Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
8 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,816 Year: 3,073/9,624 Month: 918/1,588 Week: 101/223 Day: 12/17 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The description of the Biological Evolution forum should be modified
MurkyWaters
Member (Idle past 1097 days)
Posts: 56
From: USA
Joined: 07-21-2006


Message 1 of 12 (365794)
11-24-2006 3:42 PM


Current description of the “Biological Evolution” Forum:
“Are today's species the products of descent with modification? Or are they the divine creation of God?”
The description for this topic may have been written innocently enough, however, it has some major flaws which indicate an evolutionist’s bias. Despite the fact that many aspects of this forum are biased in favor of evolutionists, I do perceive from what I have read that there is a sincere desire to present all sides fairly. Therefore, I’d like to ask that the description of this topic be modified.
The implication of the current description is that the Evolutionist’s position is that today’s species are the products of descent with modification, and that the creationist’s position is that they are the divine creation of God in their current form. Also, that either one or the other occurred. All of these assumptions are FALSE. In addition, it is falsely comparing completely different parts of the creation and evolutionary theories in that statement.
Let’s take a closer look at each of these issues. First, creationists DO NOT object to descent with modification, natural selection, mutations and so forth. In fact, these are essential to the creation model and are scientific facts and observations. The disagreement lies in interpreting these changes or modifications as being responsible for all of the diversity of life we see today evolving from a common ancestor over billions of years. Creationists believe that the ability of creatures to adapt to their environment is a design feature built into the original created kinds which have diversified within their kinds over the last 4500 to 6000 years. Therefore, it is not change, but the type of change which is in dispute and both statements in the current explanation of the Biological Evolution forum are true from the creationist’s perspective.
Second, you are implying that all life we see today was created by God in an immutable form. This is setting up a false straw man for the creationist position which can then be easily disproved. Creationist believe nothing of the sort, rather that God created the initial kinds of animals which have subsequently speciated and adapted to their environment (being initially rich in genetic information), but only within their kinds. Therefore, the life we see today may be very different from the initial created kinds. For example, there was an original “bear” kind, but now we have grizzlies and polar bears, just as we have different kinds of elephants (some extinct like the mammoth). A prolific evolutionary debater on this forum has said “I don't think you will find many evolutionists debating on this forum that subscribe to this straw man caricature of creationism. We've all moved past that naive view [immutable forms]”. If that is the case, I would expect that this forum description reflect that understanding.
Third and most important, the current description is falsely comparing “descent with modification” with “divine creation”. Both Creation and Evolutionary theory are explanations for how all of life that we see today came about and each has distinct chronological sequences. Evolutionary theory states that life evolved from an inorganic form in a primordial slime (abiogeneis) billions of years ago. The complimentary portion of Creation theory states that God created the initial kinds during creation week approximately 6000 years ago. These are equivalent viewpoints in each theory which can be debated on equal footing (and I believe are being debated in the “origins” forum).
The subsequent sequences in evolutionary theory state that all the diversity in life we see today arose from these initial prototype(s). Creation theory states that the diversity in life we see today arose from the initial created kinds (and only within their kinds). Therefore, if you exclude the creation of the initial prototype(s) (for which evolutionists have no explanation), you must also exclude the creation of the initial kinds (by God).
If you wish to exclude abiogenesis (which is part of evolutionary theory, but is relegated to it’s own forum), then the true debate in “Biological Evolution” should be the following:
“Did all the diversity of life we see today arise from a common ancestor(s) over billions of years (requiring the development of completely new features and kinds of life) or is it the result of the original created kinds adapting to their environment over approximately 4500 to 6000 years (requiring only variation within their kinds)”.
Sincerely . mw

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Chiroptera, posted 11-24-2006 4:18 PM MurkyWaters has replied
 Message 4 by Taz, posted 11-24-2006 4:32 PM MurkyWaters has not replied
 Message 7 by AdminModulous, posted 11-25-2006 2:19 PM MurkyWaters has replied
 Message 11 by Archer Opteryx, posted 11-27-2006 5:31 AM MurkyWaters has not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 2 of 12 (365799)
11-24-2006 4:18 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by MurkyWaters
11-24-2006 3:42 PM


I dunno. I can't imagine that there have been very many potential members saying, "Look at that totally bogus description! I'm certainly not posting here!"

