Debate (Re: A young Earth/old Earth classroom debate)

Hey Ninja,If you guys are using that textbook, as I mentioned to Rei, it would be interesting to get a peek at it. Could you perhaps list the chapter headings? Or maybe even a synopsis of one of the chapters - like the one on ecology? I know you're busy, so I'm not asking for major efforts here - just some idea of how the subjects are organized and handled.Thanks in advance for whatever info you've got time for.

Hee hee. Cross posted. But I beat ya by a couple seconds...

Birds will alway beat anthropomorphic bacteria, darn those slow flagellum (see avatar if you're confused). Anyway, this book might be a good fit for the "Is It Science" forum. Better yet, a letter from Ninja's science teacher explaining on why she chose this book (maybe it's on the Patriot U syllabus?). It's funny that the book blurb says that men can make mistakes but it's men who wrote the Bible. Before Schraf can say it, maybe only women should be in both fields, hehe.

Here you go, Q:A list of the chapters for the BJU BIOLOGY STUDENT TEXT found here.Chapter 1 - The Science of Life and the God of Life
Chapter 2 - The Chemistry of Life
Chapter 3 - Cytology Part 1: Introduction to Cells
Chapter 4 - Cytology Part 2: Cellular Processes
Chapter 5 - Genetics
Chapter 6 - Advanced Genetics
Chapter 7 - The History of Life
Chapter 8 - The Classification of Organisms
Chapter 9 - Microbiology Part 1
Chapter 10 - Microbiology Part 2
Chapter 11 - The Kingdom Fungi
Chapter 12 - The Plant Kingdom and Plant Structure
Chapter 13 - The Life Processes of Plants
Chapter 14 - The Invertebrates
Chapter 15 - The Arthropods
Chapter 16 - The Ectothermic Vertebrates
Chapter 17 - The Endothermic Vertebrates
Chapter 18 - Ecology
Chapter 19 - Introduction to Human Anatomy and Physiology
Chapter 20 - Incoming Substances
Chapter 21 - Internal Transport
Chapter 22 - The Nervous System
Chapter 23 - Hormones and the Human Mind
Chapter 24 - Human Reproduction

I'd be willing to chip in to help purchase a copy of the book if someone else would be willing to take the time to scan in/transcribe sections/summarize arguments.From this primer on copyright law, fair use falls under the following guidelines:

quote:

---

What Can Be Copied?

​

A chapter from a book (never the entire book).
An article from a periodical or newspaper.
A short story, essay, or poem. One work is the norm whether it comes from an individual work or an anthology.
A chart, graph, diagram, drawing, cartoon or picture from a book, periodical, or newspaper.
Poetry
Multiple copies of a poem of 250 words or less that exist on two pages or less or 250 words from a longer poem.
Prose
Multiple copies of an article, story or essay that are 2,500 words or less or excerpts up to 1,000 words or 10 percent of the total work, whichever is less.
Illustrations
Multiple copies of a chart, graph, diagram, drawing, cartoon, or picture contained in a book or periodical issue.

​

What Should Be Avoided?

​

Making multiple copies of different works that could substitute for the purchase of books, publisher's reprints, or periodicals.
Copying the same works from semester to semester.
Copying the same material for several different courses at the same or different institutions.
Copying more than nine separate times in a single semester.

​

When is Permission Required?

​

When you intend to use the materials for commercial purposes.
When you want to use the materials repeatedly.
When you want to use a work in its entirety and it is longer than 2,500 words.

---

and

quote:

---

Types of media and permissable amounts

​

Motion media:
Up to 10 percent of the total or three minutes, whichever is less.
Text material:
Up to 10 percent of the total or 1,000 words, whichever is less.
An entire poem of less than 250 words may be used, but no more than three poems by one poet or five poems by different authors in an anthology. For poems exceeding 250 words, 250 words should be used but no more than three excerpts from one poet or five excerpts from different poets in the same work
Music, lyrics, and music video:
up to 10 percent of the work but no more than 30 seconds of the music or lyrics from an individual musical work.
Illustrations or photographs:
no more than five images from one artist or photographer.
no more than 10% or 15 images, whichever is less, from a collection.
Numerical data sets:
up to 10 percent or 2,500 fields or cell entries, whichever is less, from a copyrighted database or data table.
Copying of a multimedia project:
no more than two copies may be made of a project.

