Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 62 (9027 total)
48 online now:
AZPaul3, Capt Stormfield, DrJones*, jar (4 members, 44 visitors)
Newest Member: JustTheFacts
Post Volume: Total: 883,437 Year: 1,083/14,102 Month: 75/411 Week: 96/168 Day: 13/12 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Creation Science In Schools: Give Us A Lesson Plan
Dan Carroll
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 48 (67379)
11-18-2003 1:12 PM


This is for those who want Creation Science taught in schools. Ignore the law for a second, and assume it's viable to do so.

Give us a syllabus.

Tell us exactly what you want taught, and what texts you want to assign. What sort of assignments do you want to give? Will there be any field research for the students, like when they go fossil hunting in geology class?

What exactly do you want taught, and how do you want to teach it?


Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by MrHambre, posted 11-18-2003 1:17 PM Dan Carroll has not yet responded
 Message 3 by Brad McFall, posted 11-18-2003 1:30 PM Dan Carroll has responded
 Message 8 by Rei, posted 11-18-2003 1:52 PM Dan Carroll has not yet responded
 Message 11 by keith63, posted 11-18-2003 2:03 PM Dan Carroll has not yet responded
 Message 12 by Quetzal, posted 11-18-2003 2:04 PM Dan Carroll has not yet responded

  
MrHambre
Member (Idle past 184 days)
Posts: 1495
From: Framingham, MA, USA
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 2 of 48 (67385)
11-18-2003 1:17 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Dan Carroll
11-18-2003 1:12 PM


I Couldn't Resist, part 2
Dan,

The thing is, when the subject is creationism, you can get a lot done in a week.

------------------
The dark nursery of evolution is very dark indeed.
Brad McFall


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Dan Carroll, posted 11-18-2003 1:12 PM Dan Carroll has not yet responded

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 3824 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 3 of 48 (67390)
11-18-2003 1:30 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Dan Carroll
11-18-2003 1:12 PM


context
It can not be this as this is where I was at when you called for not tabling the point. I didnt know that Nosy an Me really do want the same thing. The work is in progress but is a bit too bslogical so if I could have the mammy razor please... Well something out of this raw short hand WILL be available to be taught onse I get my nose out of its way and work out the remaining techinical issues AND THEN FIGURE OUT the best language to introduce the teaching on an easier to comprehend basis but meanwhile it would be something like this-
Creation Biology: Towards a Unification of Baraminology and Mendelism

Google took off a paper by Dr.Kurt P.Wise from DOTankerbergDOTcom which contained a couple of sentences:
"Baraminology is a new field of science. It is the science of baramins- the study of created kinds. Baraminology will ultimately include the identifying, the classifying, and the naming of baramins. At this ponit it is concentrating on how to identify baramins. Classification and naming will come in the course of time."

The following terms (adjectives/nounds) have been proposed for baraminic "identification".

"baramin"- Marsh
"true lineage" - Remine
"biological trajectory" Wood/Canvanaugh
"qpo, mono, holo,poly, archea,neo"baramins-Wise

In the following course of terms "Creationary Systematics" "Discontinuity Systematics" "Baraminology"
-----------------

Instead of accepting provisionally archeabaramin and polybaramin I present a polar procedure that does all the identification, classification and naming via one recursive algorithmic comparative thought process by yoking the comparative creation biology making/modeling to source of error detection in dispersal vs vicaraince (tests from cladisitc data sets) so USING baraminic grammer to expose biogeographic prejudice for vicariism that is not wholly taxonomic but is assumed so in the simulation wrong used Mendel's Olby developmental bionomial in the plenum that transversality applies to D'Arcy Thompsonian misrepresentation(s) by Gould in morphometric visualization.
Gilmore p 16 "1. Change of variables In order to describe physical problems in R^n, it is useful to set up a coordinate system (x1x2,...xn). Any coordinate system will do." This book sends the reader a view of a baraminic "coordinate system" of baraminology as a part of Discontinuity Systemataitcs applied Panbiogeographically as part of Creationary Systematics in the orbit of a Copernican Sea Change to a possible issue of age and area relative to selection levels being under the control of the solution of equations Lewontin has elsewhere expressed as Coupled Differential Equations of involution.
Gilmore p 16 "If another coordinate system x`1, x`2,...x`n) isestablished" (D`Arcy Thompson Morphomometric all Affine Geometry Objects)" it si possible to transform back and forth between them. So BOTH creation discipline and the disciplinary stricuture of evolutionary theory are used to further this science passing the Lemon Test of the Supreme Court USA. The legal battles between creationists and evolutionists reduces to finding any point p element of R^n at which the Jacobian determinant XXXXX is nonzero.

