|
Understanding through Discussion |
|
|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
| Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
| Author | Topic: Teaching the Truth in Schools | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
sfs Member (Idle past 2555 days) Posts: 464 From: Cambridge, MA USA Joined: |
quote:I didn't say anything about the laws of nature. Any variety of creationism that denies common ancestry for humans and chimps has problems explaining the data. Any variety that postulates that all humans are descended from a single couple within the last 10,000 years is inconsistent with genetic data. I am assuming no subsequent miraculous tinkering with the genes in the population, of course. If someone wants to propose a model in which God created humans recently and then later erased the evidence by making our genes look exactly as if they'd evolved, I won't offer any scientific objections. quote:Here's a reasonable starting point: TheologyWeb Campus Ask anyone you like. I've sent that list to a couple of creationist organizations, but have never gotten an answer. I'd love to see a serious attempt by a creationist to engage with genetic data. quote:The same empty words I've seen over and over. Don't tell me that presuppositions matter; tell me how they matter, and how different presuppositions would permit me to explain the data as well. Until you do, I am still left with one model that works and no alternative. (You might also note that my presuppositions, that is the assumptions I started with before I began to examine any data, were those of young-earth creationism. Exactly how do you think that skewed my thinking?)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Martin J. Koszegi Inactive Member |
quote:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I suppose I assign a level of certainty to this at least as high as the level of certainty that died-in-the-wool nats assign by faith to their belief that nothing caused everything. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- schrafinator writes: Excuse me? I don't know a single naturalist that would say that "nothing caused everything." Perhaps there is some room for you to make a legitimate quibble about this. But I was thinking about those naturalists who, in principle, are not far off from the perspective of Edward P. Tryon: Our universe had its physical origin as a quantum fluctuation of some pre-existing true vacuum, or state of nothingness. From the creationist perspective, these types of assertions made by naturalists are like the empty rhetoric aspects of creationists’ perspectives (so say the naturalists) which discuss things that are required by the favored model, but yet are empirically unsubstantiated.
schrafinator writes: First of all, what does the above have to do with the change in allele frequencies in a population over time? There’s nothing about allele’s that is inconsistent with the Creator’s creation that was made to operate according to the laws of nature that exist.
schrafinator writes: Second, I would hazard a guess that moth naturalists wuld say that they don't know what the cause of "everything" is, because the evidence of what "caused everything" is pretty thin. Naturalists go to great lengths to avoid topics like this not only because there is scant (if any) evidence, but because acknowledging that their ideas must hearken back to their mere assumptions about what might have caused everything, betrays the face of surety that they put up that depends upon the validity of such thoughts that relate to origins. quote:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I don't claim that I have a crowd pleasing answer to that--any more than nats have such for their unprovable philosophical assumptions that are inherent to their faith. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- schrafinator writes: Tell me, does your faith in God change according to physical evidence discovered here on earth? No.
schrafinator writes: If you are attempting to equate your religious faith with the kind of faith that is based upon evidence and experience of nature (such as my faith that the Earth spins on it's axis and is in orbit around the Sun, for example), then you have a very strange kind of religion. I am attempting to equate my religious faith (in a sense) with the kind of faith that is based upon the natsian TAKE on the evidence and experience of nature. Macro-evolutionary ideas are way, WAY out there compared to your parenthetical citations that creationists also acknowledge. quote:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- My point is that textbooks and other media should be based on science, and not upon one particular philosophical creed (such as evolutionism or creationism). -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- schrafinator writes: Agreed. Can you please, as requested, explain to me how it is that the predictions of Evolutionary Theory have so far been borne out if it is all simply philosophical and not evidenciary in basis? Without scrolling back up to check (I’ve been coming back and forth to this reply for days on my disk because I’ve been busy), I think I might’ve mentioned that both models are broad enough so that each can accommodate a boast of fulfilled predictions. But, for the record, Evolutionary Theory is not so great at making good on its predictions. To take an example, if evolution is true, then "simple" plants, like mosses, evolved slowly, and gradually changed into plants that have seeds, and the seed-bearing plants then evolved into plants and trees that have flowers. Paleontologists haven't discovered fossils of plants that were changing from seed-bearing plants into flowering plants. Just as we would expect on the basis of creation, however, these in-between kinds, or transitional forms do not exist. This is true of each one of the many different kinds of plants. Major university professors--the most honest ones--have acknowledged that to any fair-minded person, the fossil record of plants is in favor of creation--not evolution. The truth is that many scientists believe in evolution, not because the scientific evidence favors evolution instead of creation, but because they prefer to believe in evolution, no matter what the scientific evidence says. If one believes in creation, then one has to believe in a Creator, right? And that is simply unthinkable, so we (the evolutionists) simply must be right. quote:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Of course an all powerful God can do inexplicable things. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- schrafinator writes: The thing is, ever since science supplanted superstition as the main means of understanding nature, the "inexplicable" acts of God have become smaller and smaller. In a sense, you’re right; there was a time in the past when people thought that the universal creation was infinite in size. The Tryonic superstition (that the universe popped into existence on its own, a belief that could represent the naturalistic delemma), is no more rational than creationism.
schrafinator writes: All you have done is inserted God into the gaps of our understanding. What happens when something that you once considered "inexplicable" and evidence of the hand of God is explained by science? Does your faith die, or do you simply move it to another unexplained phenomena, as has been done by your predecessors for centuries? That’s what you do with areas that haven’t been forged through in the empirical sense. What will you do when you find out that naturalistic tenets are destroyed by straight science (real science, unfettered by naturalistic assumptivism)? Move it to another back-up excuse, such as living fossils? quote:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- He transcends even the laws of nature he created. One of the differences between you and I is that I believe in a power that is capable of getting the job done. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- schrafinator writes: Another difference is that you simply believe, and we want to understand. That’s not a difference at all. I don’t know any creationists who don’t want to understand as much as we can about the laws of nature God created.