---

So, it looks to me that we could copy up to 1,000 words (or a whole chapter? I'm not sure) and up to 15 images; plus we can do summary information of the arguments that it presents.------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."[This message has been edited by Rei, 12-09-2003]

Sure. Here you are:UNIT 1 Biology:The Science of Life
1. The Science of Life and the God of Life
2. The Chemistry of Life
3. Cytology part I: Introduction to Cells
4. Cytology part II:Cellular Processes
5.The Continuity of Life part I: Genetics
6. The Continuity of Life part II: Advanced Genetics
7. The History of LifeUNIT 2 Biology: The Science of Organisms
8. The Classification of Organisms
9. Microbiology Part I: The Kingdom Monera and the Viruses
10. Microbiology Part II: The Kingdom Protista
11. The Kingdom Fungi
12. Botany Part I: The Plant Kingdom and Plant Structure
13. Botany Part II: The Life Processes of Plants
14-17: Zoology
18.EcologyUNIT 3: Biology The Study of Human Life
19-24 Anatomy and Reproduction

I'm guessing that the material in the text is probably also on websites in a slighty different phrasing. The problem will be to match up the text with web sites that might give the same arguments or be an indirect source.I'm reluctant to spend money on this one since there are bound to be others.

NinjaMonkey:Is this your school?Even if this isn't your school, it's sad. It takes 40 units of "Bible" to graduate, but only 30 science. And the science is bible-based instead of research-based. I feel sorry for people being deprived of a real education.------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."[This message has been edited by Rei, 12-09-2003]

I'm pretty certain that is the correct school, Rei. I live in Agoura Hills, CA which is less than 20 miles from Camarillo, and I know of no other Christian school in that city.The only other prominent Christian school that I know of in our area is Oaks Christian School.

Thanks, Ninja.From the chapter headings, it looks pretty straight-forward (except chapter 1 sort of suspicious). I guess the only way to see what's being promulgated is to get a look inside. I'll get back to you.

OE... (much can be gained from links by Rei and Ned, but here is a general progressive structure of building your argument)...1) Science is based on using positive evidence to build models of how natural phenomena occur. These models must be coherent in that they do not conflict with other evidence, and consistent in that they allow for and are supported by experiments or other methods of evidence collection.2) In Geology, the theory of "uniformitarianism" was developed as a counter to prevailing theories which by their nature were incoherent and inconsistent, precluding valid research and model building about geologic formations. It eventually became generalized into an idea that the chemical/physical processes we observe today were the same ones working in the past. It is through this notion that coherent and consistent geologic methods may be used to develop prehistoric geologic models.
*LINK: http://zebu.uoregon.edu/~js/glossary/uniformitarianism.html
(The link above includes some proper questions regarding early geologic theories in support of OE and how they were countered).3) Radiometric Dating became a very powerful tool in getting round estimates of geologic ages of formations. The method (counter to creationist claims) is neither infallible (one needs good specimens which are not always possible) and not super precise. However it remains a valid form of generalized dating in that it is both coherent and consistent, allowing for tests of the system and its results.
*LINK: http://pegasus.phast.umass.edu/...andouts/raddat/raddat.html4) Radiometric estimates place the age of the earth and the universe at far greater than mere thousands or millions of years. This is backed up by samples from environments NOT susceptible to sample corruption which creationists claim may have biased earthly samples (ie.. samples from the moon, asteroids, and mars). It is also supported by estimates of the Universe based on other methods (see Rei's post).5) Extreme YE theories place undue burden on lifeforms to produce the number and variety of life we see today as well as those found within the fossil record, particularly when coupled with theories of a global flood that produced the continents we see today AFTER WHICH two of every animal were to repopulate the earth in the patterns they have across the globe. OE theories allow for more coherent and consistent models of how life is distributed and varied both today and in the fossil record. (NOTE: while this point mentions biology it does NOTHING to actually place an age for the earth. In fact it is somewhat circular if one then uses OE to argue for evo)6) Human life has left records of communication on walls of caves and rocks. These can be dated and the dates show humans were around far longer than Xian YE estimates. If the world were to be measured by the length of humans being around then it is clearly over 20K years. Dating these writings, while also prone to error, avoid common creationist arguments regarding rock dating (because we are dealing with pretty set chemical compounds), and directly counter claims that scientists make dating fit expectations. It is nice when it does fit an expectation, but both young and old expectations for rock art, have been overturned based on the weight of dating evidence.
*LINKS:
Page Not Found - Texas A&M University, College Station, TX
Oldest cave paintings ever found light up human history | World news | The GuardianYE... (for those unaware of compiled arguments for YE, I offer the following)...1) Here are the "best" in a nutshell:
Age of the Earth Topic | Answers in Genesis
Evidence for a Young World | Answers in Genesis
http://www.creationevidence.org/...
{Shortened display form of 1 URL, to restore page width to normal - AM}Rebuttal to YE...1) The main rebuttal to YE is that they do not have a coherent or consistent model for anything. Essentially it is a collection of rebuttals to scientific methods which have resulted in OE estimates. This is not proper YE model building.2) The best that can be gathered as some sort of ad hoc model, is that there are several disparate and unconnected YE theories which (if correct, and I am ONLY doing this for sake of argument) place estimates at much less than billions or millions of years. You may note however, or they should have, that just because they share a common dispute of OE estimates, they do not share the same estimate of how old the earth actually is. Some in fact are contradictory. In other words just because a theory says the max age is 53K, does not mean it in anyway allows for a min age of 6-10K.3) The YE theories invariably return to scripture for some sort of support. This makes the whole pursuit circular. Science should come to conclusions that are equally discoverable by those with no knowledge or exposure to the Bible... that is part of its being consistent.
(A great quote along this line is "The only foolproof method for determining the age of something is based on eyewitness reports and a written record. We have both in the Bible. And that is why creationists use the historical evidence in the Bible to constrain their interpretations of the geological evidence." Nevermind that the Bible was not written firsthand and Genesis in particular could not have been).4) Without the level of consistency in point #3 who is to say no other creation myth of any other religion is being "proven"?
*The following links are to a Xian creationist YE theory which understands that 6-10K is way to young, and constructed a whole new one...
http://www.mazzaroth.com/
http://www.mazzaroth.com/ChapterOne/LascauxCave.htm
*The next links are to other beliefs regarding creation, should scientific method be crafted to fit these? Why are they any less than Xian creationist theory without a prior bias?
Encyclopedia Mythica
http://www.cs.williams.edu/~lindsey/myths/myths.html5) In addition, there is the rebuttal to specific critiques that Rei gave you. Her's centers on questioning why there is so much consistent evidence for OE, if a God wants us to believe in a YE.Hopefully this will be helpful in constructing a general outline for argument and rebuttal.------------------
holmes[This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 12-10-2003]

