Creationist: Before you start debating evolutionists..

Something interesting I found while surfing the net. I thought it might help creationist save face Dear Creationist,We who follow conventional science appreciate your zeal and commitment in desiring to show us the errors of evolution. However, it has been our experience that the vast majority of challengers such as yourself are woefully unequipped for this endeavor. So in order to save us all some time and grief, and to keep you from making an utter fool of yourself, we have prepared this text to help you out.Step 1: Do you know anything at all about evolution? (you'd be surprised how many creationists don't) Please answer the following yes or no questions:1. Does evolution rely entirely on randomness?2. Does evolution violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics?3. Does evolution say anything about the origin of life?4. Does evolution say anything about the origin of the universe?5. Does evolution deny the existance of God?6. Does evolution proceed from simplicity to complexity?7. Does evolution proceed from lower to higher lifeforms?8. Does evolution incorporate the notion of progress?9. Does evolution have any moral consequences?10. Does evolution stipulate any political attitudes?11. Is evolution incompatible with any major religion?12. Is it true that their are no transitional forms?Step 2: Scoring. Count up the number of times you answered "yes". If this number is zero, proceed to step 3. Otherwise slam your head against the wall as many times as you answered "yes" and go back to step 1.Step 3: Materials. Do you have any materials authored by members of the ICR? If so throw them away. Use them here and you will be held responsible for the baltant lies and stupidity in them.Step 4: Conventional Science Quotes. Are you planning to present quotes from conventional scientists that seem to express disagreement with evolution? If so, make sure that you have them from the original sources and that they are quoted in full and in context. If you have misquotes and typical creationist butcher jobs, you will be destroyed without mercy.Step 5: Creationist Quotes. If you have quotes from creationists, they'd better be supported. And if the creationists claim educational or scientific backgrounds, degrees, titles, and such, you'd better check them and make sure they are accurate. If we catch you quoting liars, we will treat you as a liar yourself.Step 6: Anecdotes. If you have stories of things that you think bolster your case, be prepared to cite verifiable specifics. Be assured that you will be checked up on.--- By Dr Pepper------------------
compmage

I've seen this before. It wouldn't be a bad idea to post a link to the website this came from.Anyway, it's cute and not inaccurate, but kind of overtly antagonistic, condescending and overconfident. In a strictly scientific sense the Creationist position is as overwhelmed as this statement implies, but the actual battle takes place before school boards and state legislatures, and the problem of making the issues clear to those unfamiliar with science is a daunting one.Contradictorily enough, some of the most successful Creationist debaters at sites like this are those who know the least science. Without the necessary background to rein in their thinking, almost any scenario seems possible to them, and explanations of the problems with their proposals go right over their head and are ignored.Except for the geniuses among us evolutionists, I expect most of us spent years acquiring what science we know. Many Creationists have a faith-based interest in the issue, not science-based, and you can't expect them to acquire and comprehend in days what it took you years. Naturually it's kind of annoying when they poke fun and act superior out of ignorance, for instance by ridiculing positions they don't realize science doesn't hold, but for the most part people on both sides are pretty much alike, confidently believing their understanding to be true.When I look back over the years that I've participated in this debate it's humbling (and uncomfortable) to reflect on the number of times I've been wrong. At various times I've screwed up 2LOT, quantum theory, population genetics and Biblical interpretation, to mention just a few. Perhaps it's just that my talents are meager, but I think it more likely that many on the evolution side, while perhaps better informed on average about scientific matters than their Creationist brethren, still have a long way to go themselves.--Percy

quote:

---

Originally posted by Percipient:
I've seen this before. It wouldn't be a bad idea to post a link to the website this came from.

---

Here is the page where I found this;
http://www.holysmoke.org/cretins/cre-test.htm

quote:

---

Originally posted by Percipient:
Perhaps it's just that my talents are meager, but I think it more likely that many on the evolution side, while perhaps better informed on average about scientific matters than their Creationist brethren, still have a long way to go themselves.

---

This is, unfortunately, true. I posted this more as a joking jab than anything else. What is most disturbing though is its accuracy. I am the first one to admit that my knowledge of science is nowhere near what I would like it to be, however, most creationist know even less than I do. One this forum though, there are a few creationist who have more knowledge about certain fields of science than I do, unfortunately, even these sometimes fail to notice, or acknowlege, some glaring mistakes in their original premise or logic.------------------
compmage

quote:

---

Originally posted by Percipient:
When I look back over the years that I've participated in this debate it's humbling (and uncomfortable) to reflect on the number of times I've been wrong. At various times I've screwed up 2LOT, quantum theory, population genetics and Biblical interpretation, to mention just a few. Perhaps it's just that my talents are meager, but I think it more likely that many on the evolution side, while perhaps better informed on average about scientific matters than their Creationist brethren, still have a long way to go themselves.

​

--Percy

---

Percy, nothing wrong with being wrong. It's the ability to recognise it, & incorporate new things into your world view that is the REAL difference.Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

Greetings:Here are a few questions from a "poor ignorant creationist".Does evolution teach that the "origin of species" started in the oceans with single-celled organisms? If so, can these single-celled organisms be considered "simple". If single-celled organisms can be considered "simple" how does that relate to your statement #6 above? If single-celled organisms cannot be considered "simple" how do you define the word "simple".Robert

quote:

---

Originally posted by Robert:
Greetings:

​

Here are a few questions from a "poor ignorant creationist".