This happens both by the current stage of baraminology transitioning from identificationj to naming and classification and because different cardinalites of infinity divides in subjective use of the morphometric tangent referecence space of any clumped or unclumped morphospace the descriptive (value (without time judgements)) of the catastrophe set, elementally useful used using, infinite induction across the binomail difference of hybrid OR parent PER topography ON EARTH and a change in the Number Class to seperate a zero PLANE grammer of the surface (layer) in real space and time under form-making adjustibility by the kind of biogeography, that is, is different for each taxogeny (by telic means but not necessarily end ontologically) identifiable baramincally with limit point qualification lexicology.

This allows a means to determine if statistical tests of Vicariism may have wrongly been done by an all taxonomic vicarrism (transversality across ANY metric) and should instead (not done because of c/e transcendental illusion not being made empirical) have rejected chance dispersal if... The search fo rthe seperatrix however is confined to interfinger if you will any energy of the topological not topographic space of not metaphysical Matchette 'force' of two limit point baraminic element derived SETS (the qualification can lead to quatities should the impression be pressed and not rubbed) even if tranfinite pure math may go another way. These measures"" beyond mrophometrics are presented instantiated by two different number class ordinations from the same database warehouse so crossing only in their geometry (by ordertypes?) the obuject of Rene Thom's BIOPHILOSOPHY not bifurcation math nor physics of complexity.

The limit point sets of the differently manifested kinds of baramins in terms of Mendel difference of the country vs garden in hybrids vs parents categories statistically biometric are "read" from number class "pointer' in the electronic version written first and foremost by the baraminologist not the hierarhcihc philosopher of biology without influence directly of statistical testing in the dispersal vs vicariance expermental math unless for instance the tropism involved be actually seperated from the actual gradients so correlated int he same path analysis of cause.

Topograpy is generated when the relation of all the baramins (to the polybaramin) is combined witht he interfingered catastrophe set representation of ALL the cricisims of birfucatable applications and IS modeleable assesing Cantor's A,B,C,D,...L real Numbers when the math of a limit of real number sequences is dependent with the limit point of a set instead biologically is linked by cause or correlationof Lebseque "collections". This still permits a "smoothing " of the Galton 'polygon" metaphor and permits indeed by turn Sewall Wright's shifiging balanace theory out of the same data evetiaarily but might suggest reasons to disbelieve species selection while also suggest in a progressive research campagain that compostes panbiogeography and the phsycis and engineering of catatrophe set theory that may be revealing a source of varation left undetected in the datat due to the international resolution of the Mendelic - Biometric difficutlty of isolation from a lingeage continuum. The continual seperation of baraminc lexic grammetology however may not show that some change to tcurrent use of "mutation" is biology is called for. That will depend of on the fits of the data to and in thetwo model approach not a debate about the physical naturalism that is matterially equivalent in the form that remains despite biological change.

This result is achieved by having the neobaramin concept contain both signs and symbols for sets but only the symbols are used to demarcate what is presently but choice of "delay vs maxwell" conventions THE CATASTROPHE THOERY SEPERATRIX (presently for any future Mendelism) via rejection of archeabaramin in the algorithmic coding of the loop from polybaramin ( the polybaraminc 3-Space(shortcutted in Gilmore instance p588 "In spite of this, the idea of mapping functions into Euclidean spaces R^n in order to generate a topology is useful and appealing. We use this approach as a hueristic tool. )) to topology via the topography of all baramins. There is no presumption that possibly more than one orbit of life is involved in this program as baraminological lexos seperates (via phylogenetic discontinuties) the database collectivity rather than attempts to unify all the data into one heirarchical anscetralizing directory tree-lineage.

The grammer for classifiying, identifying and and naming baraminology comes about by inverting the topology of Wise aned Remine as per Friar's understanding.

through a catastrophe set instantiation of the topography which creates the signs and symbols of the terms' lexix writing space making a difference of limit point set signs and catastrophe set symbols

and providing a program to find the seperatrix only on the lexic boundary in the terms' grammetology.

I have not got it to the point of developing the texts to be cited.