schrafinator writes: By saying that God is the answer to every question, you actually answer no questions at all. In the ultimate sense, God is the answer. But that doesn’t stop us from studying the works of God in the scientific senseit amounts to studying God’s thoughts after Him . . . the difference is our under-girding philosophical assumptions about how to view these findings that we disagree on. quote:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- There's plenty of non-science things that are a part of the belief in evolutionism also, -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- schrafinator writes: ...such as what? Please be specific. Such as the belief that chemicals have an observable tendency or ability to form living cells, and single-celled organisms have an observable tendency or ability to form complex plants and animals; reproduction can produce radically new organs or organisms one tiny step at a time or all at once; simple life forms can be transformed into the highly complex organisms that inhabit the planet todaynatural selection in combination with random mutation, has the kind of creative power needed to make complex plants and animals out of much simpler predecessors; etc. Various admissions that are made by the more honest evolutionists demonstrate the fact that evolutionism is not based on logic or evidence, but on faith. As one example, Dr. Harold Urey, a Nobel Prize winner for his research in chemistry, wrote about the impossibility of evolution, but still admitted he believed in the theory. All of us who study the origin of life find that the more we look into it, the more that we feel that it is too complex to have evolved anywhere. And then Dr. Urey added these words that represent some facts of the case, We believe as an article of faith that life evolved from dead matter on this planet. It is just that its complexity is so great, it is hard for us to imagine that it did. At the Alpach Symposium conference, which dealt with the growing problems of the theory of evolution, one of the speakers (whose name I don’t have now, but who nevertheless had some good insight regardless of who he is) admitted that the reason evolution was still supported by intellectuals, the education establishment, and the media had nothing to do with whether it was true or false. While reading about the conference, I copied down this tell-tale line, I think that the fact that a theory so vague, so insufficiently verifiable and so far from the criteria otherwise applied in ‘hard’ science has become a dogma can be explained only on sociological grounds. quote:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Evolutionism is an undergirding philosophy that colors the affected peoples' thinking. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- schrafinator writes: Um, whatever you say. I was talking about the Theory of Evolution and the evidence behind it, which you have, as yet, failed to address. There’s nothing in the Theory of Evolution that is empirical that is not consistent with the creationist model. What is it exactly, that you want me to address?
schrafinator writes: You have simply engaged in a bunch of handwaving instead of getting into specifics. In an un-handwaving manner, please explain how universal physical existence came into being.
schrafinator writes: I suspect you don't actually know much about the specifics of Evolutionary theory, but here's your chance to show that I'm wrong. Please provide a brief explanation of how Biologists define evolution. I never claimed to know this in any official or definitive sense, although I am aware of some of their beliefs that I have been exposed to over the years from textbooks and tv documentary interviews of biologists. I mean, I could look it up, but I’m quite sure that nothing I’d find would come as a surprise to me. In the interest of this interaction, I’ll do that if you come back with any type of insistence, but if you know the definition of evolution as per the perspective of biologists, I’d be happy to read it and think about it. quote:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Creation scientists and Evolution scientists agree on vast amounts of things. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- schrafinator writes: There's no such thing as Creation scientists. That is, they aren't actually playing by the rules of science, so they aren't doing science. You know something, you’re right in a sense. The definition of science is, in an all too true sense, controlled by naturalists, who operate to the left of science, and so skew the definition accordingly. Straight science, in the ideal and more accurate sense, bisects the philosophies of creationism and evolutionism. As for following the rules, you provide a great laugh for me. My favorite dodge of the rules by evolutionists is the notion of "living fossils," those creatures that should not be here if evolution were true. Nothing could be concieved of that evolutionists wouldn't invent a way around in order to protect the status of their faith. So, if following the rules of straight science is the criteria, then there is no such thing as evolution scientists either. I happen to think, though, that there are some scientists whose undergirding philosophical positions about origins differ, and so color their approaches to assessing the evidences. quote:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- These things, at least generally speaking, are science. Those groups part company on the unprovable things that tie into the philosophy that governs each group's belief. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- schrafinator writes: Sorry, nothing is actually "proven" in science. There is either support of evidence or their isn't. I was wondering if you were going to provide any actual evidence, borne-out predictions, or anything at all in scientific support of Creation 'science' any time soon? I’m sorry too; I’m also a victim of textbook and tv documentary misuse of terminology. (And perhaps my above point about plant-life qualifies as evidence--borne-out predictions in support of Creation 'science' as opposed to Evolution 'science.') quote:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I'm talking about such things or processes that nats-ic scientists believe in that they can't see or experiment on in the direct sense. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- schrafinator writes: OK, you must not believe that electrons exist, then, correct? Nobody has ever directly observed an electron, so according to you, they don't exist. I’ll expand the statement so that you’ll understand the point I was trying to make: I’m talking about such things or processes that are exclusive to the nats-ic scientific perspective that creation scientists disagree with them about. quote:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Why do they believe in such processes? Because the postulation of such processes provide what they call the best theoretical explanation for large bodies of data, as you alluded to. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- schrafinator writes: And this is how ALL science is done. Yes. But when only one sector of (yes, unprovableright?) scientific perspective determines which postulations can qualify as legitimate theories, and then so-constructs the definition of science in order to rule out any such other conceivable competing postulations, it leaves straight science and enters into a more rhetorical endeavor.
schrafinator writes: Tell me, do you object to the inferences made in particle physics? Why or why not? I have at least tentative objection only to those inferences of particle physics that would seemingly have to be valid in order for the natsian framework (which, of course, includes macro evolution) to be legitimate, but which are not yet verified in the empirical sense.Why? Because I’m persuaded that the naturalistic framework is merely an erroneous take on the empirical data. If I believed otherwise, if indeed I thought that naturalists were fundamentally correct, I’d invite as many of ‘em as I could to the nearest happy hour and the drinks would be on me. quote:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- But in my view, the naturalist dilemma exists in the fact that nats are unable or unwilling to distinguish between unseen processes that can be uncontroversially extrapolated from empirical realities, and unseen processes that are inherently metaphysical in nature. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- schrafinator writes: It's not a dilemma. Science ignores the supernatural. Science can never validate your faith because science is emperical. Get over it. Straight science also ignores assumptivist philosophy that, by definition, prevents the work of the Creator (if one exists) from being detected or recognized as suchHe’s outside the loop of possibilities even if He existseven if He created a la yec-ish and left implications of such type of work. And science can never validate your faith that the philosophy of naturalism is a superior perspective. As for Get over it, although the laws and manifestations of nature are consistent with my faith, I don’t look to science to validate my faith. You (and yours), however, seem to be suffering from something deeper than looking to science to validate your faith (as I delineated above); you seem to think that your faith in the philosophy of naturalism is synonymous with the different position of having faith that the findings of straight science are valid, which, to me, seems a quite lamentable state to occupy. quote:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The large body of "evidence" that is intended to bolster the idea of evolutionism is itself largely theoretical. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- schrafinator writes: Wrong, wrong, wrong. It is nonsensical to cal evidence "thoretical". But when the "evidence" (of microevolution) is used in a bait-and-switch manner (i.e., "macroevolution is true and here's the evidence:"--and then enter all manner of microevolutionary findings that are also totally consistent with creationism), the "evidence" becomes suspect, and therefore "theoretical" in a real sense.
