work competently in science and then go home and live a separate religious life untouched by what they do and observe at work. Also, their actual work may not need to depend directly on evolution and so they can avoid evolution and not have to think about it.
As Morton discovered, the problem becomes a problem when you cannot avoid the evidence. As my quote of John Morris indicates, the typical ICR-style approach to YEC is to teach you what evidence does not exist and cannot possibly exist if Scripture were to have any meaning. That is what created that problem for Morton and the other ICR-trained YEC geologists, because they were faced with and had to work with just that kind of rock-hard undeniable geological evidence every single day. There are limits to how much you can compartmentalize before actually breaking your brain.
The presentation that Glenn R. Morton gave at the 1986 International Conference on Creationism was basically a scathing refutation of Flood Geology (invented by John's father, Dr. Henry Morris) based on the evidence. When John Morris confronted Morton in the question-and-answer period, he identified himself as a petroleum geologist, so Morton actually asked him two questions: "Where did you work in petroleum geology?" and "How old is the earth?" It turns out that John Morris never worked in petroleum geology, but rather had taught a class on the subject one semester. Sitting in his university office protected from exposure to the real-world evidence, feeling safe to ignore any part of reality he wanted to.
To illustrate further the ICR approach, I had read the report of the visitation committee from the California Board of Education during the flap about the ICR's accreditation for a master's degree in science. They observed a microbiology class which used a standard textbook that was used by most secular universities. However, the instructor was taking the class through the book page by page and telling them exactly which parts of the text to redact with a black felt marker because "we don't believe that."
Dr. Kurt Wise, who has a PhD in geology and had studied under Steven J. Gould, is a life-long young-earth creationist. His reasons for being a YEC are first and foremost because of his religious beliefs; he has stated that that is the only reason he rejects evolution, considering that the scientific evidence for evolution is so overwhelming. In high school he famously took a pair of scissors to his Bible and cut out every passage that he thought depended on YEC. For so many years, he was one of the few honest creationists out there, even to the point of refuting other creationists' false claims. At the ICCs, he would speak out urging higher academic and scholastic standards in creationism, even though his words fell on deaf ears. A bit over a decade ago he joined the ICR, a den of inequity. I do not know how pure he as been able to remain.
Since a lot of evolutionary biology deals with microevolution they probably work there too.
An interesting side story. But first, a famous quote that you have surely encountered, but never actually read:
quote:
Seen in the light of evolution, biology is, perhaps, intellectually the most satisfying and inspiring science. Without that light, it becomes a pile of sundry facts -- some of them interesting or curious, but making no meaningful picture as a whole. . . . Does the evolutionary doctrine clash with religious faith? It does not. It is a blunder to mistake the Holy Scriptures for elementary textbooks of astronomy, geology, biology, and anthropology. Only if symbols are construed to mean what they are not intended to mean can there arise imaginary, insoluble conflicts. As pointed out above, the blunder leads to blasphemy: the Creator is accused of systematic deceitfulness.
(Theodosius Dobzhansky, "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution", American Biology Teacher 35:125-129 (March 1973), p. 129)
I assume that you are familiar with the National Center for Science Education (NCSE). Anthropologist Dr. Eugenie Scott had long been its Executive Director. Over a decade ago I heard her speak. She mentioned that surprisingly many university biology departments do not teach evolution. Of course, in her physical anthropology class, she most definitely did teach evolution.
Universities and colleges in the US have graduation requirements, mainly certain classes or types of classes that you must take in order to earn your degree; even if you are an art appreciation major, you still need to take a certain number of math and science courses in order to meet your "general education" requirements. Even biology majors had to take a few other science classes for "general ed". So every semester she would see biology seniors enroll in her class for "an easy A" (the top grade here is an A). And on every the face of each of those biology senior, she could see that moment of enlightenment hit them: "So that's why ... !" For all those four years they had been learning and memorizing all kinds of interesting individual facts unrelated to each other. But now they could see how all those facts tied together. Now they could understand what they had been studying.
In a similar vein there's the experiences of my sons and my sister's son. I had always been a big fan of science and my ex-wife shared that interest, so we passed that on to our sons. We saw science as a whole with all the parts relating with each other. We could reason through scientific problems and understand what was going on and even raise the right question at the right time when something didn't seem right. Science was fun! And still is. I remember when my elder son was about 5 and we were sitting there watching a geology program ("The Making of a Continent"?) as it covered plate tectonics. As the show presented something, Ian said, "I knew that." The next thing, "I knew that too." After a few of those, the show presented something else (plate subduction, maybe) and he said more quietly, "I didn't know that." Then again with the next thing. And he remained pretty quiet after that.
It was an entirely different story for my nephew. He hated science. It was the worst class for him in school. That sentiment is completely foreign to me, but then he explained the problem to me. None of it made any sense to him, because all they did was to teach a ton of individual unrelated facts and ideas. None of it tied together. None of it made any sense. It was pure memorization. It would be like a history class in which you did was to memorize names and dates. I've had history classes like that too. Contrast that with a history class in which you also learn the historical and geographical context of those names and dates. That's when it starts to make sense. That's when history becomes interesting.
That is what evolution does for biology.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 408 by CRR, posted 04-22-2017 2:33 AM CRR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 414 by CRR, posted 04-22-2017 7:32 PM dwise1 has replied
 Message 452 by Dredge, posted 04-24-2017 12:43 AM dwise1 has not replied

  
caffeine
Member (Idle past 1024 days)
Posts: 1800
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008