[This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 11-26-2003]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Dan Carroll, posted 11-18-2003 1:12 PM Dan Carroll has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by Dan Carroll, posted 11-18-2003 1:37 PM Brad McFall has responded
 Message 5 by Adminnemooseus, posted 11-18-2003 1:39 PM Brad McFall has responded
 Message 6 by zephyr, posted 11-18-2003 1:44 PM Brad McFall has responded
 Message 9 by Loudmouth, posted 11-18-2003 1:55 PM Brad McFall has not yet responded

  
Dan Carroll
Inactive Member


Message 4 of 48 (67395)
11-18-2003 1:37 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Brad McFall
11-18-2003 1:30 PM


Re: subtext
One additional question:

What age group are you looking to teach? For instance, I'm assuming Brad's lesson plan above is not intended for our nation's public schools.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Brad McFall, posted 11-18-2003 1:30 PM Brad McFall has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by Lizard Breath, posted 11-18-2003 8:35 PM Dan Carroll has not yet responded
 Message 46 by Brad McFall, posted 11-26-2003 7:52 PM Dan Carroll has not yet responded

  
Adminnemooseus
Director
Posts: 3933
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 5 of 48 (67396)
11-18-2003 1:39 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Brad McFall
11-18-2003 1:30 PM


Re: subtext
Brad - Too much text, and too much bold text.

Management has been most tolerant to your rambles, but you really need to strive tighten up the content of you messages. I SUGGEST that you keep your messages down to a maximum of about 20 lines. And this does not mean you should just break a monster message into smaller messages.

Falure to follow Adminnemooseus SUGGESTIONS can result in suspensions.

Discussion of this? Take it to the appropriate topic, for which I supply a link in my "signature".

Adminnemooseus

------------------
Comments on moderation procedures? - Go to
Change in Moderation?
or
too fast closure of threads


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Brad McFall, posted 11-18-2003 1:30 PM Brad McFall has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by Brad McFall, posted 11-18-2003 1:51 PM Adminnemooseus has not yet responded

  
zephyr
Member (Idle past 3341 days)
Posts: 821
From: FOB Taji, Iraq
Joined: 04-22-2003


Message 6 of 48 (67398)
11-18-2003 1:44 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Brad McFall
11-18-2003 1:30 PM


Re: subtext
It is telling that baraminology is stuck on how to identify a baramin. Especially when its devotees are already fully convinced they exist. They don't even know what it looks like, yet they are willing to squander their days developing terminology which will (hopefully) describe it once they figure it out! And to what end?

From previous discussion, it is fairly obvious that any consistent definition based on morphology would either: a)place mankind in the same kind as all the apes; or b)result in the identification of far more kinds than could ever successfully live on the ark for a year. Thus, baraminology remains stuck where it is until it is willing to bite the bullet and introduce one of these problems into the equation. I'll be interested to see if that ever happens.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Brad McFall, posted 11-18-2003 1:30 PM Brad McFall has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Brad McFall, posted 11-18-2003 1:58 PM zephyr has not yet responded

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 3824 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 7 of 48 (67403)
11-18-2003 1:51 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Adminnemooseus
11-18-2003 1:39 PM


Re: subtext
Look you either want this stuff or you dont. I am happy to go my own way. I am one person and I hope others will join. If all you want is chat I am not interested.

That is content. take the bold out . I dont care. I risk Percy "stealing" this as music players do their music but there is little risk if you only view it as a "ramble" THIS IS THE REAL THING. I am not mad about you wanting the me to do ALL THE WORK FIRST but I do not do this just to provoke there is real things here if you only learn
Suspend me- I really dont care I have given all I can short of every one haveing all the answers any one wants. If you really only see the purpose of the site to create disparity then take me off the list. I was happy enough to have kept this post to myself but I really did think this is what Dan was asking for.

My first actual correspondence to ICR WAS a curriculum in which I used my actual papers from high school science class. I did not dig that stuff up as this is FAR above better than anything ICR has recieved from me so I expected you want to have it here "first". I am tired of trying to find the right place to put my stuff. I agured at length in the past from "IS IT SCIENCE" that this stuff I write IS science. NO ONE FOLLOWED. This IS science and it needs to be brought into the class room. If you cant see that yet yet perhaps now is not my time still still my time will not continue to not exist. NO ONE FOLLOWS TOPICS here we just have more admins suggesting HOW to do the threading.

There is ONE thought here and if I break it all I can expect from ANYONE is what NOSY and I just went thru. Get over it. I did.

Again if you do not understand me and choose at this time in this sties administration that you feel it necessary to "release" me I have no hard feellings as when ICR did the same?
Go for it.

My level of understanding is above that on this board generally but I am not proud to have to so say.
******if you want to move LOUDMOUTH's questions to a new thread, I'll be happy to dicontinue posting in this one haveing said two dimes worth and respond to the substance in that error exception throw forward if you want.