schrafinator writes: Evidence is a bone of hundreds of species of dinosaur in certain layers of rock that have never, ever been found in any other layer around the world, evidence is a species of bacteria which becomes resistant to penicillin, evidence is the fact that descendents from certain survivors of the Black Plague in medieval Europe have partial to total immunity to HIV because thety share a mutation that conferred a survival advantage. There are millions and millions of individual pieces of evidence which all point to the fact of evolution ocurring. All of the things you alluded to are at least as consistent with creationism.
schrafinator writes: It is simply a very sad thing that your religion forces you to choose between your faith and your intellect. Actually, my intellectual life harmonizes with my faith. I suppose that you make the same claim about what your article of faith demands, that life evolved fromdead matter on this planet (even though there's not a shred of evidence to suggest that it did). And I find that to be very sad. quote:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The provable stuff is just as consistent with creationism. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- schrafinator writes: I think you are quite unaware of the staggering, overwhelming amount of evidence for Evolution. I think you may be quite unaware of the necessity to distinguish between microevolutionary evidence (which is indeed widespread), and hard macroevolutionary evidence, which is nonexistent.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Martin J. Koszegi Inactive Member |
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Is it scientific to leave the conceivability open that nature itself could yield evidence that could suggest a supernatural origin (complexity, order, etc., seemingly beyond statistical explanation for the time alotted), or more scientific to, at the onset, predetermine that the vehicle we must use to establish our ideas, i.e., nature, is all there is? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rei writes: Science does leave open this possibility. At best, only in lip service. The textbooks, the "instructional" media, virtually everything that has any real influence, insists (perhaps implicitly) that life came into being by random chance, without any guidance at all. But you're right. Science does leave open this possibility. Evolution "science," however, does not. quote:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- And, as Phillip Johnson asked (in Darwin on Trial), "Does non-science necessarily mean nonsense?" -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rei writes: To a layperson who has not taken the time to understand it? Probably. Now, if I'm understanding you correctly here, you're saying that to a layperson who has not taken time to understand science, things that are non-science are necessarily nonsense. I'm not following you.
Rei writes: To anyone willing to invest a few years of their life into an in-depth education in the particular science, taught by people knowlegable about the subject? Never. And then you seem to be saying that anyone who really studies science in an in-depth way, would never think that non-science things are necessarily nonsense. OK, I can agree with that.
Rei writes: If you go to college and major in something - and put forth the effort needed to succeed - you'll understand the What, Why, and How, regardless of the subject. If you don't? Don't expect to just be able to listen in and follow what took people years of school and often decades of experience in the field, analyzing millions of discoveries and experiments (past and present), to learn. OK again. I don't have a problem with this as it stands here. But I'd have to wonder if, in a basket-weaving course, the teacher presented a basket and told the students that it just appeared out of nowhere. All the years of experience and all the teacher's rationalizations about why he's right would do little to convince me.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Martin J. Koszegi Inactive Member |
Martin J. Koszegi responds to me:
quote:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- If everything came into existence on its own and somehow developed into the universal product that is before us, then the biggest beef I have with nats (i.e., that if existence is beholden to a Creator, their definition of science would never be able to recognize evidence of his work) is irrelevance personified. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rrhain writes: This sentence makes no sense. Are you saying that there needs to be a "purpose" to something in order for it to exist? If so, why? Read the sentence without the parenthetical insert. In other words, if there really is no Creator, then my problems with nats are totally irrelevant. I think "purpose" is kin to "cause." Do you believe everything has a cause? quote:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Creationists study things that happen all on their own. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rrhain writes: How can they when they are studying god, who does not act on his own but on his whim? Didn't you read my post? Of course I did. So, do you think that a belief in the Creator necessitates a belief that God could not have created the laws of the universe that scientists study, and that even though he transcends creation itself, he cannot allow it to operate consistently in the way that it does (which would allow for scientific study of his universe)?
Rrhain writes: Not only does science ignore supernatural entities, it ignores natural ones, too, when they act in capricious ways. Oh, then you might agree that the capricious creative acts may be isolated from the creationist framework overall, so that scientists could study the remainder from a creationist perspective (in keeping with the spirit of my latter question)? quote:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From the creationist perspective, God made physical matter to operate according to the laws that science studies. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rrhain writes: But that's irrelevant. Are those laws maintained by god or do they function all on their own? If I toss a handful of coins on the ground, do they land in their final position all on their own does god come down and personally, deliberately, and consciously make them land that way? My computer needs me to turn it on, but I become irrelevant to its boot process after that. I'm not the one making electrons move through the wires, powering up the hard drive, sending signals through the cables. It's doing that all on its own completely independent of me. That doesn't mean I don't exist and it doesn't mean I can't interfere with it. But it does mean that it does what it does all on its own. It's not irrelevant at all. I don't have a problem with straight science, nor do I have a problem with teaching facts and evidence, but when "science" begins to become synonymous with concluding that the coin tosser or the computer operator doesn't exist, I have a problem with that. Fine, don't acknowledge the Creator in science. But don't, by the rhetoric of natsian "science," create a scenario that couldn't ever discover God's work because he's out of the loop due to those in the power structure who are in charge of defining what "science" really is. quote:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Definitions of science that favor one such supernaturalist (creationism) or metaphysical philosophy (naturalism) over another represents an irrational bias. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rrhain writes: Incorrect. Definitions of science that rely upon outside conscious forces deliberately and personally intefering with process are necessarily not science. Science studies things that happen on their own without the interference of conscious entities. Straight science doesn't demand (either implicitly or explicitly) that nature is all there is. It points out the evidences of nature, and it shouldn't be biased toward the ideas that are posited in order to harmonize the data. And it's OK with me and other creationists if no mention is made of the Creator creating. Just don't force-feed one narrow perspective upon students (that makes it virtually impossible for one to accept the possibility of creation) and call it "science."
