The chart seeks to accurately represent Young-Earth Creationism, Old-Earth Creationism, Theistic Evolution, and Naturalistic Evolution.
Since "You don't know what you don't know," I'm looking for feedback as to whether or not this chart could be considered accurate and complete (in the sense of providing enough information to give a person a basic understanding of each view).
So you are the one responsible for this, I have run across this chart on the web before.
I have two immediate objections.
First, you state that findings from astronomy are the greatest problem with the YEC lie. I would argue that the multitude of problems with geology render the entirety of that field in opposition in a manner, as great if not greater, than the problems of fitting that myth to cosmology. Actually, all fields of natural science, including physics, chemistry, geology, biology, and all subsets therein, would be pretty much equally emasculated by any YEC ideology, especially considering that these fields are all interdependent in so many areas.
Which kind of brings me to the second point, the accusation that life violates the second law of thermodynamics. To begin with, obviously the earth is not a closed system considering it orbits a 'sun' that, guess what, causes external energy to be introduced.
I know there is plenty more as your model is apparently biased and over simplistic, but I would give you an E for effort, if that helps.
You have much left to learn should you desire to make such a chart more honest and accurate.
quote:Nor can it account for the incredible complexity of the universe, or the amazing 'appearance of fine-tuning' in the universe
If science could account for all the incredible complexities in the universe would we not be at the point where we brush off our hands and find a new game to play? This seems to imply that science does not understand everything yet, I would not place this as a "major problem".
The "appearance of fine-tuning" has little meaning, Northern lights / Aurora Borealis appears to be magical...
quote:The most candid biologists will also agree that the fossil record is sorely lacking in transitional fossils.
I am curious who they would be. Any chance you could supply names or some of the papers?
quote:second law of thermodynamics (entropy)
I can confidently say that these two issues are only issues in the creationist camp. I have read enough on this forum alone to say that they have little substance.
From my brief look at the chart so far I think its a good start. The "major problems" with evolution only seems to be reiteration of commonly refuted claims.
Looks like you are making a good start. Fortunately, as with learning, there is no end-point.
Keep working on your project and refining it as you go along. As you are learning, there really isn't much of a conflict between science and Christianity except where the Christians try to limit access to information and quite frankly, lie to their flock.
There are some nit-picky details about the way some things were phrased, and I may take the time to bring some of them up. However, the description of Big Bang I think is a bit more serious:
quote: Recognizes evidence indicating that the Big Bang occurred around 13.7 billion years ago, when all matter exploded into the universe — from what is believed to have been an infinitesimal speck.
This can be very misleading. First, although if one extrapolates the expansion of the universe backwards, one does get a "beginning" when the universe is a singularity; however, our current understanding of the laws of nature doesn't allow us to push back before a certain point in time. Before this, our current understanding is insufficient to truly describe accurately what the universe was like -- in fact, it may very well be that there was no singularity and our ideas of what the universe might have been like might be totally off.
Second, I don't like the phrase, "matter exploded into the universe". It implies that the universe existed before the singularity (which, as far as we know, it did not, and, in fact, there was no "before" before the singularity) and that matter came from somewhere else (and, by definition of "universe", there is no somewhere else).
Finally, the Big Bang was not an explosion. An explosion is a sudden release of energy that causes matter to fly apart; this is not what is happening. Matter is moving apart because it is the nature of space itself to expand (or to contract). This was not a one time event; space is still expanding, carrying the galaxies within it farther apart. There wasn't a sudden, one time push that caused matter to move apart. It is simply that nature of space-time itself that matter should be moving apart (or moving together).
A better description of Big Bang, in my opinion, would be:
At one time the universe has a very, very small volume, was very, very dense, and very, very hot, and expanding. You can work out the wording yourself, of course, but that is the idea of Big Bang.
Thanks for the critiquing. Believe me, I don't take any of it personally, and my goal is to make the chart as accurate as possible. So I really do appreciate the feedback. (Though I should say that the intended audience is Christians, since non-Christians probably don't care about the other views anyway. I still want it to be accurate, just not biased toward evolution. No free passes on any issue, or for any view, as far as I'm concerned :)
To Angalard, I wanted to say that this is a brand new chart, created from probably hundreds of sources, including audios, videos, and articles read (over time) but not documented, unfortunately...
That's why I wanted to put this version out there as a beta, so I can correct any mistakes.