[This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 11-18-2003]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Adminnemooseus, posted 11-18-2003 1:39 PM Adminnemooseus has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by Loudmouth, posted 11-18-2003 3:25 PM Brad McFall has not yet responded

  
Rei
Member (Idle past 5804 days)
Posts: 1546
From: Iowa City, IA
Joined: 09-03-2003


Message 8 of 48 (67404)
11-18-2003 1:52 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Dan Carroll
11-18-2003 1:12 PM


Week 1: "In The Beginning" - Cover the glory of the Lord's creation, fitting six days of work (and one of rest) into 5 days of class. Homework includes an essay on what you would do if you existed with omnipotence over a formless void of heavens and waters, an assignment to create-your-own animal and to come up with a fake line of fossils to put in the ground that are similar to it, and daily prayer.

Week 2: "The Great Flood" - Discuss with the class and address their concerns about where six miles of water came from and went to. Homework: A one page essay on how well it worked to get rid of the evil people in the world, and an in-class debate on how insects and freshwater fish survived. Conclude with daily prayer. ** Schedule after Physics class, so they cannot ask about potential energy.

Week 3: "Radiocarbon Dating" - Begin the week on monday with a "Radiocarbon Dartboard", and give each student a dart with words such as "faith", "love", and "reason" to throw. Focus on how the fossils date the rocks, and the rocks date the fossils. Homework includes a worksheet on how the nuclei of atoms were less stable in the past, but released less heat and radiation when they split; students must determine how much to change the stability of each isotope. Conclude with daily prayer.

Week 4: "The Fossils" - Explain how polystriate fossils prove that all fossils were buried by a great flood, but that multiple, aligned tree horisons don't disprove it. Explain that footprints in the middle of "flood sediment" and delicate things such as fossil eggs were placed there by scientists to discourage believers. Assignments include determining how often volcanoes would have to alter between erupting and not erupting, and how fast the ash would have to spread outward in sheets, to produce the Columbia River basalts, in addition to daily prayer.

Week 5: "Why Are Monkeys Still Around?" Begin an in-depth study of the competing theory, evolution, with this intriguing question. Homework assignments include finding things on the beach that could not have evolved there, creating a wind-machine tornado and seing if it randomly assembles things, and a 500 word oral report on how evolution doesn't explain things whales, the origin of life, and light. Maintain daily prayer.

Week 6: "Earth's Magnetic Field, The Shrinking Sun, Man Tracks, and More". Read chapter 5 from the textbook provided kindly by Answers In Genesis, authored by Kent Hovind. Have students answer the questions at the end; end each class with daily prayer.

Week 7: Spring break - rest, and pray.

------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Dan Carroll, posted 11-18-2003 1:12 PM Dan Carroll has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by docpotato, posted 11-18-2003 2:09 PM Rei has not yet responded
 Message 14 by MrHambre, posted 11-18-2003 2:15 PM Rei has not yet responded

  
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 9 of 48 (67405)
11-18-2003 1:55 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Brad McFall
11-18-2003 1:30 PM


Re: subtext
Brad,

Just a few questions:

1. What evidenciary justification do you have for assuming created kinds (baramins) when constructing taxonomy?

2. How will you deal with the progressive movement into separate baramins (as they are understood from YEC lit today) as seen in the fossil record? Example: Reptile to mammal series with jawbones becoming middle ear ossicles, Archeopteryx.

3. Does your curriculum rely heavily on extant species in current ecosystems? If so, why is the fossil record and extinct species ignored or played down?

4. Is catastrophism, most notably the Noah's Flood, important to your model and curriculum, or is punctuated catastrophism (meteor strikes eg) with intervening periods of uniformity to be used?

5. Why should we use baramins when they have yet to be defined?

I think you posted something similar on another thread, but I may have misunderstood your overall direction (evo or creation). Personally, I think that using a baramin lens to look at current speciation may lead to local baramins but may miss the boat when genetics and the fossil record are brought into play. Vestiges and atavisms would further blur the lines between current baramins as seen through the lens of uniform evolutionary lines with common ancestery going further back than baramins may want to allow.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Brad McFall, posted 11-18-2003 1:30 PM Brad McFall has not yet responded

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 3824 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 10 of 48 (67407)
11-18-2003 1:58 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by zephyr
11-18-2003 1:44 PM


Re: subtext
I actually have an idea of what one "looks" like but I do not have a scanner to have put the pictures between my last three lines of bold text but as I await a final decision on my status here I will not go any futher until I hear from the admins again. I do not want to leave with
"bad blood". If you look up Friar's article from ICR on baraminiology you can find a set digram of how he ( a turtle man) sees the subseting done. THIS DOES with logic REMANS some constraint on one's visualization of soma but one must be familiar with a lot of flesh to flesh it out. I started to present one theoretical way it can be done IN THE CONTEXT OF actual evolutionary theory which IS NOT what is currently done in BARAMINOLGY. Again let me not start on the geometry if the admins really dont want anything but me to get all of the results before which would negate for me any need to publish the work here. I could do it in CRS, the occasional papers of the baraminology study group etc. I like you guys and I wanted EvC to scoop the field, so if you dont want it and are just "patronizing" me let me know. I'll be Mike's fender and not the guitar string in that case.

