Creation DOES need to be taught with evolution

I am assuming that you are talking about showing species diversity due to dispersal and subsequent reproductive isolation and how that relates to Biblical kinds. I am also assuming that the rest of your post relates to the logical steps to separate or to meld the two? If I messed up here the rest of this post is going to very intersting for both of us. I think you deal with this more specifically further down with actual examples. You might want to discuss the possibility of mutational barriers, if they actaully exist and so forth. Micro vs. Macro are about as imprecise as the current definition of kinds, but Micro could, for clarity, be within kind and Macro as between kind. Are we talking about different methodologies or assumptions to sort out the evolutionary history of a taxonomic group? Assume baramins to sort out a set and use vicaric systematics to explain the same data set, perhaps? Statistical analysis of local distributions in taxonomicly signifigant features. Standard operating procedure, I believe. mtDNA from Neandrethals compared to Humans is online and available, good example of distinguishable distributed data sets. Ring species would also be a good example of this as well and would tie in with microevolution. Naturally this would be the next step, set up a base of knowledge and then apply it to actual data. As a side note, could you give me some references to Croizat, preferably web based but I could do some library work too. You seem to mention him a lot and I have come across a few short bios. Maybe you could give me a list of his more famous theories? Didn't quite understand the complete argument here, but I am guessing that there are problems with comparing divergence and phylogenetics in reference to physical characterstics? Where does this problem arise? How could kind systematics explain cladistics, phylogenetics, and phenotypes better than the evolutionary theory? I for one think that this step is the most interesting. The first hurdle would be cementing an old earth in radiometric dating and superpositioning of sediments, at least for comparing the two theories as a whole. Once this is established, I think creationist kinds will be seen for what they are, very ad hoc. Instead of looking just at a local data set of recent divergence, perhaps look at longer divergence times with respect to, say, changes in forefoot morphology. The plasticity of the current cladistic tree will come through in spades, showing that divergence into Orders and Families is not nearly as problematic when compared to the supernaturally infallible created kinds. I am not sure where computers come into this, besides biometry and statistical distributions. Also, I am unclear as to why cases are being excluded solely due to taxonomy. Beyond this, maybe you could show microevolutionary changes that could allow increased dispersal into and possibly over certain niches/topography. Subsequent reproductive isolation would result in the vicarism that you alluded to earlier (and to Wright's genetic drift theory, if I am remembering correctly). I can't remember the author or references, but founding populations could also come into the discussion. This would also work with a founding creationist kind as well, but it would still have problems with the longer timespans seen in the fossil record (e.g., forefoot morphologies). Perhaps a primer on Australia's ecosystem and biodiversity could be related to geographic isolation in relation to distant vicarism seen in South American marsupials? Just a thought. Yes, I remember doing this in Zoology. Making nested hierarchies using phenotypic stasis and emmergence is fun when you have a nice data set to work with. Usually, you can prefilter the data for more distinguishable phenotypes instead of dumping a lot of specificity and nuance into it. Once easier examples are understood, more complex situations can be dealt with.Overall, I can see what you are driving at and it could be boiled down with very simple vocabulary and assuming some base knowledge in statistics (mean and stdev might be enough). I also think you could pull back to the bigger picture (both in time and in geography) once local changes in species can be shown. The overall evidence for evolution, to me at least, is the most important when looking at the totality of the fossil record and extant species. Created kinds will seem trivial or nebulous at the best when compared to an actual mechanistic approach. I don't mean to sound totally biased, but from your examples I can't quite clue into the supposed problems in evolution that using baramins elucidates.Hope I didn't mistranslate what you were talking about, and as usual, let me know if I did. No matter, I kind of like the curriculum that I set up, hehehe.PS- I think I actually outdid you in word count this time as well.

You speak Bradish!!! Thank you for the translation and answer.

hehe, I have to look up his vocabulary sometimes, we seem to use a different lexicon it seems. I might start asking him some background on his source material in the near future. After that I think I might crack the McFall enigmatic codices.

But actually I'm still waiting for David Fitch to get back to us and tell us what he did mean.(I have been figuring since the first post with it's rather odd statments that the very first line of it is a lie. Perhaps I will be shown up as wrong soon. I hope so. )

David Fitch writes:

quote:

---

As long as creation is allowed to produce at least some testable hypotheses

---

But it doesn't. We have allowed it all the time in the world to come up with a single one and it has failed in every case.Tell you what...how's this for a method:The curriculum will be based upon the state of the peer reviewed literature. If 10% of the literature indicates a creationist perspective, then we will devote 10% of the time to creationist material, focusing on the aspects discussed in the literature.Or are you going to say that there is a bias in the literature against creationism since there are absolutely no articles in the literature that support creationism?

quote:

---

By advocating "balanced" presentation, I am NOT advocating "equal time". It would be silly to spend equal time on flat-earth hypotheses as on round-earth ones. But students are crying out for "some time" to be spent on creation

---

Then you're arguing for "equal time."Since when does the person who has no knowledge or experience on a subject get to be the arbiter of what should be taught?Should we allow students who want two and two to equal five a chance to waste time in presenting their views? Or do we simply sit them down and firmly and consistently show them how and why they are wrong?People are entitled to their opinion, yes, but that right does not mean their opinions mean anything.

quote:

---

as long as we stick to creationist hypotheses that are testable.

