Creation DOES need to be taught with evolution

One is the loneliest number
(old song)

Thanks for the smile.

Hi David,
If I understand you correctly you are suggesting that the creationist 'hypothesis' be discussed in its failure to conform to predictions? That is, showing that descent with modification is the only tenable hypothesis by comparison to a failed hypothesis. If this is what you mean I can see your point (as a tool to teach the scientific method a la Popper which, I agree, is poorly understood). I have often argued that an undergraduate course in philosophy of science should be required (I didn't encounter such until graduate school, and felt that I was denied valuable perspective in not getting these points earlier).If, however, you mean that creationism should be presented as an equal and viable alternative to DwM, then I must disagree. The examples you mentioned show that the predictions of ID simply aren't observed in nature. I am reasonably sure this isn't what you meant, but wanted to discuss both possibilities.btw, Thanks for the topic, this is really good stuff. I am curious, what do nematodes have to say about this issue? That is biologically, not literally . From what I understand God's inordinate fondness for beetles is dwarfed by his inordinate fondness of nematodes (every species of plant and animal probably has at least one obligate commensal nematode and usually several). My advisor has worked with marine meiofaunal nematodes.

Hi Lithodid Man,Yes to the former. That is, DwM is the only tenable hypothesis when compared to any other hypothesis (including other evolutionary hypotheses, like Lamarckism).It is not sufficient to show that the data conform to just one hypothesis. The data have to distinguish between alternative hypotheses. If the data turn out to conform to more than one hypothesis, you can't say that the data "support" one hypothesis over the others.What is missing from many science classrooms is the realization that science does not progress as much by "supporting" hypotheses as by "refuting" them. If you find data that are inconsistent with a hypothesis, you know something about your world. But just finding a datum to "support" one hypothesis says little because there could be other hypotheses not yet tested that are just as consistent with that datum. Thus, experimental (or observational) tests of hypotheses are those that compare data to the different predictions of different ("alternative") hypotheses, and thus distinguish the hypotheses. So the scientific method really only works in a comparative way, requiring 2 or more alternative hypotheses.Here's an example: Both ID and NS (natural selection) predict that the forms of organs and organisms will fit their functions. Thus, merely finding a nice fit between organism form and function does not provide a good test of either hypothesis (such data cannot distinguish between the alternative hypotheses). However, ID and DwM (descent with modification) do make very different predictions (explictly or implicitly) about the biogeographic distribution of organismal variation (see my previous post). By the same token, ID and our modern understanding of speciation processes (e.g. Mayr's peripatric speciation coupled with Eldredge/Gould punctuated equilibria) both predict a dearth of obvious intermediates in the fossil record. On the other hand, there are differences in other patterns in the fossil record that are predicted, such as the amount of divergence between recent members of two taxa and ancient members of the same taxa.I am just advocating that science be taught in classrooms in the same way it is actually done. However, to do this, we need to be allowed to discuss the different hypotheses themselves, how they generate predictions that are testable, what predictions they make (or fail to make), how data must be collected to make these comparative tests, and how to generate new models for further testing and refinement. This is why we need to discuss ID, creationism, and "alternative" evolutionary hypotheses in science classrooms. (I think this also means we educators need to be sensitive and realize what science can and cannot test, and what "meaning" can or cannot be derived from scientific inquiry. An unfortunately large fraction of students--and their parents--are completely confused here.)Students don't generally get the experience to practice scientific inquiry, particularly Biology students, because they become sponges, sopping up "facts" without thinking about them because they have to choose the "right answer" in high-stakes multiple-guess exams. This is really the reason there is so much misconception about science in the US.(In a similar vein, I actually think it has been a mistake to take religion classes out of mainstream classrooms. This has led to major misconceptions in the US about religion as well. When I was in school in Europe, we had a religion class every Saturday which encouraged discussion about the world's major religions. By writing comparative essays, we learned a lot about religion and its value for modern society.)When education couples lectures with guided self-inquiry and discussion/debate, it really works, and is much more effective than the interminable high-stakes multiple-guess testing by authoritarian lecturers that is dominating US "education" today. By error or by design, US students under the present system will become non-thinking drones herded by religious, political, social, and media authoritarians. As a result, the classical US democratic system (the success of which depends on independent, individualist thinkers) will grind to a crashing halt (or be ground down by a crushing authoritarian regime).

send me an e-mail about your meiofaunal work--I'd be interested.Nematodes have lots to say about evolution/creation, of course! And as you say, the creator must have really loved them--maybe even more than beetles, although there is still no reliable estimate for terrestrial or marine nematode biodiversity. Clearly, Adam's work remains largely unfinished with respect to giving names to the nematodes...

I think you're absolutely wrong about find people on the forum that support him... and you seem very irrationally biased against him when everything that Dr. Hovind says it totally irrefutable.