Having seen what underlying Atlantic space Loudmouth referred to I can say that whatever the Human + Ape Baramin would be it would look like a disfigured LIZARD else the positive use would be clear enough not to need anymore "debate".

[This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 11-26-2003]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by zephyr, posted 11-18-2003 1:44 PM zephyr has not yet responded

  
keith63
Inactive Member


Message 11 of 48 (67408)
11-18-2003 2:03 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Dan Carroll
11-18-2003 1:12 PM


A theory, as I understand it, is the best possible explanation for observed evidence. You can’t do experiments on evolution or creation. None of us were there at the start and we can’t really reproduce the environment of the original earth. What people other than evolutionists want is to have students understand that there are other ways to interpret the evidence. We still want evolution taught!!!!!!

Since I can’t go back in time what I have to do is to make a hypothesis.
1. If life on earth evolved then we should see fossil evidence of a smooth transition from one life form to another.

That’s testable. Lets look at the fossil evidence and see what we find.

2. If life on earth did not evolve then we should not see fossil evidence of a smooth transition from one life form to another.

Again this should be testable using the same evidence.

My problem is always that evolutionists say their interpretation of the fossils are science but when creationists use the same evidence and interpret it differently that it is not science. This is just one example. Using the same evidence I think it is possible to come up with two different and plausible conclusions.

What I really want is that kids will be taught that there is a controversy about this topic. If there was not a controversy then we wouldn’t be having this discussion. I can provide hundreds of scientists working at major universities who have problems with Darwinian evolution.

http://www-acs.ucsd.edu/~idea/scidoubtevol.htm#list

Here is one of the doubters and what he had to say about the fossil evidence.