Kings were put to death long before 21 January 1793. But regicides of earlier times and their followers were interested in attacking the person, not the principle, of the king. They wanted another king, and that was all. It never occurred to them that the throne could remain empty forever. -- Albert Camus

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by MurkyWaters, posted 11-24-2006 3:42 PM MurkyWaters has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by mick, posted 11-24-2006 4:27 PM Chiroptera has not replied
 Message 5 by MurkyWaters, posted 11-25-2006 11:25 AM Chiroptera has replied

  
mick
Member (Idle past 4986 days)
Posts: 913
Joined: 02-17-2005


Message 3 of 12 (365802)
11-24-2006 4:27 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by Chiroptera
11-24-2006 4:18 PM


Chiroptera writes:
I can't imagine that there have been very many potential members saying, "Look at that totally bogus description! I'm certainly not posting here!
Yes, but we do tend to have more YEC posters and fewer ID posters than other sites like http://www.arn.org. Probably not because of the forum description, though...
Mick

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Chiroptera, posted 11-24-2006 4:18 PM Chiroptera has not replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3291 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 4 of 12 (365803)
11-24-2006 4:32 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by MurkyWaters
11-24-2006 3:42 PM


MurkyWaters writes:
Let’s take a closer look at each of these issues. First, creationists DO NOT object to descent with modification, natural selection, mutations and so forth. In fact, these are essential to the creation model and are scientific facts and observations. The disagreement lies in interpreting these changes or modifications as being responsible for all of the diversity of life we see today evolving from a common ancestor over billions of years. Creationists believe that the ability of creatures to adapt to their environment is a design feature built into the original created kinds which have diversified within their kinds over the last 4500 to 6000 years. Therefore, it is not change, but the type of change which is in dispute and both statements in the current explanation of the Biological Evolution forum are true from the creationist’s perspective.
Oh, goody! You could help me understand the creationist position better in this thread. Thanks in advance.

Place yourself on the map at http://www.frappr.com/evc
The thread about this map can be found here.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by MurkyWaters, posted 11-24-2006 3:42 PM MurkyWaters has not replied

  
MurkyWaters
Member (Idle past 1097 days)
Posts: 56
From: USA
Joined: 07-21-2006


Message 5 of 12 (365936)
11-25-2006 11:25 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by Chiroptera
11-24-2006 4:18 PM


I'm a fairly new member as you might have noted. The primary reason I'm participating is that I wanted to hear arguments contrary to my positions so I could understand whether they were really defensible or not. However, I searched for a forum that I thought was fair.
So first, We have no idea from the thousands that pass through, what might catch their eye or not (if we want more, especially creationists to participate).
Second, whether it's true or not that people will be dissuaded from participating, wouldn't you want to be as accurate as possible in all of the information that is officially presented by administrators (besides opinions in the forums)? ...mw

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Chiroptera, posted 11-24-2006 4:18 PM Chiroptera has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by Chiroptera, posted 11-25-2006 1:31 PM MurkyWaters has replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 6 of 12 (365951)
11-25-2006 1:31 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by MurkyWaters
11-25-2006 11:25 AM


Personally, I think that it is pretty clear what is meant in that description. However, it doesn't seem to me to be an important issue. The description could remain as it is, it could be changed to reflect your concerns, or it could simply say, "Chocolate Chip Mint Ice Cream Rocks!" for all I care.
If I were to advocate a change (which I am not doing), I would change the description to be more explicit as to what we should expect about the subject matter of the threads that forum contains. Something more like, "Topics should be about the evidence for or against the theory of common descent and/or the role natural selection plays in evolutionary theory, as well as the implications of the theories."
In fact, I suspect that if we get the input of every member on this we would end up with such a range of suggestions that the result would be paralysis preventing any change at all.

Kings were put to death long before 21 January 1793. But regicides of earlier times and their followers were interested in attacking the person, not the principle, of the king. They wanted another king, and that was all. It never occurred to them that the throne could remain empty forever. -- Albert Camus

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by MurkyWaters, posted 11-25-2006 11:25 AM MurkyWaters has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by MurkyWaters, posted 11-25-2006 6:04 PM Chiroptera has not replied