Rrhain writes: Besides, you have made a logical error of equivocation. You have confused the methodology called "naturalism" with the metaphysics called "naturalism." There is a difference between saying, "There are things that happen on their own," and saying, "Everything happens on its own." But the equivocation is implicit to the problem I'm addressing regarding all the popular confusion about how science is percieved. quote:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- If I’m reading you correctly, you’re suggesting that even if God exists (just as you exist), He didn’t have anything to do with the universe coming into existence (just as you have nothing to do with what I have for breakfast). -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rrhain writes: No. What I am saying is that the existence of beings that are capable of making things happen does not mean they are omnipresent and acting in every single instance. God might have had something to do with the creation of the universe, but that doesn't mean god had anything to do with anything else. That doesn't mean god doesn't exist. It simply means that god is only involved in some things but not others...other things that happen all on their own without god. And science seeks to understand those things that happen without god. Let me try this again; are you saying that although God (may have) created, it is scientifically irrelevant to consider him as the Creator because he made the creation in such a way that it functions on its own? If the creation being purposely made to function on its own, is what you mean by "things that happen without god," then we might be getting somewhere.Just don't define away his possible existence with natsian rhetoric, and we'll keep the Goddidits out of the texts. quote:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Anyway, to answer your latter question, God sustains all things, but he made dependable, predictable laws of nature that allows us to study how He made things to be. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rrhain writes: That doesn't answer the question. If I take a handful of coins and toss them on the ground, do they land in their final position all on their own, or does god come down and personally, deliberately, and consciously make them land the way they do? They fall in a manner consistent with the laws of nature that God created. He doesn't actually manipulate the coins in the sort of "hands on" manner you're suggesting.
Rrhain writes: You keep talking about how "dependable" the universe is...that implies that god has no choice in those things. Even if god wanted to, he couldn't change the nature of the universe because those things are "dependable." Is that what you're implying? Of course not. As I've indicated so many times before, although God created the universe according to all the laws of nature that scientists study, it's not beyond his ability to step in on occasion and circumvent those laws, something he has done rarely I might add (to invoke the Biblical record). This seems really bizarre to you? quote:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The fact that He’s free to step in on occasion and interrupt those laws (to do a miracle, such as make a shadow caused by the sun to go in an unnatural direction for a time), doesn’t throw science into an exercise of capriciousness. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rrhain writes: But it does mean science has to ignore it just as it ignores you. So the question is: Is there anything at all that isn't being deliberately, personally, and consciously made to happen by god? Because if it is, then it is a capricious whim of god and doesn't help us to know what things are like when they behave all on their own. You just don't seem to be absorbing the points that God could've created the universe to operate according to natural laws that can be studied by scientists, and that his rare occasion side-stepping of those laws doesn't qualify as a necessary hinderence to continue in such study. quote:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Translation: you don't agree with me -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rrhain writes: Ah, but the difference is that I actually give you a reason why. You simply assert that I'm wrong without justification. Please provide an example of this claim. quote:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Please verify the following, thus alienating the following from the realm of mere belief (or faith): --chemicals have an observable tendency or ability to form living cells, and single-celled organisms have an observable tendency or ability to form complex plants and animals; --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rrhain writes: Define "living." When I refer to living things, I'm thinking of organisms or beings that are self-replicating, due to whatever internal programming that is unique to the creature.
Rrhain writes: You seem to be heading down the path of claiming that evolution requires abiogenesis and that abiogenesis is something more than an hypothesis. As for the second part, all one needs to do is watch sexually-reproducing species reproduce. You, for example, started from a single cell and progressed through purely chemical means to become a complex, multi-cellular animal. "Ah," but that has nothing at all to do with evolution. The internal pre-programming was already present. quote:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --reproduction can produce radically new organs or organisms one tiny step at a time or all at once; -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rrhain writes: That's been observed over and over again: Observed Instances of SpeciationSome More Observed Speciation Events Ishikawa M, Ishizaki S, Yamamoto Y, Yamasato K.Paraliobacillus ryukyuensis gen. nov., sp. nov., a new Gram-positive, slightly halophilic, extremely halotolerant, facultative anaerobe isolated from a decomposing marine alga. J Gen Appl Microbiol. 2002 Oct;48(5):269-79. PMID: 12501437 [PubMed - in process] Kanamori T, Rashid N, Morikawa M, Atomi H, Imanaka T.Oleomonas sagaranensis gen. nov., sp. nov., represents a novel genus in the alpha-Proteobacteria. FEMS Microbiol Lett. 2002 Dec 17;217(2):255-261. PMID: 12480113 [PubMed - as supplied by publisher] Fudou R, Jojima Y, Iizuka T, Yamanaka S.Haliangium ochraceum gen. nov., sp. nov. and Haliangium tepidum sp. nov.: Novel moderately halophilic myxobacteria isolated from coastal saline environments. J Gen Appl Microbiol. 2002 Apr;48(2):109-16. PMID: 12469307 [PubMed - in process] Golyshin PN, Chernikova TN, Abraham WR, Lunsdorf H, Timmis KN, Yakimov MM.Oleiphilaceae fam. nov., to include Oleiphilus messinensis gen. nov., sp. nov., a novel marine bacterium that obligately utilizes hydrocarbons. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol. 2002 May;52(Pt 3):901-11. PMID: 12054256 [PubMed - in process] Ivanova EP, Mikhailov VV.[A new family of Alteromonadaceae fam. nov., including the marine proteobacteria species Alteromonas, Pseudoalteromonas, Idiomarina i Colwellia.] Mikrobiologiia. 2001 Jan-Feb;70(1):15-23. Review. Russian. PMID: 11338830 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] Stackebrandt E, Schumann P.Description of Bogoriellaceae fam. nov., Dermacoccaceae fam. nov., Rarobacteraceae fam. nov. and Sanguibacteraceae fam. nov. and emendation of some families of the suborder Micrococcineae. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol. 2000 May;50 Pt 3:1279-85. PMID: 10843073 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] But these are all in reference to what would be rightly categorized as microevolutionary developments (and thus totally consistent with creationism), not really a legitimate response to what I had in mind. Let's see some evidence of major change, of one kind of animal turning into something fundamentally different, not just modified in some way that would please any creationist as well. quote:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --"simple" life forms can be transformed into the highly complex organisms that inhabit the planet today; natural selection in combination with random mutations, has the kind of creative power needed to make complex plants and animals out of much simpler predecessors. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rrhain writes: Again, observed all the time. Here's a page from a professor of biology: Can new genetic information and complexity evolve by known biological mechanisms? Yes. Well, it appears that an editor made it to your page before I got here. But I'd venture to say that nothing of fact that was shared would have been inconsistent with the creationist model. quote:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Science doesn't "say" (imply, or support the seeming absolutes) that I listed above that belong to the metaphysical creed of naturalists who excommunicate those heretics from their abbeys who don't fit into their box. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rrhain writes: This sentence no verb. Could you rephrase, please? Of course; sorry. Mentally, please move the ending parenthetical symbol back to the "after the word 'support'" position, and I believe that may alleviate the problem.