There is another chart that I modeled this one after, which I have on my site (and which I've promoted online). That chart was created by Reasons to Believe.
But their chart goes right over most people's heads, including mine. So I wanted to create a simpler one. (I stay in pretty close contact with Reasons to Believe, since they are the dominant Old-Earth Creationist group. I just sent them my new chart yesterday to look over.)
If there's another chart like mine that I'm not aware of, and anyone knows the link, I hope you'll send it to me or post it here. (Thanks!)
So far, it seems these are the major issues that have been raised with the chart:
- assertions that the second law of thermodynamics and the law of biogenesis are not violated by the theory of evolution.
- assertions that a much larger number of transitional fossils have been found (than the chart is indicating)
Related to the Big Bang, the phrasing I used is by no means a direct quote. But I think it accurately represents the most current thinking related to the Big Bang. An MIT professor on NOVA described it very similarly (though if it is proven that my description is incorrect, I will change it).
As far as the other 'major problems' with the chart — biogenesis, thermodynamics, and transitional fossils — I really do want to find out if I'm wrong.
If someone can provide links to show how evolution truly does not violate those two laws, and especially if someone can post links to any reputable claims as to a 'large number' of transitional fossils, I am all ears! :) I haven't been able to find the fossil evidence anywhere — from any source...
As far as the other 'major problems' with the chart — biogenesis, thermodynamics, and transitional fossils — I really do want to find out if I'm wrong ...
If someone can provide links to show how evolution truly does not violate those two laws, and especially if someone can e-mail links to any reputable claims as to a 'large number' of transitional fossils, I am all ears!
* The "law of biogenesis" is simply false. It's not that evolution violates it, it's that observation and experiment violate it. This is an ex-law. It has ceased to be.
* The Second Law of Thermodynamics just doesn't say what you think it does. Here is an article explaining what it actually is, and here is an expert in thermodynamics debunking the creationist nonsense on this subject.
* Reputable claims as to a "large number" of transitional fossils? Is the National Academy of Sciences reputable enough for you?
"So many intermediate forms have been discovered between fish and amphibians, between amphibians and reptiles, between reptiles and mammals, and along the primate lines of descent that it often is difficult to identify categorically when the transition occurs from one to another particular species." --- (National Academy of Sciences: Science and Creationism, page 21. National Academy Press, 1999)
But about the fossils, there should be a list somewhere...
If 200 million fossils have been found, and they have been categorized into 250,000 different species, then there should be a list somewhere indicating which fossils show transitions from one species to another.
I keep 'hearing' very low numbers (like under a couple dozen) for the 'real' number of transitional fossils found. I don't think 'the list' is readily disclosed because evolutionists know it is ridiculously small. But I'm definitely open to PROOF — or at least a list :)
But about the fossils, there should be a list somewhere...
Well, this list is out of date, but Kathleen Hunt wrote a pretty good essay on vertebrate transitionals. It's pretty good, because I believe that she describes what is meant by a transitional, and why they are important.
Douglas Theobald also describes what is meant by a transitional; his essay is important because he moves away from the usual creationist strawman of what is meant by transitional.
Finally, one of my favorite sites is Palaeos; the cladograms on this site list a lot of fossil species; once you understand what is meant by "transitional fossil" you will realize that almost all of the species listed are transitional, i.e., they give good information (and evidence) of the evolutionary lineages of various taxa.
"Jeffrey H. Schwartz, University of Pittsburgh professor of anthropology in the School of Arts and Sciences, is working to debunk a major tenet of Darwinian evolution. Schwartz believes that evolutionary changes occur suddenly as opposed to the Darwinian model of evolution, which is characterized by gradual and constant change. Among other scientific observations, gaps in the fossil record could bolster Schwartz's theory because, for Schwartz, there is no "missing link."
"...However, it is not only the current molecular theory that intrigues Schwartz, but the failure of the scientific community to question an idea that is more than 40 years old: "The history of organ life is undemonstrable; we cannot prove a whole lot in evolutionary biology, and our findings will always be hypothesis. There is one true evolutionary history of life, and whether we will actually ever know it is not likely. Most importantly, we have to think about questioning underlying assumptions, whether we are dealing with molecules or anything else," says Schwartz."
Unfortunately for Dr. Schwartz, the links I gave lists lots and lots of transitional fossil species.Actually, if their god makes better pancakes, I'm totally switching sides. -- Charley the Australopithecine