  
AdminModulous
Administrator
Posts: 897
Joined: 03-02-2006


Message 7 of 12 (365957)
11-25-2006 2:19 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by MurkyWaters
11-24-2006 3:42 PM


the current fora divide
My original, and rather longish post got eaten by the evc monster. This is a massive summary.
You have a point. Unfortunately creationism is centred around the beginning of life, and evolution isn't. That means a 'this vs that' tagline is difficult.
abiogenesis has its own forum with a good reason. While you would be right to suggest it is part of the natural history of life (which is normally explained through the theory of evolution) it is not biological evolution. The clue is in the title. Abio-something is not something that is really on topic when discussing bio-logical evolution. Hence the divide of fora. There is a gray area between chemistry and biology but fora come in discrete packets. There is a gray area between chemistry and physics, but the two can logically be divided into two fora without concern. Otherwise collapse under the term 'everything is physics!'
My suggestion for the tagline, should it be changed?
Biological Evolution
Did life evolve over billions of years from simple forms, or over thousands of years from created kinds?
Apologies for the choppiness, I didn't feel like typing it all out again

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by MurkyWaters, posted 11-24-2006 3:42 PM MurkyWaters has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by MurkyWaters, posted 11-25-2006 6:05 PM AdminModulous has replied

  
MurkyWaters
Member (Idle past 1097 days)
Posts: 56
From: USA
Joined: 07-21-2006


Message 8 of 12 (365981)
11-25-2006 6:04 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Chiroptera
11-25-2006 1:31 PM


I completely disagree that it is not an important issue. I am in an extensive debate right now regarding "definitions" for creation and evolution. The reason for that is when I first started responding in debates, people were talking about completely different things when they referred to evolution and creation and so were constantly getting sidetracked. Whenever we have an opportunity, we should change those misconceptions. I will probably be suggesting some changes to the "official" definitions as well as some point.
However, I do agree with you that to gain concensus from membership will be a daunting task. I'm not sure how the forum leadership works and whether a consensus among administrators is sufficient or whether it takes a vote or whatever. There should be some rules (perhaps they're posted) about such things.
In addition, I would not disagree that the forum descriptions should be representative of what you'd expect to find in the forum. However, doesn't the descriptions direct the content and not the other way around? I really like what AdminModulous has suggested. I'll reply seperatly to his post. ...mw

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Chiroptera, posted 11-25-2006 1:31 PM Chiroptera has not replied

  
MurkyWaters
Member (Idle past 1097 days)
Posts: 56
From: USA
Joined: 07-21-2006


Message 9 of 12 (365982)
11-25-2006 6:05 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by AdminModulous
11-25-2006 2:19 PM


Re: the current fora divide
I like it. How is consensus reached about such things? ...mw

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by AdminModulous, posted 11-25-2006 2:19 PM AdminModulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by AdminModulous, posted 11-25-2006 6:17 PM MurkyWaters has not replied

  
AdminModulous
Administrator
Posts: 897
Joined: 03-02-2006


Message 10 of 12 (365983)
11-25-2006 6:17 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by MurkyWaters
11-25-2006 6:05 PM


Re: the current fora divide
I like it. How is consensus reached about such things? ...mw
We have an anarchoconsensus model. It just sort of happens. The guy to convince is Percy/Admin who is either the only person with the appropriate permissions or is one of two.
How to convince Percy? Your call is as good as mine. You can try sparkling rhetoric, bribery, logical argumentation - whatever works best for you but your mileage may vary.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by MurkyWaters, posted 11-25-2006 6:05 PM MurkyWaters has not replied

  
Archer Opteryx
Member (Idle past 3597 days)
Posts: 1811
From: East Asia
Joined: 08-16-2006


Message 11 of 12 (366206)
11-27-2006 5:31 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by MurkyWaters
11-24-2006 3:42 PM


Proposed:
'Are today's species the products of descent with modification? Are they special creations by God? Some combination of the two? Are they the result of some other process entirely?'
Yada yada.

Archer
All species are transitional.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by MurkyWaters, posted 11-24-2006 3:42 PM MurkyWaters has not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 12 of 12 (366241)
11-27-2006 10:19 AM


The Evolution forum subtitle was created along with all the other subtitles about six years ago by myself. What I was keeping in mind when I wrote them was that lengthy subtitles would be ignored, while short subtitles if properly expressed could act as "grabbers". Generally, preciseness and brevity are conflicting goals - one has to give.
If a consensus can develop around a proposed wording then I'd be glad to put it up. Archer's achieves the desired improvement in accuracy, but it lacks pithyness. But I'll put up anything that people seem to like, assuming it passes other requirements like fitting in with the tone and style of the site, and being short and to the point.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024