Hello SunAlsoRises, and welcome to the fray.
I recently (foolishly) decided to answer a devout creationist's question on a local forum, and it's started to get out of hand. I am in no way a skilled debater, and I only have a rudimentary grasp on many of the points I'm trying to make.
Indeed it can be frustrating. The main issue is to start small and define what you mean.
For instance: Evolution is the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation. This is based on evidence: it is an observed process in the existing world, and this includes observed mechanisms such as natural selection, genetic drift and population isolation causing speciation.
This is similar to the original formulation by Darwin: descent with modification through the mechanism of natural selection. Since Darwin's time we have added a lot to our understanding of existing biological processes, including how genetics works.
The theory of evolution (Darwin's original insight) is that this is sufficient to explain the diversity of life as we know it today, in the historical record and in the fossil record, and it explains the evidence of common ancestry found in the genetic record.
The fossil record is the record of what actually happened: the fossils are objective evidence of the reality of the past. It is not a part of the theory of evolution, but it can be used as a test of the theory: can evolution explain the fossil record.
quote:
How can you test something that supposedly takes eons to occur. Have you thought about that? It has however undergone a great amount of theorizing I'll grant you.
This is confusing the theory - that the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation can explain the diversity of life - with the evidence of what actually occurred in the past. We don't need to "test" that the organisms that the fossils came from are real. What you can do is test whether or not the theory explains their existence by common ancestry and inherited traits, combined with changes in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation. To do that you don't need to repeat the "experiment" you just need to reconstruct the actual events, much the same as forensic scientists reconstruct how crimes were done, even though they can't "repeat" the murder or mayhem.
quote:
Remember, I was indoctrinated in evo theory until age twenty-fourish. I was a staight "A" student in biology. I even excelled somewhat. I could memorize their doctrines as well as anyone.
This is an appeal to authority, a logical fallacy, and memorizing "doctrines" does not mean understanding them. Nor does being an "A" (high school?) student in america today mean you learned enough about biology to be half an expert, it just means you learned what the teacher (likely NOT a biologist) wanted as answers on their tests. True learning goes beyond that.
Most creationists that claim to know all about evolution actually don't. They usually can't even give a proper definition of evolution OR the theory of evolution (and often confuse the two).
Here are some resources to how evolution (the science of evolutionary biology) is taught at the university level to biology students:
Evolution 101 - Understanding EvolutionA series of linked and cross-linked pages that deals with many levels of evolution.
Evolution and Natural Selection On Darwinist Evolution and Natural Selection
The Process of Speciation
On Biological Evolution and Speciation
Also see:
Department of Geosciences | Baylor UniversityOn geology, including
Does the fossil record support the idea of biological change over time (biological evolution)?
Finally, feel free to use information from
Age Correlations and an Old Earth: Version 1 No 3 (formerly Part III),
Evolutionary Theory Explains Diversity, and
Evolution and Increased Diversity, and other threads on this forum. People here will likely be happy to help.
quote:
Allow me to correct you on one point. You keep making the association with "young earth creationists" which is associated mainly with christian pastors and educators based upon the biblical record and science. Though it doesn't immediately disqualify their position any more than if they declared the sun hot and the earth round. You need to elevate the level of discussion to professional scientists who advocate an "Intelligent Design" model. It isn't just a slick play on words. You need to do your research. You are arguing against yester-years pros.
More like yester-year cons (Hovind comes to mind ...) being replaced by this-years-cons, and yes, the original intent of ID was to
con people into thinking same old same old creationism was some new kind of science. See the
Wedge Document, created by young earth creationists as a trojan horse to get god into science class:
quote:
The Wedge strategy is a political and social action plan authored by the Discovery Institute, the hub of the intelligent design movement. The strategy was put forth in a Discovery Institute manifesto known as the Wedge Document,[1] which describes a broad social, political, and academic agenda whose ultimate goal is to "defeat [scientific] materialism" represented by evolution, "reverse the stifling materialist world view and replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions"[2] and to "affirm the reality of God."[3] Its goal is to "renew" American culture by shaping public policy to reflect conservative Christian, namely evangelical Protestant, values.[4]
Curiously it contains no reference to actually DOING science.
So why does so much of the IDology just repeat the same old same old already falsified YEC arguments?
Why is evolution a problem for IDology?
Why is an old earth a problem for IDology?
Why does IDology become only christian idology?
Why was ID rejected in Pennsylvania as just regurgitated YEC creationism?
How can ID theory be falsified? (IS there a theory?)
I would GREATLY appreciate anyone willing to register and join the discussion. I feel overwhelmed by stupidity.
Or invite him here. Yes, beating your head against the wall feels good when you stop ...
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) • • •
™ Version 4.2