Creationist Friendly Q&A

I know that there are quite a few creationist lurkers here at this site, as well as evolutionist lurkers. I see a lot of first time posters relating their reluctance to ask questions because they feel intimidated. Along with this we see a lot of creationists who do not understand how the theory of evolution works or what the theory says.I think we can kill two birds with one stone. I am proposing that this thread be available for people of all stripes, but mainly creationists, to ask questions about science. Experts in each field will answer the questions as best they can without ridicule and without debate. I don't want this to be a debate thread but rather a place where people will not feel intimidated when they ask a question. As an example, posters can ask questions such as "if man evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?" and get a response that is fair minded and accurate.Perhaps we can also have a sister thread where agnostics/atheists can ask religious questions that can be answered by theists in the same spirit as the science Q&A. I think this would be helpful to everyone and help get more people involved.

Since I started this thread I thought I would step in as a pseudo-moderator. I am not a moderator, so don't take my suggestions as gospel. I was hoping that answers to questions would be without rhetoric or vitriol. Examples of less than satisfactory answers are the following (and I am not picking on anyone, just healthy criticism): Your heart was in the right place, but I was thinking that we should not answer questions with questions (as in answer b). It might have been better to say that monkeys are our cousins, not our grandparents. This one needs a little more meat, but a very nice start. Remove the phrase "That is a caricature . . . creationist opponents" and this one works fine. Again, we (or better, I) want this thread to be as unintimidating as possible (ie free of rhetoric). This post is wholly inappropriate for this thread. Again, no rhetoric, sarcasm, vitriol, etc. I would prefer this thread to be unintimidating in order to give our reluctant lukers a place to ask questions that are bugging them.I would have answered the question as such (very similar top mikehager's post):Firstly, humans are actually primates, just as monkeys and apes are. To say that monkeys should not be around is saying that humans should not be around either.Secondly, the relationship between species is much like that found in your own family. Apes, monkeys, and humans (ie all primates) share a common ancestor just as you and your cousins share a common ancestor, your grandparents. Some primates species will be more distantly related than others, just as you have cousins that are more distantly related than others.Thirdly, evolution does not follow a ladder like progression. Instead, the pattern of evolution looks like a bush. Every individual of one species does not become another species over time. Instead, a sub-group of a species branches off from the larger population to become a new species. It would be expected that at some point the parent species and the daughter species would be in existence at the same time. This usually does not occur for long periods of time, but it does occur for longer time periods on occasion.I hope the description above helps everyone understand the attitude I was shooting for.

CAVEAT: I am not a moderator, so don't take anything I say as law on EvC.

quote:

---

If someone is going to have any hope of getting out of the dark hole of ignornance that the literalists view is based on they need to be able to break free from sources which are lying to them. They need to see how very silly the things which they are being fed are.

---

Eventually, yes they are going to have to do that. However, the whole process has to start slowly. Much like the groundhog seeing his shadow, if creationists get their head bit off the first time they ask a question about evolution are they going to be more or less likely to continue to investigate evolution? I think there should be one thread where questions are answered in a calm, logical, and plainly spoken fashion. That is why I titled the thread "Creationist Friendly Q&A". I was hoping that this thread could be a place for lurkers to ask questions they may feel too intimidated to ask in other threads. That is my hope, but reality may prove to be different. We'll see.

quote:

---

I think a technical answer would be a lot more intimidating than the one I gave.

---

It is hard for me to pull back and look at the ToE with fresh eyes. That makes it hard to explain the ToE to lay people. On that we can agree.The quip you gave puts the creationist on the defensive right away. Instead of getting an answer they are suddenly made to look foolish and may feel they need to defend themselves. I was hoping for more of a textbook answer than a Socratic discussion.

quote:

---

While your answer is simple and right to the point, I feel like it is simple and right to the point to someone that already has dealt with evolution before.

---

That's the kind of input this thread needs. How would you phrase it, within the confines of a "textbook" answer?

quote:

---

If someone really takes this question seriously (which by the way I've seen this question/argument a kazillion times before), you really think he is going to understand anything you wrote up there?

---

Honestly, yes I do. At least I hope so. I can't think of a better way of explaining it without being too vague.When I hear the "if men no apes" question asked it is often due to a poor understanding of evolution, that the progression of species looks like a ladder instead of a branching tree. Instead of saying "we came from dirt, why is there still dirt" you could have said that we came from repitles, there are still reptiles. We came from fish, and there are still fish. We came from bacteria, and there are still bacteria. I think this type of approach might have worked better, but again, this is my opinion and I could be totally off-base.

quote:

---

And here you see the problem spelled out, and it has been so many times by those who would call themselves 'enlightened', who by virtue of a little education think themselves qualified to judge who occupies the dark hole and who is fed silly things.