What Do the Fossils Say?
by Dr. David N. Menton, Ph.D.
Copyright © 1997 Missouri Association for Creation, Inc.
Most evolutionists insist that the occurrence of evolution is an indisputable fact, even if it's exact mechanism must remain speculative. Since evolution is believed to occur far too slowly to be discernible in the time frame of human observers, we must examine prehistoric evidence in the fossil record if we are to observe the "fact" of evolution. In his book Historical Geology, evolutionist C.O. Dunbar said: "Fossils provide the only historical, documentary evidence that life has evolved from simpler to more and more complex forms." But what does the fossil evidence say, and does it really support the evolutionary view of origins -- or is it perhaps more consistent with Creation?
Fossilization typically occurs when organisms (either living or dead) are deposited from water into sediment. In some instances, the sediment solidifies making a cast of the entombed organism; in others, the organic material of the organism itself is replaced by mineral to form a stony replica. Conditions must be perfect for fossilization to occur, which perhaps explains why there is so little evidence of fossils being formed today. Both the burial of the organism and the hardening of the sediment must occur very quickly or the inevitable decay process will destroy the organism before it can become fossilized.
Evolutionists believe that fossilized organisms were gradually deposited in layers of sediment over hundreds of millions of years, giving us a visual record of at least some of the stages of evolution from the first simple organisms to the most complex. Most creationists, on the other hand, believe that nearly all fossils were formed over a relatively short period of time during and after a world-wide Flood. Thus creationists believe the fossil record reveals organisms that were mostly contemporary -- not an evolutionary sequence extending over millions of years. As these beliefs are sufficiently different, it should be quite easy to determine which is more consistent with the fossil record as it actually exists today.
To be consistent with evolution, the fossil record should show how organisms slowly transformed one into another through countless intermediate or transitional stages. Evolutionists, for example, claim that over one hundred million years were required for the gradual transformation of invertebrates into vertebrates; thus we would expect that the fossil record should show at least some of the progressive stages of this large-scale transformation. To be consistent with creation, on the other hand, the fossil record should show no obvious transitional stages between distinctly different kinds of organisms, but rather each kind of organism should appear all at once and fully formed.
It is now a generally recognized fact that the fossil record shows few if any unambiguous intermediate stages in the evolution of an organism into a distinctly different kind of organism. David B. Kitts, an evolutionist and paleontologist, said:
"Despite the bright promise that paleontology provides a means of 'seeing' evolution, it has presented some nasty difficulties for evolutionists the most notorious of which is the presence of 'gaps' in the fossil record. Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them." (Evolution, 28:467)
Evolutionists have been aware of these missing intermediate or transitional forms since the time of Darwin, and have tried to dismiss the whole problem by appealing to the "incompleteness" of the fossil record. Evolutionists cling to the hope that the "missing links" which they believe formed a continuous chain of evolution may yet be found. But this seems unlikely, since most paleontologists believe that the majority of all existing fossilized species of plants and animals have already been found and identified. Even most currently living kinds of plants and animals have been found in essentially their present form in the fossil record! David Raup, a paleontologist at the Field Museum of Natural History, reported that the growth in our knowledge of the fossil record since Darwin's time provides even less support for evolutionary transformations. Raup writes:
"We are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn't changed much -- ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time. By this I mean that some of the classic cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information." (Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin, 50:22-29)
Some evolutionists have argued that the absence of transitional forms is simply an "artifact" of classification. Others insist that the gaps occur only among the higher taxonomic groups, while still others insist that the gaps occur only among the lower taxonomic groups. The evolutionist George Gaylord Simpson conceded, however, that the gaps are a universal phenomenon:
"...every paleontologist knows, that most new species, genera, and families, and that nearly all categories above the level of families appear in the record suddenly and are not led up to by known, gradual, completely continuous transitional sequences." (Major Features of Evolution, 1953 p. 360)
Speaking of the highest level of animal classification, evolutionist Philip Handler claimed that:
"Some 25 major phyla are recognized for all the animals, and in virtually not a single case is there fossil evidence to demonstrate what the common ancestry of any two phyla looked like." (Biology and the Future of Man, 1970 p. 506)
As for the lowest level of taxonomic classification, the popular evolutionist Steven J. Gould said:
"In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and fully formed." (Natural History, 86:12-16)
This, of course, is exactly what creationists would expect to find.
While most evolutionists still insist that there are at least a few examples of transitional forms in the fossil record, a growing number question whether the fossil record provides any real evidence of the transformation of one organism into another. Evolutionist Steven M. Stanley concluded that: "The known fossil record fails to document a single example of phyletic evolution accomplishing a major morphologic transition." (Macroevolution: Pattern and Process, 1979 p. 39) Stephen J. Gould tells us that "the extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology." (Natural History, 86:12-16) It would go a long way toward correcting the evolutionary bias in our public schools if even this one "trade secret" were revealed to the students. Despite the "missing links" in the fossil record, few evolutionists have abandoned their faith in the so called "fact" of evolution. In an article defiantly titled "Who Doubts Evolution," Oxford zoologist Mark Ridley declared: "If the creationists want to impress the Darwinian establishment, it will be no use prating on about what the fossils say. No good Darwinian's belief in evolution stands on the fossil evidence for gradual evolution, so nor will his belief fall by it." (New Scientist, 90:830-8) We may conclude that the beliefs of "good Darwinians" are not supported by the fossil record while the beliefs of "good creationists" are.
Originally published in St. Louis MetroVoice, May 1994, Vol. 4, No. 5


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Dan Carroll, posted 11-18-2003 1:12 PM Dan Carroll has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by Rei, posted 11-18-2003 2:15 PM keith63 has responded
 Message 16 by Quetzal, posted 11-18-2003 2:16 PM keith63 has not yet responded
 Message 18 by Brian, posted 11-18-2003 2:32 PM keith63 has not yet responded

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 4663 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 12 of 48 (67409)
11-18-2003 2:04 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Dan Carroll
11-18-2003 1:12 PM


Dan,

About a year ago, I asked one of our resident creationists (former evcforum moderator, to boot), to provide a lesson plan that covered the high points of "scientific creationism". I actually had a legit reason - my daughter's school had a bit of class time in the IB Biology curriculum for creationism, and the professor asked my help in putting something together.

Tranquility Base responded adequately, I think. Here's the lesson plan he came up with:

quote:
Version 1.5
By Tranquility Base
Registered member
Creation vs. Evolution Forum

October 2002
NOTES
1. This is a feasibility study in creation education.

2. Although a specific textbook would be helpful to educators, until something specific appears along these lines, this outline, together with mainstream and existing creationist books and web resources, should enable an instructive pair of lessons to be prepared.

3. Rebuttals of obvious evolutionary counter arguments are not included for the sake of brevity.

4. A serious attempt has been made to restrict both the details and interpretations presented to either agreed facts or arguably logical steps so that it can be, in the best case, presented bias-free by educators.

5. There are no (i.e. zero) conditions on the reuse of any of this material in whole or part except of course for any attempt to restrict conditions on the open reuse of this rendition or its parts. Citation is not required or requested.