Rrhain writes: Your argument is akin to saying that because you believe the earth is flat by fiat of god, then having a textbook that says the earth is round is tantamount to saying that god does not exist. That comeback analogy of yours has its amusing aspects, I suppose, but it's not at all accurate. If the primordial soup must have produced life, that means no other options are to be considered. Period. Bias.
Rrhain writes: The evidence points to a conclusion that DNA and RNA evolved. There's still more work to do, yes, but that doesn't mean we ignore the data that we have. And here's a hint: The general consensus in science these days is that the first life wasn't based upon DNA or RNA. So even if god created life, that doesn't mean god created DNA. You still have a gap to put your god in. This substantiates the bias. You have as many gaps to fill with your articles of faith as I do with mine. quote:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- OK, I'll bite. What does --RTFM stand for? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rrhain writes: You don't know? RTFM is a common acronym used by tech support types to refer to what they want to say to those who ask questions that are easily answered if only the person had bothered to consult the documentation: Actually, I didn't know. Although I've visited evc forum a number of times, I have to confess some ignorance regarding "tech support" information.
Rrhain writes: Read The Fucking Manual As I feared, this was linked to the WWJD abbreviation, something that would obviously be very offensive to Christians. You don't care about presenting this level of offense, even if the targets are "just those Christians"? You might want to read the "manual," or the forum rules, something that I did do and try to abide by.
Rrhain writes: Some other utterances of frustration are the "I-D-ten-T" problem (which, when written out, spells "id10t" which looks an awful lot like "idiot," don't you think?) and "PEBKAC": Problem Exists Between Keyboard And Chair (which is where the user typically exists). Thanks for the information, but although I'm not beyond using some light sarcasm and such, I'd rather not use any of these. quote:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I really hope, though, that you aren't going to get blasphemous. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rrhain writes: I've got an idea: Why don't you let me worry about my relationship with god. I wasn't endeavoring to instruct you in the way of the Lord. I just didn't want to read the blasphemy. (Of course, we can all see that my instincts were correct.)
Rrhain writes: You won't be able to help. You know, I quite agree.
Rrhain writes: If god thinks I'm being blasphemous, I'm sure god will let me know. Indeed.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Martin J. Koszegi Inactive Member |
Message 61 of 136 12-01-2003 03:33 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Is it scientific to leave the conceivability open that nature itself could yield evidence that could suggest a supernatural origin (complexity, order, etc., seemingly beyond statistical explanation for the time alotted), or more scientific to, at the onset, predetermine that the vehicle we must use to establish our ideas, i.e., nature, is all there is? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rei writes: Science does leave open this possibility. At best, only in lip service. The textbooks, the "instructional" media, virtually everything that has any real influence, insists (perhaps implicitly) that life came into being by random chance, without any guidance at all. But you're right. Science does leave open this possibility. Evolution "science," however, does not. quote:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- And, as Phillip Johnson asked (in Darwin on Trial), "Does non-science necessarily mean nonsense?" -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rei writes: To a layperson who has not taken the time to understand it? Probably. Now, if I'm understanding you correctly here, you're saying that to a layperson who has not taken time to understand science, things that are non-science are necessarily nonsense. I'm not following you.
Rei writes: To anyone willing to invest a few years of their life into an in-depth education in the particular science, taught by people knowlegable about the subject? Never. And then you seem to be saying that anyone who really studies science in an in-depth way, would never think that non-science things are necessarily nonsense. OK, I can agree with that.