It is very, very good, holmes but it might be ignoring the very tight time constraints. It needs to be structured with that in mind.

I replied to your friend in post 56, giving an outline for advancing an OE or YE position, and rebuttals to the YE position as well as links for both sides. I hope that helps for your debate.Thanks for the link to the book. I will not pay for it because it states at its outset that it is not a proper science book and money will go to an organization which is harming children. I would be intrigued to look at it if a copy fell into my hands, but am unlikely to learn anything new if I did, except what new methods are being used blur the line between science and theology, or education and indoctrination.This is not a slam on you. You can't really help where you go to school or what teachers decide to do with their powers.But you should start becoming aware of attempts to manipulate your perception of what is real. Science is neutral on God. As an athiest I would be equally upset if I found out a teacher was teaching my kid that God was not real in a physics class. Being neutral with respect to God means it also cannot have presuppositions of biblical literature while examining evidence. True science is demanding that evidence stand alone.I would point out a particular statement with in your text's forward..."Men, however, can make mistakes in their observations, or they may reach faulty conclusions from what they observe."Is it not also true that they can misinterpret scripture? A leading Xian Intelligent Design theorist points out this very problem and the need for Xians to pursue science as science as an aid for understanding scripture.His example was from astronomy. Literal biblical interpretation demands that the sun goes around the earth. This was so vigorously held that Galileo's observations and theories were oppressed and nearly wiped out by Xians. I can only assume that you are not taught that the sun goes around the earth. If not, then as this Xian theorist suggested, the Bible's true meaning has come to be understood in light of scientific discovery, and it was wrong to oppress that theory just to hang on to a singular literal interpretation.Why then would this also not hold true for the age of the earth? or evolution?

I actually thought a person could go through one side (that's all they'd have to deliver at first) in 5 min. That's why I broke it into OE, YE, and rebuttal.I realize alot of explanations regarding evidence would have to be skipped, but mentioning them within this structure could be done in 5 min... right?I agreed with you initial assessment anyway, this was wayyyyyyy to short of a time period. I don't understand how anyone can focus adequately on any piece of evidence in five minutes, much less prove something from it.It's like being told... okay class write a report on how the universe came to be in ten words or less, you'll be graded on depth of research. ?????How about we all offer some suggestions on structure for these guys. Something that gets the evidence out quickly in a way that builds to a conclusion, without lingering around too much for crucial details.------------------
holmes

But it's easy at Christian schools! I can do it in less than five words -- watch:"God did it.":::and the congregation erupts with thunderous applause:::[This message has been edited by ::, 12-09-2003]