LESSON 1
---------------
* INTRODUCTION
It is possible that the life forms on earth are due to creation by a higher intelligence at some point or points in the history of our planet. Although the higher intelligence is presumably not able to be studied by science it is not necessarily unscientific to study features of life forms which reveal signs of creation. Discuss the possibility that mainstream science unjustifiably extrapolated from Darwin's evidence of small scale evolution to 'macroevolution'. Introduce the concepts of microevolution as the fine-tuning of existing traits and macroevolution as the introduction of new traits (as defined by mainstream Erwin, see Lesson 2).

* DISTINCTNESS OF KINDS & ANATOMIES
The tree of life constructed by comparing anatomies highlights differences as much as it highlights similarities. The distinctness of the basic types of organisms, anatomical features and genetic parts are approximately what one would expect following the creation of basic kinds for distinct purposes followed by the operation of Darwin's natural selection, generations of reproduction and hybridization. Examples of anatomical novelties (e.g.: multicellularity, respiration, circulation, the nervous system, the backbone, jaws of jawed fish, limbs, legs, wings, the shelled egg of birds/reptiles, the placenta of mammals, feathers of birds) that distinguish higher groups. Examples of distinct kinds identifiable by hybridization criteria (e.g.: Canidae = dogs/wolves/foxes/jackals, Equidae = horses/donkeys/zebra & Funariaceae = mosses).

* SYSTEMATIC JUMPS IN THE FOSSIL RECORD
The fossil record similarly displays distinct anatomies of extinct organisms and the fossil gaps predicted by Darwin have generally not been filled in by paleontologists digging for over a century. Although some examples of organisms with mixed features such as whale-like animals with legs or reptiles with mammalian features can be found there is still a systematic lack of evidence of gradual transitions. The lack of good examples of gradual transitions has led to the well known evolutionary theory of 'Punctuated Equilibrium' which explains that evolution occurs in jumps in small populations in such a way that the transitionary fossils are rarely left behind. Alternatively it is possible that the kinds of organisms simply cover a very large 'space' of anatomies but were still created separately as suggested by the gaps. Examples: Cambrian explosion, backbones, limbs, digits, wings, bat sonar.

* FOSSIL ORDER
The fossil order is approximately in agreement with evolutionary trees generated from anatomical and molecular similarity which in turn are approximately complexity arrangements. However, in many cases the trees predict 'ghost' lineages where organisms are predicted to have existed but are not present in the fossil record for up to hundreds of millions of years of supposed geological time. The creation possibilities for explanation of the fossil order include (i) progressive creation over geological time, accepting the mainstream dating methods, and (ii) that a large flood buried and fossilized organisms at different layers based on the interpretation of much of the seawater and freshwater layers on land as being due to cataclysmic flood waters. Option (i) explains the fossil order through an evolution-like creation order. Although some good evidence of catastrophic formation of the geological column exists (including fossil graveyards and strong ripple effects evident in many layers), option (ii) proposes, with little direct evidence currently, that this could generate the observed fossil oderings. Discuss potential mechanisms of fossil ordering: Relative mobility of organisms, water sorting properties and ecological zoning as well as problems such as the stratagraphical separation of dinosaurs and advanced mammals.

* CONVERGENT FEATURES
Anatomical features of organisms don't always appear in a 'monophyletic' fashion meaning that a feature wont always only appear once and then in every organism in that 'branch'. Vision and flight both appear in multiple parts of the tree separately. In the evolutionary scenario wings and eyes have each separately evolved on multiple occasions. There are hints that such 'convergences' may be too unlikely for evolution and special creation easily explains the appearance of anatomical features for designed purposes. At a finer level, all trees constructed by evolutionists have problems with 'convergences' with features appearing and reappearing at multiple positions along branches suggesting that instead, each creature was individually created. Large scale examples: wings in insects/dinosaurs/birds/bats. Eyes. Small scale example: show a tree with convergent features.

LESSON 2
-------------
* ROLE OF NATURAL SELECTION
Natural selection is the process by which a variable population of organisms can change through selection by the environment. As Charles Darwin noticed, a migrating population of finches containing a mix of traits will have its mix changed at the new location due to differential survivability. This 'microevolution' works on existing traits (and underlying genes) and in the creation model operates as it does in the evolutionary model - as a fine tuning mechanism and source of speciation. In the creation model the extrapolation from beak shape changes to the origin of beaks is considered to be unjustifiable as the former requires no new underlying traits whereas the latter does. Discuss the Galapagos finches, artificial dog breeding, agricultural breeding (wild mustard leads to broccoli, cabbage & cauliflower by selecting for features including leaf, stem and flower size) and viral resistance.