Rei writes: If you go to college and major in something - and put forth the effort needed to succeed - you'll understand the What, Why, and How, regardless of the subject. If you don't? Don't expect to just be able to listen in and follow what took people years of school and often decades of experience in the field, analyzing millions of discoveries and experiments (past and present), to learn. OK again. I don't have a problem with this as it stands here. But I'd have to wonder if, in a basket-weaving course, the teacher presented a basket and told the students that it just appeared out of nowhere. All the years of experience and all the teachers rationalizations about why he's right would do little to convince me.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
MrHambre Member (Idle past 1414 days)  Posts: 1495 From: Framingham, MA, USA Joined: |
Martin,
Hearing you and every other creationist here bleat about philosophical bias is getting very old. What you need to do, what we insist you do, is learn what the accepted definition of evolution is and familiarize yourself with scientific methodology. You're insulting us by repeating your claim that we are victims of the naturalistic brainwashing machine. We have told you, told you, and told you, that our acceptance of evolutionary explanations is based on our understanding of empirical evidential inquiry and the evidence that supports the hypothesis of common descent. It's not based on atheism, it's based on honest assessment of the evidence. You then claim that the scientific evidence could support creationism as well as evolution. I submit that the only reason anyone would make such a claim is that he doesn't understand the concept of evidential inquiry, he doesn't understand the claims that evolution makes, and he is not familiar with the evidence that has been presented in support of the theory of evolution by natural selection. If you can't say what the theory of evolution is, Martin, you're not really equipped to comment on it one way or the other. You've obviously read Phillip Johnson. Fine, so have I. Now it's time to delve into what's really behind Darwin's theory, the facts and research that support evolutionary theory. Find out what evolution is, learn what molecular biology really tells us, discover the breadth and scope of the scientific basis for common descent. Without this knowledge, you're not saying anything, just accusing us of ignorance while refusing to acknowledge your own. The dark nursery of evolution is very dark indeed. Brad McFall< !--UE--> [This message has been edited by MrHambre, 01-04-2004]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Martin J. Koszegi Inactive Member |
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- As for something being categorized as theory and fact and existing only in peoples' minds, I'm sure you can think of examples of this from your own knowledge of history, right(?): erroneous ideas that became established beliefs (theory/fact), but that were later found to be erroneous (existing only in peoples' minds from the earlier time). That was all I meant. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rei writes: And they were found out as such by scientists, through the scientific method. Take the phlogiston theory (disproven by mass measurements of burning objects), or the theory that the sun's energy was from gravitational collapse (contradictory evidence was given by radioisotope dating and abnormal measurements, and finally a method that works (fusion) was discovered). Here, you're arguing against something that is not at the forefront of a new science; it is virtually universally accepted, apart from a few hundred people (if you assume that there are 10 times as many who remain silent as the ones who are vocal, a few thousand), among the world's millions of biologists, archaeologists, paleontologists, etc. While refinements to theories that have lasted for a long time do occur (for example, Newtonian phyiscs to relativistic physics), to survive to the present day requires that an incredibly huge amount of evidence need to be better reconciled by an alternativee theory. That "how could so many people be so wrong" argument is sort of like adopting a statistical morality. If enough people believe that a certain behavior is OK (say, like rape, for instance), then it must be, regardless of how wrong others may believe the behavior is. That brings new meaning to the phrase "popular science." Show me clear evidence of macroevolution. Don't tell me to trust people's judgement about evolutionary philosophy when the only thing they have to show for is stuff that is perfectly consistent with creationism.
Rei writes: Such a replacement theory for evolution has not been postulated. Like there's another theory that is fundamentally different than natsian evolution, other than creationism. Yes, I know about the lists of imaginative options that people can cite, but one either believes in a Creator (creationism) or one doesn't (evolutionism).
Rei writes: Not only have most creationist publications been based on bad (often deliberately bad) and outdated information (check the dates on papers referenced by, say, the ICR), but their reports often contradict each other. For example, for years creationists pushed that the world is young because there is too little helium in zircons. Now they've been circulating a paper postulating that the world is young because there is too much helium in zircons. There is no theory, just a mishmash of bad information that not only contradicts itself, but the very book it is supposed to be defending. They typically do it by abusing areas of research that haven't received much study (or hadn't at the date of publication) or are problems that have huge, complex calculations behind them (such as helium retention rates in zircon crystals at different temperatures and pressures, the propagation of oscillations through the sun, Earth's dynamo, etc). At the same time, they ignore the copious amounts of data gathered in the past several hundreds of years by millions of people, instead looking for their god in the next gap. This brings to mind a possibility for a new topic, under which creationists and evolutionists can cite some ridiculous things that either side has done, and about which everybody from both sides now agree are ridiculous. Remember the Piltdown man, was it? quote:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I don't think that mutations are very good vehicles to look to in order to explain the development of life. Is the net result of mutations, improvement and expansion of genetic possibilities? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rei writes: No. The net result of mutations *and* selection (and often other factors) is "improvement" (which is only relative in a given context, and contexts change across this planet and through time) of genetic possibilities. Read, for example, about Galapagos. Mutation alone would not have created the artwork. Mutation *and* selection created it. If macroevolution actually occured, then that's true. If macroevolution never occured, then it's false. So far, there is no corroboration for the belief in macroevolution.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Martin J. Koszegi Inactive Member |
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Both of the texts were published by Prentice Hall, the first one I cite, in '91, and the second one in '98. Men named Miller and Levine are credited with being the primary writers for each. Coragyp writes: Unless I'm even more confused than my usual, this Dr Miller is a rather vocal theist who has also written a popular book explaining how his beliefs allow for both the Christian God and modern biology. That's interesting, but irrelevant to my point and to what is actually stated in the textbook
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Martin J. Koszegi Inactive Member |
The Nats Strike Back
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- MrHambre writes: Martin,As others have pointed out, Kenneth Miller is a Brown University researcher who exemplifies a not-so-rare phenomenon in the scientific community: a devout believer who has a realistic outlook on what science is and isn't. I highly recommend Finding Darwin's God if you're interested in understanding evolutionary biology from the standpoint of a Christian. People who believe that the Creator used evolution to create, accept evolution for the same reasons why anyone else does: they've been influenced to believe it (despite an absence of evidence for actual macroevolution). Now, if one believes in the Creator, and also has been influenced to believe that macroevolution is as substantiated as the fact of the Earth's orbit around the Sun (which isn't a rare error to become victim to, given the powerful vortex of societal pressures that exist in and out of educational settings), then it's no wonder that such as those would be able to work side by side with evangelical evolutionists.
MrHambre writes: What will it take to convince you that mature faith doesn't demand that believers rant against a crude caricature of scientific researchers like your 'nats?' It depends on what you mean by "mature." If you mean biblical faith, then I don't think we'll be able to agree. There's no way to make the Bible speak with an evolutionary lisp, as some author somewhere put it. And what's more, there's nothing in nature that is inconsistent with the Biblical teaching of creation. Also, I don't consider it spiritually mature to scew what is found in nature in order for it to align with evolutionary philosophy. (And I'd like to add, "Will evolutionary Christians be saved?" Of course.)
MrHambre writes: The fact that Miller (and countless other believers who have no problem reconciling their belief and their scientific understanding) . . . There you go again, equating macroevolutionary philosophy with "scientific" understanding.
MrHambre writes: . . . can do successful research alongside nonbelievers is a sign that your accusations of naturalistic brainwashing are completely false. As you have probably already read above, what you say here is not a sign of what you claim.
MrHambre writes: Certainly creationism can't claim to be as objective a template for scientific research if it demands that everyone subscribe to the tenets of fundamentalist Christianity. Creationism, when taken to mean that the universe (and life, etc.) was created, is at least "as objective a template for scientific research" as whatever form of the Tryonic mythos that appeals to the faithful. Fundamentalist (believing the bible) Christianity is not part of the "scientific template" of creationism.