(1)
Message 412 of 936 (806073)
04-22-2017 5:05 PM
Reply to: Message 378 by dwise1
04-21-2017 10:24 AM


Re: An Alternative consistent and coherent model
Common sense says that when it drops off the end it will continue to move in a spiral trajectory. It doesn't!
I did a bit of asking around to see if I was just strange, and have been unable to find anyone who would expect the ball to continue in a spiral path. I understand my methods are not rigorous; but I'm very curious about how the original study that is supposed to have revealed this was stuctured.
I can find literally no one who would expect the ball to continue in a spiral path. That's not common sense. That's contrary to everyday experience.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 378 by dwise1, posted 04-21-2017 10:24 AM dwise1 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 413 by dwise1, posted 04-22-2017 6:23 PM caffeine has seen this message but not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 413 of 936 (806076)
04-22-2017 6:23 PM
Reply to: Message 412 by caffeine
04-22-2017 5:05 PM


Re: An Alternative consistent and coherent model
You probably should have included Kent Hovind in your sampling. He used a playground merry-go-round full of kids as an analogy for something, maybe spinning galaxies. He proposed that you make the merry-go-round spin faster and faster, which would cause the kids to fly off of it. While each kid's initial trajectory would be a straight line tangential to the circle of their rotation before letting go (like a weight on the end of a string that you spin over your head and then let go), Hovind's common sense informed him that the kids would still have that rotation working on them, so he described their flight as being curved.
I think that our problem is that we associate too much with smart people. For example, I cannot remember a time when I didn't realize that the sun does not burn through combustion. My research of Hovind's solar-mass-loss claim first started because of a college student's question in a Yahoo forum. That college student thought that the sun burned like a fire through combustion; I think he wanted to know where it got its oxygen from. Then some of what Hovind wrote on the subject made me suspect that Hovind also thought that the sun burns through combustion. On that page, I link to an anti-Illuminati wing-nut site's page (Cutting Edge Ministries) about an Illuminati plot to turn Jupiter into a second sun by crashing the Galileo probe into the planet which would cause its plutonium power reactor to explode and ignite the planet. They contacted astronomers about it, who all came back with the same answer, that Jupiter cannot become a second sun because it's not massive enough to start a thermonuclear reaction in its core. Cutting Edge could not understand any of the responses, but they could understand the one from a "Christian scientist", Kent Hovind, who explained that it wouldn't happen because Jupiter doesn't enough oxygen in its atmosphere to allow a fire to start or to sustain that fire.
So the point is that there are indeed people whose understanding of the world is wrong and who will arrive at false conclusions because of that. We may not think they exist because we don't encounter them (or because they don't normally say something that would reveal their existence). For example, when I would mention to a creationist the creationist argument, "Then why are there still monkeys?", that creationist would invariably deny that anyone believes that or would actually say it. In the decades since 1981, I have observed it used in the wild about four times, so those people do exist even though they may be rare (or we just don't hear from all of them).
That study about the metal ball on a spiral track was reported in a popular science magazine, Science'80 (which incremented its name every new year). I lost that copy decades ago. It was a good magazine; sorry to see it go. Though not librarians, who reportedly found it difficult to index because the name kept changing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 412 by caffeine, posted 04-22-2017 5:05 PM caffeine has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 415 by CRR, posted 04-22-2017 7:46 PM dwise1 has replied

  
CRR
Member (Idle past 2242 days)
Posts: 579
From: Australia
Joined: 10-19-2016


Message 414 of 936 (806078)
04-22-2017 7:32 PM
Reply to: Message 411 by dwise1
04-22-2017 2:13 PM


Re: Are creationists anti-science?
Thanks, dwise, for your comments.
I have heard from geologist speakers who followed the reverse path, moving from secular old age geology to young earth.
Dobzhansky's quote is often used but as you note many biology classes don't even mention it so it is apparently not required to make sense of these subjects. While it can provide a narrative it seems sufficiently flexible to accommodate almost any set of facts.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 411 by dwise1, posted 04-22-2017 2:13 PM dwise1 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 416 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-22-2017 8:23 PM CRR has not replied
 Message 430 by JonF, posted 04-23-2017 9:03 AM CRR has not replied
 Message 433 by dwise1, posted 04-23-2017 9:37 AM CRR has replied

  
CRR
Member (Idle past 2242 days)
Posts: 579
From: Australia
Joined: 10-19-2016


Message 415 of 936 (806079)
04-22-2017 7:46 PM
Reply to: Message 413 by dwise1
04-22-2017 6:23 PM