* DISTINCTNESS IN GENETICS
Genes are the lists of DNA bases that store information about our anatomical characteristics or traits. Blue/brown eyes, type A/B/O blood or short/tall are variants on the traits of eye color, blood type and height. These variants are called 'alleles'. A blue eyed person has two copies of the 'blue' allele - a gene with DNA that gives blue eyes. A tall person carries a 'tall' growth factor allele in his DNA. But the DNA is not a random series of 'bases'. Most random sequences result in a useless gene. So although it is very easy for a 'type A blood gene' to mutate into a 'type B blood gene' the genes for height or eye color have no similarity to those that code for blood type. Height, eye color and blood type genes all code for proteins that do a particular biochemical job. So although natural selection (an example of microevolution) and mutations can easily change alleles within a trait they can't easily do this from one trait to another. Some mainstream published research agrees that if macroevolution were true it would be 'more than repeated rounds of microevolution' (Erwin DH. Evol Dev. 2000 vol 2, pp78-84.). Discuss the issues with respect to information, gain, loss vs. allelic change.

* GENES CODE FOR PROTEINS WHICH DO VERY SPECIFIC JOBS & THE SYSTEMS APPEAR TO REQUIRE A MINIMAL NUMBER OF THEM
The distinct gene 'families' do very specific jobs in cells and organisms. That is why most mutations are disadvantageous or simply change the 'strength' of an already existing function. This is why it is easy to lose a function or change the shape of a beak or become resistant to a drug through mutations. For the same reason nobody has seen the evolution of new systems in bacteria after millions of bacterial generations in the laboratory. Not only is the evolution of a new gene type difficult as described above, but anatomical, physiological and cellular systems appear to require a minimal number of such parts before they can work. Example of protein jobs: the ribosome, an enzyme & hemoglobin. All organisms have a ribosome to make proteins but only organisms that transport oxygen or electrons have hemoglobin family members. A simple example from M. Behe's 'Darwin's Black Box'. Discuss issue of alternative use of parts in the evolutionary scenario as a hypothesis.

* CONCLUSIONS
The facts of 'homologies', a tree of life, convergences, organisms with mixed features, fossil order, genetic flexibility and natural selection are mostly agreed on by all. These facts are however interpreted differently in the creation and evolutionary models. What is seen as evidence of common descent can be viewed as evidence of a common creator. In the creation model the similarities, differences and complexities of life are seen as evidence of a common creator that is consistent with the known adaptive processes of biology. So although all of life shares certain genes, cellular systems and anatomical features, and although these can adapt to the environment, organisms also contain 'group specific' genes, cellular systems and anatomical features suggestive of creation.


I'd be interested to hear what our resident creationists think about TB's efforts. For reference, the professor decided NOT to use the syllabus, primarily because it would have taken too much time for her to develop refutations (even though I offered to help), and present them in class. They had a couple of snow days (in Ukraine!!!), and got behind on the "required" lessons. Too bad, I think it would have been a very worthwhile endeavor. I mean, TB's lesson plans represent about the "best" plan I've seen from a creationist, so destroying it in class would have been useful for the students as an example of good science vs pseudoscience.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Dan Carroll, posted 11-18-2003 1:12 PM Dan Carroll has not yet responded

  
docpotato
Member (Idle past 3838 days)
Posts: 334
From: Portland, OR
Joined: 07-18-2003


Message 13 of 48 (67413)
11-18-2003 2:09 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Rei
11-18-2003 1:52 PM


Rei,

This is one of many, many times I've wanted to give you a high-five.

I'll let this one stand for this time and all the previous times.

[This message has been edited by docpotato, 11-18-2003]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Rei, posted 11-18-2003 1:52 PM Rei has not yet responded

  
MrHambre
Member (Idle past 184 days)
Posts: 1495
From: Framingham, MA, USA
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 14 of 48 (67416)
11-18-2003 2:15 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Rei
11-18-2003 1:52 PM


Extremely well done. I can smell the mimeograph fluid already.

------------------
The dark nursery of evolution is very dark indeed.
Brad McFall


This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Rei, posted 11-18-2003 1:52 PM Rei has not yet responded

  
Rei
Member (Idle past 5804 days)
Posts: 1546
From: Iowa City, IA
Joined: 09-03-2003


Message 15 of 48 (67417)
11-18-2003 2:15 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by keith63
11-18-2003 2:03 PM


quote:
What I really want is that kids will be taught that there is a controversy about this topic. If there was not a controversy then we wouldnt be having this discussion. I can provide hundreds of scientists working at major universities who have problems with Darwinian evolution.

Yes. But how many Steves do you have?

------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."


This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by keith63, posted 11-18-2003 2:03 PM keith63 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by keith63, posted 11-18-2003 2:45 PM Rei has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2021