​

Does evolution teach that the "origin of species" started in the oceans with single-celled organisms? If so, can these single-celled organisms be considered "simple". If single-celled organisms can be considered "simple" how does that relate to your statement #6 above? If single-celled organisms cannot be considered "simple" how do you define the word "simple".

​

Robert

---

Robert,First off, I would certainly NEVER call you 'poor' as I don't know your economic status. Evolution says that the origin of life is unknown. A likely place for it to start would be in the oceans, but others argue for panspermia and others in tidal pools. The fact is that the question is not answered yet. Semantics games about simple, complex and information are used by creationists. For example, if you define simple by 'size' then they are simple. If you define simple by 'longevity in the fossil record', then they are extremely complex. How DO YOU define simple, complex and information?CheersJoe Meert

---

Robert writes:
Does evolution teach that the "origin of species" started in the oceans with single-celled organisms? If so, can these single-celled organisms be considered "simple". If single-celled organisms can be considered "simple" how does that relate to your statement #6 above? If single-celled organisms cannot be considered "simple" how do you define the word "simple".

---

Joe is right that we don't yet know how the first life might have arisen, though there are many proposals. To add to Joe's list, one recently developed possibility that has shown promise is that life arose in ocean depths near lava vents.Given that complex amino acids can form through natural processes, calling the earliest cells simple could only be considered a relative statement. Even the earliest living cells that we might legitimately call cells would have had predecessors, and we have only vaguest of ideas of what these ancestors may have been like. And even these ancestors would have had ancestors, multiplying the uncertainty.So how simple were the earliest cells? They were probably simple as compared to modern eukaryotic cells (cells with a nucleus and mitochondria), but probably fairly complex compared to amino acids and distant predecessors. There's very little evidence left after about 3.8 billion years, so most of what we have is informed speculation.--Percy

Most of the list is pretty straight forward, but I'll comment on a few:

quote:

---

6. Does evolution proceed from simplicity to complexity?

​

7. Does evolution proceed from lower to higher lifeforms?

​

8. Does evolution incorporate the notion of progress?

---

All of these are (more or less) questions of whether evolution is a function with a target. The answer to that is no. I do, however, find questions numbers 6 and 7 to be somewhat ambiguous. Let me phrase them slightly differently:6 alt) Has the results of evolution been a change from only populations of simple life forms to also populations of more complex life forms? YES.7 alt) Has the results of evolution been a change from only populations of lower life forms to also populations of higher life forms? YESFor whatever it's worth,Moose------------------
BS degree, geology, '83
Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Old Earth evolution - Yes
Godly creation - Maybe

Greetings:Thank you all for your kind responses.First, I never sought to imply that evolution answers the question as to how the first living cell came into existence. The question I have is that can this cell be considered "simple".Percey seems to be saying what I think in that the first original cell was probably incredibbly complex (if evolution is true) but it would be considered "simple" in regards to cells we have today.This puts into mind question #7 above. It seems to me that the first single-celled organism was far less complex than a human being. Such an observation would suggest that life evolved (that is if evolution is true) from "simple" to "complex"? No?If I answer "yes" to #7 in the fashion above then should I start banging my head?Robert

---

Robert writes:
This puts into mind question #7 above. It seems to me that the first single-celled organism was far less complex than a human being. Such an observation would suggest that life evolved (that is if evolution is true) from "simple" to "complex"? No?

​

If I answer "yes" to #7 in the fashion above then should I start banging my head?

---

You should start banging your head. Question 7 asks, "Does evolution proceed from lower to higher lifeforms?". It is meant to determine whether you hold the common but naive and incorrect understanding of evolution as a progression. Question 8 formulates the question more directly: "Does evolution incorporate the notion of progress?"Evolution produces organisms more fit to survive. It is absolutely blind toward any sense of progress, either from lower to higher or from simple to complex. The sole guiding factor is the ability to pass genes on to the next generation. Evolutionary success means passing genes on, evolutionary failure means not passing genes on. Whether the descendent organisms are simpler or more complicated, whether they are "higher" or "lower" (whatever that means), is irrelevant.Take some aspirin. --Percy

To put Percy's point in a different context. It is unlikely, in the evolutionary sense, that humans could have evolved during the heydey of the dinosaurs. Dinosaurs dominated their environment for a long time. Once they died off, a new niche was open for a different type of organism to become successful. Which is more complex, a dinosaur or a human? Again, depending on how you define complexity, the answer could be either.CheersJoe Meert

quote:

---

Originally posted by Robert:
This puts into mind question #7 above. It seems to me that the first single-celled organism was far less complex than a human being. Such an observation would suggest that life evolved (that is if evolution is true) from "simple" to "complex"? No?

​

If I answer "yes" to #7 in the fashion above then should I start banging my head?