---

Since this was originally posted as a response to me so I thought I would respond. I also started this whole experiment, so I'll try and explain my thoughts.It is my personal belief that most people who are against evolution know very little about the theory. At times those who accept evolution tend to be a little short with those who don't understand the theory. Resurrected Hector's response is how many feel when presented with ignorance of the theory of evolution. Many of us have ignorance of many fields. I am very ignorant of the field of physics and am corrected by experts on a regular basis on this forum. Ignorance shouldn't be something to be proud of, but it shouldn't be something to be ashamed of either. I just wanted a place where those who may feel intimidated can learn from people who are well versed on that particular topic. I see this thread as being a resource for information that can start debates elsewhere.In my opening post I also suggested that a sister thread could be created as well, a place where non-christians can ask simple questions about creationism or christian theology. I see this as an act of stepping down from a high horse, not getting on one. I'm sorry if you see this thread as patronizing or condescending, it wasn't my intention. If you look through the questions asked so far you will find little to no rhetoric and plain spoken explanations for certain phenomena. In fact, I am quite proud of fellow posters who have given well reasoned and understandable posts. I didn't really think this thread would take off, but I am glad it has.

quote:

---

A simple question about theology would be?

---

I don't want these answered here, but I was thinking of the following questions:1. When Joshua asked for a longer day, why did he aske God to stop the sun? Shouldn't he have asked God to make the Earth stop spinning?2. Why is the Nativity story different in each of the Gospels?3. Why was the gnostic movement quelled early in the development of the christian religion?Like I said, I don't want those answered here. I am just giving you an idea of the type of questions that might be appropriate for a theology/christian thread.

quote:

---

A question to you.....in the Old Testament, there was a prophet named Daniel, who in one instance experienced the need for immediate aid, and while he was still asking for help, an angel appeared to grant it.
What kind of science did the angel use to affect his purpose?

---

Theology ain't my thing. Science is. I would be happy to answer your science questions but I will leave the theology questions to others.

quote:

---

Can I spin this off to start the Atheist Frendly Q&A?

---

Sure.

quote:

---

Q: What makes us more evolved than the rest of the animal kingdom?
I heard the only thing that distinguishes usfrom homohabilis is our thinking ability.

---

We are as evolved as any other species. Bacteria, for example, have been evolving for about a billion years, give or take. They are perhaps the most evolved group of organisms.Evolution does not have a goal other than survival. Are we less evolved than whales because we can't swim as well? Are we less evolved than cheetahs because we can't run as fast? Are we less evolved than snakes because we can't slither? Are we less evolved than rabbits because we can't reproduce as fast? Within evolution, intelligence is no more important than those attributes I list above. To humans, intelligence is something that we hold very dear, but to nature it is just another adaptation.

quote:

---

Ok, I shouldn't of asked that question like that.
How come humans are able to think like this:

---

Because of how our brain functions. The parts of our brain (cerebrum, temporal lobes, etc) responsible for abstract thought appear to have increased in size through the eons. As an analogy, it was similar to the increase in processor power seen in the computer industry over the last 80 years. Processor speeds increased because the number of transistors on the chip increased. This is analogous to the history of our brains, the number of brain cells increased which gave us the power needed for abstract thought, prediction of environmental changes, pre-adaptive learning, abstract language, etc. These qualities can be found in other species, but in a very limited way.Even with animal breeding we can see that intelligence is heritable. I happen to own a border collie, which is similar to having a hyperactive 3 year old child. This breed was bred for it's intelligence and endurance, characteristics that allowed this breed to tend sheep herds away from human contact and to also work hand in hand with humans. These are also characteristics that allow this breed to get into huge amounts of trouble, but that's another story altogether.

quote:

---

Do you think homosapiens will grow more and more intelligent to the point of evolving into a new species?

---

I think humans will remove themselves from the effects of evolution. It seems inevitable that we will begin to manipulate our own DNA to cure illness and other maladies. This will eventually lead to bettering humans which may also include inserting DNA that will lead to higher intelligence. We may also do the same for other species, such as chimps.So to answer your question, I think we will grow more intelligent but it will not be due to evolution. Well, at least not a direct result of random mutation and natural selection. I really don't see us splitting off into two species unless we start colonizing other planets.

quote:

---

Well according to Loudmouth an increase in parts of the brain that give abstract thought does. Well according to Loudmouth an increase in parts of the brain that give abstract thought does.

---

Just to clarify, more brain cells gives one the POTENTIAL for greater intelligence. Going back to the computer chip analogy, if the transistors on a chip are not wired together correctly, or if the software does not operate correctly, then more transistors is useless.As to cummulative knowledge, it is the same thing. Humans have had the potential for passing on large volumes of knowledge in the past. That potential has only recently (last 1000 years) become a reality. The adoption of the scientific method has helped tremendously in this endeavour.

quote:

---

Q: How does need for survival spawn intelligence/a better being?

---

There is no "need", per se. Rather, our ancestors who were more intelligent survived at a higher rate than those who were less intelligent. That intelligence was at first genetically heritable, and afterwards passed down through language. Our cousins, the great apes, are also quite intelligent so it isn't as if intelligence evolved in a vacuum. It was a cummulative process.