MrHambre writes: Contrary to your claim, naturalism most certainly is synonymous with science. It is the foundation of scientific methodology, merely because nothing else works. Scientists understand this, whether they are believers or not. Yes, according to the definitions that are doled out by the currently seated power structure of the scientific community, naturalism is most certainly synonymous with science. You've restated the crux of our debate.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
MrHambre Member (Idle past 1414 days) Posts: 1495 From: Framingham, MA, USA Joined: |
Martin J. Koszegi writes, concerning Kenneth Miller:
quote:Martin, you're so wrong. Kenneth Miller is a researcher in cell biology. He accepts evolution because he understands scientific methodology and the science behind evolution. He literally sees the facts that you deny exist. I understand your reluctance to deal with Miller, since he refutes all your bluster about evolution being nothing but atheistic philosophy. I understand your lack of interest in reading Finding Darwin's God, since it presents the evidence supporting evolutionary theory that you have never studied, from the perspective of a Christian who is hardly the victim of naturalistic brainwashing. I understand your absolute inability to grasp the reality of this issue, because you have never had anything concrete to present against evolutionary theory except the vague notion that it means God doesn't exist. Miller is a successful researcher, a fascinating writer, and a believer who understands science first-hand. You could learn something from him. But let's be serious, you're not here to learn. {added by edit:}Incidentally, I found it ironic that you implied that macroevolution is not as well substantiated as the fact that the Earth orbits the sun. In fact, I couldn't demonstrate the fact of the Earth's revolution around the Sun with anything more solid than inference from a series of observations. The theory of the heliocentric model of our solar system explains observational data from astronomers concerning solar, lunar, and planetary 'motion,' but no one sees the Earth revolving around the Sun in the manner you imply. In the same way, we infer evolution (yes, macroevolution) from observations by geologists, geneticists, zoologists, molecular biologists, paleontologists, taxonomists, and various other specialists. Tell us why inference is valid in one instance and not the other. Unless you're willing to claim that we have all been brainwashed by heliocentric philosophy, I'd say there might be a rational basis for the inference of macroevolution as of heliocentrism. And I want you to confront that basis in the form of the evidence for evolution instead of continuing to rant about metaphysics. The dark nursery of evolution is very dark indeed. Brad McFall< !--UE--> [This message has been edited by MrHambre, 01-05-2004]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Quetzal Member (Idle past 5894 days)  Posts: 3228 Joined: |
Martin,
Now that you're back on-line, I hope you'll have the opportunity to respond to my post 84 and post 107 in this thread. For reference, post 84 contained three examples of the successful use of evolutionary theory to solve real-world problems. The challenge was for you to use your theistic science or creation science to provide solutions. You indicated you needed to contact other experts. Have you been able to do so? Post 107 offered specific examples of real-world observations that were inconsistent with or inexplicable by special creation. Those also remain unaddressed. Looking forward to your response.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
nator Member (Idle past 2191 days)  Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: The difference is, people who understand how science works understand that there are different levels of certainty of claims. By contrast, there is no such differentiation made among most Creationists; in general, if a Creationist wants to promote an idea, there is no insistence upon evidence at all. That "something came from nothing" is on the lower end of certainty.
quote: OK, so what you are now saying is that there is no way of telling the difference between a Created universe and a totally naturalistic universe? At any rate, you didn't answer my question; what does all of this talk about "something from nothing" have to do with the change in alelle frequency in a population over time?
quote: We don't know how life first began. What does this have to do with the change of alelle frequency in a population over time? quote:--------------------------------------------------------------- I don't claim that I have a crowd pleasing answer to that--any more than nats have such for their unprovable philosophical assumptions that are inherent to their faith. --------------------------------------------------------------- schrafinator writes:Tell me, does your faith in God change according to physical evidence discovered here on earth? quote: Well, then you are in error when you equate religious faith (the kind that does not change according to physical evidence found here on earth), and the "faith" that the Theory of Evolution is the best explanation we have come up with so far to explain the evidence of what has happened to life once it got here. See the difference? schrafinator writes:If you are attempting to equate your religious faith with the kind of faith that is based upon evidence and experience of nature (such as my faith that the Earth spins on it's axis and is in orbit around the Sun, for example), then you have a very strange kind of religion. quote: So, you have just contradicted yourself. You just said that your faith does NOT change based upon naturalistic evidence, and then you equate your faith with the scientific, emperically-supported idea of Evolution, which has changed in response to evidence found in nature. Which is it?
quote: ...except that's not true. What predictions has Creationism made about nature what have subsequently been borne out by the evidence? Actually, having predicions at all implies that there is an actual theory, which I have been asking Creationists to provide but none ever have.
quote: Here is some evidence of plant evolution for you, including transitionals. CC250: Plant fossil record
quote: Ah, but they do, across many species of organism. Here's a whole bunch: CC200: Transitional fossils Perhaps you might think about doing a bit more research on what evidence is actually out there, and then you wouldn't make such outrageous claims.
quote: How offensive! All scientists who do not share your paticular belief in God are all a bunch of liars according to you, is that correct? If you actually feel that way, then you are obviously not interested in being reasonable. Perhaps you would like to name some names? Who are all of these scientists that you claim support Creationism?
quote: Baseless assertion and meaningless to the debate.
quote: 40% of scientists, including Boiologists, belive in God. What are you going to do with them?
quote: What does this have to do with the change in the alelle frequency in a population over time? schrafinator writes:All you have done is inserted God into the gaps of our understanding. What happens when something that you once considered "inexplicable" and evidence of the hand of God is explained by science? Does your faith die, or do you simply move it to another unexplained phenomena, as has been done by your predecessors for centuries? quote: What are you talking about? Science uses naturalistic explanations to explain naturalistic phenomena. That means that science can't use "godidit" as some kind of explanation, and far from being fettered by this constraint, science is stronger because of it. Tell me, if science suddenly were able to use "godidit" as an answer to any question, how would inquiry into the workings of the universe be aided? Obviously you think scientific inquiry would be vastly improved, so perhaps you can give some specific examples of what, exactly, this would look like.
quote: God could have created the laws of nature, I don't know. However, most Creationists, including you, go much farther than that. You only want to understand nature if it doesn't contradict what you have already decided is true. That's as far away from real scientific methodology as one can get.