​

Robert

---

We see both a transition from simple to complex, & complex to less complex. As you correctly point out, the fossil record shows an overall increase in complexity. But it doesn't preclude loss of complexity, limb loss, atavistic traits etc. Adaptive evolution is exactly that, if it "makes sense" to lose structures, then they will atrophy, & complexity is lost. See Sperm whale hind limbs, & horse toes, no longer present even in all members of the populations.Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

​

[This message has been edited by mark24, 04-12-2002]

Greetings:You may take it that I have banged my head and taken my asprin. After re-reading the above points I have to say that there is a lot of Creationist literature bent on proving those very points concerning evolutionary theory. Fortunately, I am not one of those who have used any of the above points to "disprove" evolution. However, one can see the temptation to do such a thing.On points 10-12 it was Nitzsche who used evolutionary theory in his book "The Geneology of Morals" - thus opening the evolution/morals can of worms.Socialists use the term "social darwinism" in order to spread their political agendas. Hitler actually used darwinism as a defense of Germans as the "master race". This also brings in the idea of racism. If white people are more evolved than black people because they don't look like apes, then wouldn't it be logical to claim black people as less evolved and less human?I know that the above statements are not consistent with evolutionary theory, and that it is not the fault of the theory that it is being misused. But there needs to be some clear denunciations from evolutionists that these things are NOT TRUE of the theory of evolution. Silence in the face of these accusations (which have never been made by me because I know better) may be considered a subtle admission of complicity with these ideas.I only write this because I can see why Creationists would make such accusations against evolution.Robert

quote:

---

Originally posted by Robert:
Socialists use the term "social darwinism" in order to spread their political agendas. Hitler actually used darwinism as a defense of Germans as the "master race".

---

First, let me say, I very much appreciate that you condemn those who attempt to saddle evolutionary theory with this despicable baggage. However, to say "socialists use the term social darwinism" is a bit misleading as it suggests the term is in current use in overt political thought - it was a late 19th century movement - and that it was primarily left wing, when in fact it was primarily espoused by free market capitalists. The following quote from Mary Midgely gives a concise background ...The unwillingness of many educated people to accept evolutionary concepts fully and apply them to Homo sapiens does not just flow from lack of information, which could be remedied by a good clear textbook. It flows from that early, widespread and deep-rooted bunch of misunderstandings of Darwin’s ideas, which is called (somewhat misleadingly) Social Darwinism. This consists in supposing that evolution endorses the simple social ethic of devil-take-the-hindmost. That ethic was in fact already provided with a theory long before Darwin wrote, as a spin-off from free-enterprise economics. But since the word fit can unfortunately mean deserving or suitable as well as healthy, Herbert Spencer’s concept of the ‘survival of the fittest’ seemed to slot admirably into this framework, and to supplement what had before been merely prudential advice by deriving it from a universal law of life. Darwin himself, though he accepted the phrase, rejected such applications. But Spencer had full confidence in them, and toured the United States giving the explicit scientific blessing of evolutionary theory to the wilder excesses of free-enterprise capitalism. The damage was deep and lasting. It remains to plague us today. And sociobiological thinking, especially in its Dawkinsian form, actually reinforces Social Darwinism, both by its language and by some of its substance.Mary Midgley rightly identifies that social darwinism as a school of thought has had its day, but its dangers are still to be found, lurking beneath the surface (often not very far beneath) in the genetic determinism which seems to greet every discovery of a new gene linked in some way to apparent behaviour.Fortunately this is a lively, often acrimonious, debate and many evolutionists and geneticists express their concerns. As a regular reader of magazine New Scientist in the UK, I well remember that few things led to a healthier crop of letters to the editor than the regular mini debates over this very issue. [b] [QUOTE]Silence in the face of these accusations (which have never been made by me because I know better) may be considered a subtle admission of complicity with these ideas.[/b][/QUOTE]The trouble is that those whose minds work this way - who see complicity in silence - will always find some other to throw mud at ideas they don't like.The churches, protestant and roman alike, are still trying to shake off their complicity in Nazi thinking and practice - even the outstanding examples of christian courage in the face of that oppression hardly lifts the cloud from the churches as a whole. But it would be a terrible thing if the teachings of Jesus were brought into disrepute by the weak-mindedness and inhumanity of so many of his soi-disant followers.In all such cases it requires not only those who hold the views being misused, but those of good faith who do not agree with them, to denounce the misuse. In many ways the latter is a better examplar and more compelling. If an evolutionist was to say that some despicable doctrine had nothing to do with the theory of evolution, many would think "well he would say that, wouldn't he?" But when an opponent of evolution, like yourself, is prepared to stand up and say that belief in evolution does not support belief in racism or discrimination, then that is most helpful move. Thank you for it.

​

[This message has been edited by Mister Pamboli, 04-13-2002]

​

[This message has been edited by Mister Pamboli, 04-13-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Robert:
Socialists use the term "social darwinism" in order to spread their political agendas. Hitler actually used darwinism as a defense of Germans as the "master race". This also brings in the idea of racism. If white people are more evolved than black people because they don't look like apes, then wouldn't it be logical to claim black people as less evolved and less human?
Robert

---

How are black people more like apes, beyond a few superficial adaptions to tropical climes?Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.