Re: merry-go-round
I remember this example differently although I haven't gone back to review it. From my memory Kent said that each kid would move away in a straight line but would carry part of the angular momentum so they would all be rotating the same way as the merry go round. I don't recall any mention of a curved path.
If I come across that video again I'll pay special attention to that bit. I'll also have to try to find the video about the sun losing mass.
I also have found people who use the "Then why are there still monkeys?" question a few times. It shows a lack of understanding of evolutionary theory and, as CMI says, there are enough good arguments without using this one.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 413 by dwise1, posted 04-22-2017 6:23 PM dwise1 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 432 by dwise1, posted 04-23-2017 9:12 AM CRR has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 416 of 936 (806080)
04-22-2017 8:23 PM
Reply to: Message 414 by CRR
04-22-2017 7:32 PM


Re: Are creationists anti-science?
I have heard from geologist speakers who followed the reverse path, moving from secular old age geology to young earth.
Did they mention what they hit their heads on?
Dobzhansky's quote is often used but as you note many biology classes don't even mention it so it is apparently not required to make sense of these subjects.
But as dwise1 points out, the result of such classes is that people can't make sense of the subject.
While it can provide a narrative it seems sufficiently flexible to accommodate almost any set of facts.
OK, how would it accommodate the following:
* Modern species of mammals are found in the earliest sedimentary rocks.
* Human embryos produce and then shed feathers in the womb.
* No-one has ever observed any evidence of a beneficial mutation.
* Genetic analysis shows that the nearest relative of every species of Old World monkey is a corresponding species of New World monkey.
* All and only those mammals with spots or stripes focus their eyes by moving the lens backwards and forwards like an octopus instead of deforming the lens like regular mammals.
* Genetic analysis shows that although humans are genetically closest to chimpanzees, chimpanzees are closest to gorillas.
* Whales have olfactory pseudogenes ... of bees.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 414 by CRR, posted 04-22-2017 7:32 PM CRR has not replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 417 of 936 (806081)
04-22-2017 8:56 PM
Reply to: Message 400 by Dredge
04-21-2017 8:59 PM


Re: Dredge is once again wrong.
Your ignorance is stunning. Please show us something scientific that says the Theory of Evolution deals with origins.
The title of Darwin's book may be a slight hint that you have no freaking idea what you are talking about. Do you know the title of Darwin's book?

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.
If your viewpoint has merits and facts to back it up why would you have to lie?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 400 by Dredge, posted 04-21-2017 8:59 PM Dredge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 418 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-22-2017 11:45 PM Theodoric has not replied
 Message 420 by Dredge, posted 04-23-2017 1:15 AM Theodoric has replied
 Message 427 by CRR, posted 04-23-2017 3:25 AM Theodoric has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 418 of 936 (806086)
04-22-2017 11:45 PM
Reply to: Message 417 by Theodoric
04-22-2017 8:56 PM


Re: Dredge is once again wrong.
Well, it is called The Origin of Species, but that's not what creationists mean when they come out with this nonsense is it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 417 by Theodoric, posted 04-22-2017 8:56 PM Theodoric has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 437 by CRR, posted 04-23-2017 6:14 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dredge
Member
Posts: 2850
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016


Message 419 of 936 (806088)
04-23-2017 12:59 AM
Reply to: Message 370 by Dr Adequate
04-21-2017 12:45 AM


Re: If Not, What?
Dr. Adequate: "this is exactly why we need to say the bacteria evolve ,,, so that people don't get misled into imagining such processes as you describe,"
I don't think my allusion to vaccine immunity has anything to do with the absence of your magical word.
I notice that in the medical profession, bacteria are said to "become" resistant; no one says bacteria "evolve" resistance. I suspect that the only scientific sphere in which bacteria are said to "evolve" resistance isevolutionary biologiy - because evo-biologists are convinced that antibiotic resistance is evidence that supports their theory that all life evolving from a common ancestor.
Regardless, I'm still in the dark about how what happens after the bacteria are exposed to the antibiotic. What is the connection between exposure to the toxin and the surviving bacteria producing a beneficial mutation that is passed on to the next generation?
Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 370 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-21-2017 12:45 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 421 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-23-2017 1:31 AM Dredge has replied
 Message 429 by Percy, posted 04-23-2017 9:02 AM Dredge has replied

  
Dredge
Member
Posts: 2850
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016


Message 420 of 936 (806089)
04-23-2017 1:15 AM
Reply to: Message 417 by Theodoric
04-22-2017 8:56 PM


Re: Dredge is once again wrong.
Well, what is the definition of "origins"? I am aware that abiogenesis is not evolution, but I would say that the first evolutionary step after abiogenesis could be included in the realm of "origins". And guess what, Origins science includes evolution.
So please explain what you mean when you say my "ignorance is stunning"?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 417 by Theodoric, posted 04-22-2017 8:56 PM Theodoric has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 425 by CRR, posted 04-23-2017 3:23 AM Dredge has replied
 Message 431 by JonF, posted 04-23-2017 9:08 AM Dredge has not replied
 Message 436 by Theodoric, posted 04-23-2017 10:19 AM Dredge has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024