quote: No, you go beyond that. You simply reject major chunks of science for no reason other than your religious views, and you also call scientists who do not share your religious conclusions a bunch of liars.
quote: Are you talking about Abiogenesis here? If so, then is it inaccurate to talk about "chemicals" forming living cells. Cells are quite complex and are not at all what is proposed as the first life.
quote: Many of these things have a great deal of evidence to support them. The evidence is there, easily acessable for everyone who wants to learn. All you have shown me is a lot of personal incredulity and I have a great deal of doubt that you have ever undertaken any kind of sincere study of the subjects you bring up.
quote: Ah, quote mining, my favorite creationist tactic. Quote Mine Project: "Miscellaneous"
quote: quote: I did a Google search on "Alpach Symposium" and no documents were found. Did you misspell it? Perhaps you could find some information and link to it?
quote: Explain how the change in alelle frequency in a population over time actually doesn not happen. This is what you are claiming.
quote: I don't know. However, what does this have to do with the change in allele frequency in a population over time?
quote: Yes, I insist. See, what has happened just now, in your reply, is what almost always happen when I challenge Creationists to show their understanding of the Theory of Evolution. Lots of dancing and handwaving but no answer to the question.
quote: Science uses naturalistic evidence to explain naturalistic phenomena. That's the definition of science. Can you please explain how letting "Godidit" into this definition would benefit inquiry?
quote: What are you talking about? Evolution does not say anything about what kinds of creatures "should or shouldn't" be here.
quote: Ah, those hundreds of thousands of lying scientists over the last 100 years really have pulled the wool over all of our eyes, haven't they? ...and those Geneticists are the absolute WORST, totally fabricating the amazing concordence of genetic similarity between organisms just so they agree with the trees developed by Biologists before we knew about genes!
quote: Science doesn't care about philosophy. Science cares about evidence, falsifiability, and testability.
quote: There is only one kind of science; science uses naturalistic explanations to explain naturalistic phenomena. Can you explain how using "Godidit" in science would benefit inquiry?
quote: Correct. Science is not in the business of validating philosophies. Science is the explanation of naturalistic phenomena using naturalistic evidence.
quote: Of course you do, and have several times in this very message!! You say that the "manifestations of nature are consistent with your faith", yet you reject the Theory of Evolution which is arguably the best-supported theory in all of Science.
quote: Hm, I have no faith to validate. I am an Agnostic.
quote: What does any philosophy have to do with the evidence for the change the in allele frequency of a population over time?
quote: Um, what? You are not making sense. Evidence are facts. They are not theoretical, period. Would you agree that 1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1=10? Yes? Then why is it so difficult to accept that many, many, many small changes in the allele frequencies in a population can accumulate to large changes? schrafinator writes:Evidence is a bone of hundreds of species of dinosaur in certain layers of rock that have never, ever been found in any other layer around the world, evidence is a species of bacteria which becomes resistant to penicillin, evidence is the fact that descendents from certain survivors of the Black Plague in medieval Europe have partial to total immunity to HIV because thety share a mutation that conferred a survival advantage. There are millions and millions of individual pieces of evidence which all point to the fact of evolution ocurring. quote: Actually, all of these things contradict what you have been saying is possible. schrafinator writes:It is simply a very sad thing that your religion forces you to choose between your faith and your intellect. quote: I have no faith. I am Agnostic. Oh, and considering that you have contradicted yourself several times in this post alone, I wonder how "harmonious" your intellectual life is when you have to reject much of modern science in one breat, then claim it all points to Creationism in the next. Very confused. Schrafinator writes:I think you are quite unaware of the staggering, overwhelming amount of evidence for Evolution. quote: You seem to think that saying something repeatedly makes it true. The evidence for macroevolution has been accumulating for around 150 years, Martin. When DNA and genes were discovered and Genetics incorporated into the ToE, it pretty much put to rest any major doubts that the ToE was basically correct. It's up to you if you want to reject Genetics and modern Biology, but just know that this is what you are doing. Have a look at these specific evidences for macroevolution, complete with potential falsifications which have not been observed: 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
nator Member (Idle past 2191 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: Here you go: 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent
quote: Sure, it's called "Lamarckism" and was a serious contender among the various competing theories of common descent until the 1950's. It was actually scientific, however, which is why it died. The evidence pointed in another direction. Religious claims about nature don't have to be based upon evidence, like real science does, and they don't have to be falsifiable, the way real science does, so religiously-based claims can live despite a lack of evidence.
quote: What about the 40% of all scientists, including Biologists, who believe in God/a Creator AND accept that the theory of Evolution is currently the best explanation for the evidence? You are creating a very false dichotomy.
quote: Do you really want to go there? I don't think you do unless you want to be assaulted with an enormous barrage of creationist lies, distortions, misquotes, repeated mistakes, and illogic perpetarated by dozens of people through many major Creationist organizations over many decades.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
That guy Inactive Member |
I thought that maybe this topic was losing it's emphasis on education, so I thought I'd reel it back in. Perhaps my experience with evolution in the classroom is fairly relevant, since it was only two years ago. I live in Southeast Tennessee, home of course to the Scopes Monkey Trial, so when evolution came up in my Biology class, I was a little nervous: my teacher was a Southern Baptist and my principal got his degree in Theology...
 As a side note, I strongly favor evolution and agnosticism over any creationist view. My teacher staunchly refused to let on to his personal views, that is, until he made it obvious. He gave only one sentence that let onto his opinion, and no more. Without evolution, he said, one would have to throw away a lot of modern Biology, and I smiled quietly to myself. I was especially pleased that he had also made sure to point out his deep faith as a sign of the non-exclusivity of religion and evolution. The actual discussion of evolution itself was fairly vague. He discussed the basics of mutation and the history of Darwin and the monk in the garden with his peas....well the name evades me; I'm not trying to look dumb. When it came to alternate theories, he did discuss the big generic "Creation and Divine Theories." The mostly unnamed beliefs were put forth as apples and oranges with evolutionary theory, unable to be proven or disproven by science. I think that my Bio teacher had a good approach, and I hope more people have had that experience. The jist is, Evolution is substantiated, and creation usually can't be, due to the very nature of it. Anyone agree or disagree with him?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1488 days)  Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024