It is almost spine tingling to hear that someone can actually be as blind as you are. I live in America... I mean does anyone really believe in evolution anymore, or ever really did? Come on. Wake up. Dr. Horvid says it perfectly at dr.dino.org. In every classroom I've been in only two or three not too intelligent students who can't think with common sense or for themselves for that matter have believed this myth/nonsense. I'd be embarrassed if I actually believed in it. Only a little over 10% of America even believes the fairytale and last I checked 50% of the world's scientists actually still trying to keep fighting for this religion. Which means that more and more scientists are realizing that they have been had. Be honest and sincere to yourself and reexamine what you are believing and stop making foolish statements. All you're doing is boasting about your ignorance.

See the new thread to discuss your ideas about the flood. Evidence for and against Flood theoriesWe'd just love to have you take each of Hovind's ideas and defend them here. You can perhaps start by defending your own claims regarding the flood in the above thread.You did, if I recall correctly, claim to know a lot about science. Myself, I suspect you have a lot to learn. You might start by learning not to use phrases and words like "everything" and "totally irrefutable".However, you can start simply, lol, and be prepared to talk about all those mountain climbing sea shells.

Actually dear, no I'm not wrong. You will find very few if any regulars on this forum that do not fall over laughing when Hovind is brought up. I suggest that you take one of his claims and start a thread about it. We can go through them one at a time and you can show us how irrefutable they are.

---

AdminAsgara
Queen of the Universe

I don't know how to respond to this. Blind? Because I have the basic understanding of science required to see Hovind for the fraud that he is? Because I am busting my ass to complete a REAL PhD in biology while that conman runs around bragging about the one he bought?Science takes work, period. Real work. Just to keep up with my peers I have to spend a great deal of time studying, reading technical journal articles, trying to wrap my head around new concepts both in my field and outside of it. When I research it is repetitive, tedious, time-consuming work that takes my free time away from my family. But the reward is that I make my small mark in evolutionary biology, contribute in some way to our understanding of the world. So for that I have little to no patience for small minded fools who would demean my work because they watched a video one day and now feel they are on equal parr with me. Especially a video from a shuckster who has been discredited by Answers in Genesis even? A man who bought his degree? I would not piss on Kent Hovind if he was on fire. That's all I have to say.This message has been edited by Lithodid-Man, 12-02-2004 07:48 PM

d yankee, you'll have to be more careful about what sources you use and/or just making up numbers.You actually think that the number of scientists who (abe removed don't) accept evolution as the only explanation we have for the form of life on earth is only around 50%? You are way off.It is more like 99%. (I'm being generous to you of course - the nearest 3 sig figs number is 99.9 % ) ABE If you want to make engineers and just anyone a "scientist" the number if still over 9 out of 10. /ABEYour 50% number is a bit more representative of the US public if you include those who accept evolution but think that God had a hand.See:
Beliefs of the U.S. public about evolution and creationYou should then note that the US is particulary uneducated in this regard and the numbers are, I suspect, much different in Europe. They are here in Canada too.I note that you still haven't applied your immense scientific knowledge to the shells in the mountains. This message has been edited by NosyNed, 11-28-2004 12:23 PMThis message has been edited by NosyNed, 11-28-2004 03:41 PM

quote:

---

...the number of scientists who don't accept evolution...

---

A "don't" that don't belong there?Moose

Of course...isn't evolution taken as a belief? Hello!

No. Evolution is a fact. The Theory of Evolution is a theory.Evolution is the sum total of the evidence.The Theory is the best explaination for the evidence.Belief is not a factor in either.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

They do. Evolution. That is one of the world myths of the origin of species.Creation is not only obvious...which is why you atheist find yourselves saying things like "creation" and "created" so often without even noticing it. LOL!!! But Creationism and the Bible has, not everchanging assumptions, like evolution does...but obvious scientific and historic explanations to everything that scientists have discovered.Example:The way that the Flood is described in the Bible explains to the TEE, the fossils, the ocean ridges, the frozen bones, closed oysters being found on top of MT. Everest...etc.The preFlood age of the Bible explains to the TEE why people, animal, and plants were so big before the flood.Nature shows MicroEvolution, not Macroevolution.The fact that the Carbon 14 in the atmosphere which would take 30,000 years to reach equilibrium still decaying! Hello! Anybody there.Can't you see that evolutionists see things according to there preconceived imaginations? They don't date the amount of Carbon 14 in the bones, they date fossils according to the rock they are covered by or next to. This rock isn't dated, it is based on this imaginary "Geological Column Chart" someone invented. The trees standing in a vertical stance "through" the supposedly different rock ages! LOL! That's evidence of the FLOOD. The Bible is real. Creationism is real. Science "PROOVES" this. Evolution is not science it is a belief that although science shows evidence to be false...is chosen to be either believed anyway or blindly and unconsciously believed because of "INDOCTRINATION"