---

But there aren't any.Could you please give us an example of one? How does one put god in the box?

quote:

---

These are only a few arguments for balanced curricula.

---

But the curricula is already balanced. You're seeking to add things without any merit into the coursework.You admit that spending time on a flat earth is a waste of time, but you seem to think that spending time on creationism is necessary? Simply because you merely think that there is some desire for it?Why do you think that spending time discussing a flat earth is not useful? Could it be because there is so much evidence pointing against it that it is ridiculous to seriously consider it? Not that it can't be true in some existential sense but simply that there is such an overwhelming amount of evidence against it that it would be foolish to waste time on it?Well, the same scenario exists with regard to creationism. There is so much evidence pointing against it that it is ridiculous to seriously consider it. Not that it can't be true in some existential sense but simply that there is such an overwhelming amount of evidence against it that it would be foolish to waste time on it.You can't even provide a single experiment to test for it and, in fact, the dogma requires that there be none. "Thou shall not test the lord thy god."------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

buzsaw writes:

quote:

---

Btw, the Bible is likely the oldest literature existing to describe a spherical earth and is not a flat earth religious book.

---

We've been through this before, buzsaw.Isaiah 40:22 describes a flat, circular earth. That's why the word used is "circle" and not "ball," which is what Isaiah 22:18 uses.I provided you with dictionary references to Hebrew that indicate this. You refused to look at any of them.Do we really need to have this argument again?------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Brian writes:

quote:

---

The problem you have is that there is no Hebrew word for 'Sphere', unless you know of one.

---

Um...Isaiah 22:18: He will surely violently turn and toss thee like a ball into a large country: there shalt thou die, and there the chariots of thy glory shall be the shame of thy lord's house.There is a Hebrew word to describe a sphere, duwr, and it is distinct from the word for circle, chuwg.Now, duwr can also mean a circle, but chuwg does not mean sphere. The context of chuwg as used in the Bible is always in reference to a two-dimensional circuit, not three.------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

buzsaw writes:

quote:

---

for if there's no word for sphere in Hebrew

---

But there is: duwr. The Bible even uses it in Isaiah 22:18.We've been through this all before, buzsaw. Is there some particular reason you keep forgetting?------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

quote:

---

I never heard of Lamarckism in any classes and neither has my son.

---

I did!It was in the "Nature of Scientific Inquiry" class I took in College.

quote:

---

People all the time refer to the world as circular or round.

---

Yes, but so what?If it's true that the people who wrote the Bible knew that the earth was a sphere, then why do they refer to the firmament as a dome and not another "circle?

quote:

---

Imo, according to Genesis one, there is no need to teach a young earth, because it doesn't necessarily say the earth was created on day one. It simply says when the heavens and the earth were created, God did it.

---

Well, in somebody else's opinion who interprets the Bible differently than you do (such as everyone at the ICR), there is most certainly a need to teach a young earth.See, all there is in your scenario is interpretation of the Bible, and each of the hundreds and hundreds of denominations in this country teach something different.Not to mention that in the west, the Native Americans and Shinto will want their creation stories taught in science class, and in the northeast the Muslims, Hindus, and Bhuddists will all want their stories taught.

A final bump in case I am wrong about our professor.

The US is not in the business of teaching one religion over the other, or at least it shouldn't be. And I think you hit the nail on the head, we could make quite a few ad hoc theories based on other creation stories and show evidence in the same vein as AIG or ICR, but how does that really inform us of the true physical nature of this planet. If someone wants to teach both in a private school, that's their business, but at state run schools the science curriculum should reflect theories that are supported by the overwhelming majority of evidence. The only theory of species origins that has held up under this criteria is the Theory of Evolution.What I think should be stressed more in the classroom is that Evolution is a Theory. The teacher/professor should use language like "the Theory of Evolution states . . ." or "the evidence seems to support . . ." and so forth. Simply stating that Evolution is true beyond a shadow of a doubt is not science (and this coming from an evo, don't be shocked). In fact, I see nothing wrong in pointing out the evidenciary weakpoints in the ToE, but at the same time showing evidence that is very concrete and straightforward. But to simply bring in a theory because of conservative christian pressure when it is simply not supported by the evidence we have today is even a worse faux pas.Perhaps the best route to take is to stress that the science classroom is there to make sure you understand what the ToE is saying and what evidence there is to back it up. It shouldn't be indoctrination into one mold or the other. Leave explaining creation theories up to comparative religion classes and Sunday schools. This way it will open up more jobs for electrical engineers.

You seem to be muddling up the ToE and the facts that it is meant to explain.Where you introduce the philosophy of science and the nature of scientific inquiry is an important issue however. Once the tentative nature of it and what a theory is is explained I don't think you have to keep on reminding students of that.The ToE is about as true as any complex explanation we have for anything is so I don't think there is any big risk to leting the students get that feeling.

Maybe he lectures at Patriot?Brian.