Creation DOES need to be taught with evolution

Hi David,
Before I start, are you the same David Fitch who studies Caenorhabditis nematodes? If so I used a reference of yours (as background) when doing my MS work on hermaphroditism and sex allocation in caridean shrimps.Anyway, I am intriqued by your statement: Are these two points or one? I have read Origin (although it has been some years since I have read it cover to cover) and have been trying to recall where Darwin discusses predictions from NS vs ID specifically. When discussing structures such as the eye (the archetype of ID design theory at the time) I think he wasn't discussing it in the sense of "Here is the eye, here are two hypotheses of origins, which holds up to predictions?". He sounds to me like he looking at complex structures, relationships, adaptations and the like as NOT supporting ID under scrutiny. I hope I can make my point in a clear manner (I am under the gun here, need to go in 15 minutes!).Intelligent design theory (as per Paley) doesn't make any predictions as to how a structure should look. The only 'prediction' inherent in design theory is that it is impossible to arrive at stepwise. "Structure X is irreducible in complexity and has no viable intermediate steps; therefore it can only exist as the product of intelligent design" The prediction is that ID is the ONLY mecahnism that can produce it. Not what the structure looks like. So Darwin states that structure X can easily be derived from slight changes in structure W which comes from V... and so on. He is nowhere (that I recall) looking at the complex structure of the eye and analyzing which theory best explains it. He says that the eye would be a problem IF no steps could be found, and btw here they are.I apologize if you intended those statements to be unrelated ("No one here has read Darwin" AND "People think that ID makes no predictions" as opposed to "No one here has read Darwin's discussion of how ID makes predictions"

---

"Statistics are like a bikini. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital." Aaron Levenstein

Thank you Dynamo321!
I have a Chick tracks misrepresent the intellectual veracity of scientists. Your post is a perfect example of what my topic is about. After watching a Hovind video you know enough background information to make the claim: You are convinced by a Hovind video? Please, do yourself a favor and read critiques of his information before citing it, you will save yourself a lot of heartache. If you choose not to, please check out the referred topic, your insight there would be appreciated.Edited to add message links, thanks AdminNosy!This message has been edited by Lithodid-Man, 11-25-2004 06:11 PM

Hi David,
If I understand you correctly you are suggesting that the creationist 'hypothesis' be discussed in its failure to conform to predictions? That is, showing that descent with modification is the only tenable hypothesis by comparison to a failed hypothesis. If this is what you mean I can see your point (as a tool to teach the scientific method a la Popper which, I agree, is poorly understood). I have often argued that an undergraduate course in philosophy of science should be required (I didn't encounter such until graduate school, and felt that I was denied valuable perspective in not getting these points earlier).If, however, you mean that creationism should be presented as an equal and viable alternative to DwM, then I must disagree. The examples you mentioned show that the predictions of ID simply aren't observed in nature. I am reasonably sure this isn't what you meant, but wanted to discuss both possibilities.btw, Thanks for the topic, this is really good stuff. I am curious, what do nematodes have to say about this issue? That is biologically, not literally . From what I understand God's inordinate fondness for beetles is dwarfed by his inordinate fondness of nematodes (every species of plant and animal probably has at least one obligate commensal nematode and usually several). My advisor has worked with marine meiofaunal nematodes.

I don't know how to respond to this. Blind? Because I have the basic understanding of science required to see Hovind for the fraud that he is? Because I am busting my ass to complete a REAL PhD in biology while that conman runs around bragging about the one he bought?Science takes work, period. Real work. Just to keep up with my peers I have to spend a great deal of time studying, reading technical journal articles, trying to wrap my head around new concepts both in my field and outside of it. When I research it is repetitive, tedious, time-consuming work that takes my free time away from my family. But the reward is that I make my small mark in evolutionary biology, contribute in some way to our understanding of the world. So for that I have little to no patience for small minded fools who would demean my work because they watched a video one day and now feel they are on equal parr with me. Especially a video from a shuckster who has been discredited by Answers in Genesis even? A man who bought his degree? I would not piss on Kent Hovind if he was on fire. That's all I have to say.This message has been edited by Lithodid-Man, 12-02-2004 07:48 PM

While going back through these posts I thought about another reason why it might be worth discussing ID concepts along with the ToE (I apologize if this has been said before and I missed it). This is to address the excellent point of Tim Berra (Evolution and the Myth of Creationism) as well as other people involved in science education who have mentioned that by ignoring creationism completely we feed the myth that evolution can only stand in a vacuum.