|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Biology teacher resource help | |||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
Do you think I should be presenting the evo side of the debate? This is from the OP?
In addition, has anyone found any creationist arguments that make sense. This is a debate board welcoming the non-evo perspective in debate, right? The question is asked of "anyone." It seems to me you are insisting that only evolutionists can answer that question and anyone else would be pushing their ideas falsely?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Adminnemooseus Administrator Posts: 3974 Joined: |
...not for the creationist perspective. Let's keep the evo/creo argument out of this topic.
All others should do likewise. No evo's taking potshots at creo perspectives. Adminnemooseus Added by edit: Upon reevaluation, my above comments may well be wrong and misplaced. But people, be nice - And supply quality references. Edited by Adminnemooseus, : See above. Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Fix typo in previous added by edit.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
Hostility ?
quote: I think you should be pointing to the creationist equivalent of the evolution material he asked for. Full presentations which take a good hard look at the evidence. Not ideas you just happen to have taken a liking to without any serious investigation of the facts.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
I appreciate your intervention....Obviously fishboy is an evolutionist and may therefore not agree with me, and he seems to perhaps have been influenced by PaulK's smear or maybe not.
However, this was his response to my post:
Yes this is the type of info I want. Seems to me he wanted to hear what I and other non-evos have to say. He stated this was the type of info he wanted, and then a partisan evo here slams me as ill-informed (I think if fishboy reads my posts in-depth he will know that isn't true), and the result now seems to me that creationists and IDers cannot present the arguments they think are valid.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
Hmmmm.....so your argument is we should present "full" arguments on every creationist or ID argument? One thread cannot do that, nor present the full spectrum of evo arguments. I was presenting a cursory review of some arguments and saying he could peruse the forum for more details.
But I'll drop off now per admin's comments.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Adminnemooseus Administrator Posts: 3974 Joined: |
Look at message 17 again.
If you have what you think is a quality creationist perspective resource, list it. But not just a bunch of blather. To all - This is not a topic to debate evo/creo. Adminnemooseus
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
My approach was just to provide some cursory review of creationist and ID arguments against Darwinism which might mean talking on a bit to do that. In other words, I was more or less just trying to list some arguments in a way someone not familiar to them might get a basic handle on the argument, and then I was pointing them to the remainder of the forum that debate and discuss the ideas. Hopefully fishboy will take some time to read in this case, some of my arguments or other critics of evo's arguments.
One cannot really give a full-orbed answer on one thread, heck not even on many threads, and just listing them by some title wouldn't mean anything not familiar to the debate. Edited by randman, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
I said that the creationist material should be the equivalent of the evolutionist material. The evolutionist material has not been posted to this thread - instead references have been provided to resources. Perhaps you should learn to stop jumping to erroneous conclusions.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
You and I have a VERY different opinion on the quality and validity of TalkOrigin material. I see it as basically propaganda and think my comments or anyone is on a par with it.....it's not exactly peer-review material, is it?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
Regardless of your opinion of the material, it has been carefully thought-out, it is presented in detail and it is well referenced. The same cannot be said for your opinions.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
molbiogirl Member (Idle past 2642 days) Posts: 1909 From: MO Joined: |
I've been watching Walter Lewins physics lectures ever since. I watched one of the bio lectures, just what i'm looking for. Oh no no no no no, fish. Nothing against Walter, but that's amateur hour. Here's what you need: The Vega Science Trust - Richard Feynman - Science Videos Now that's physics. (Seriously. You must watch all 4 videos.)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
Ironically, I think that particular site can illustrate a creationist criticism of evo theory. The linked article on the 29 Evidences states:
Evolution, the overarching concept that unifies the biological sciences, in fact embraces a plurality of theories and hypotheses. And elaborates on one of those theories, for example, which entail "evolution."
Universal common descent is the hypothesis that all living, terrestrial organisms are genealogically related. All existing species originated gradually by biological, reproductive processes on a geological timescale. Modern organisms are the genetic descendants of one original species or communal gene pool. However, another article under the heading "What is Evolution" contradicts that definitionhere:
Evolution is a change in the gene pool of a population over time. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html That is a much more narrow concept of what evolution is. So which is it? Is evolution a change in a species or subspecies gene pool, or is it universal common descent, the microbe to man story? Note the same article states:
Evolution is the cornerstone of modern biology. It unites all the fields of biology under one theoretical umbrella. It is not a difficult concept, but very few people -- the majority of biologists included -- have a satisfactory grasp of it. So most biologists don't understand it, but this internet site does, and yet they have different definitions of the term "evolution." Note the comment "very few" understand it. Are appeals to elite knowledge on this subject indicative of well-thought out scientific reasoning?
Scientific creationism is 100% crap. So-called "scientific" creationists do not base their objections on scientific reasoning or data. Their ideas are based on religious dogma, and their approach is simply to attack evolution. Is this reflective of genuine well-reasoned discussion or a smear and propaganda tactic? Imo, evolutionists don't help students develop critical thinking. Even this site claims most biologists don't even understand evolution all that well....maybe they are correct and I shouldn't slam them for that. But if that is the case, why are we teaching kids something Phds don't really understand? Elsewhere the site defines evolution as:
Evolution is a process that results in heritable changes in a population spread over many generations. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-definition.html Once again, this is a limited concept of evolution that no one disputes. It's misleading to suggest that what critics of evolution are disputing is this definition when it is not, but that's what evos often do. They accuse creationists of not understanding what evolution is and then offer up a limited definition. Creationists understand what microevolution is and they don't disagree with it. But "evolution" in terms of the Theory of Evolution is more than that. It is as the 29 Evidences states:
Evolution, the overarching concept that unifies the biological sciences, in fact embraces a plurality of theories and hypotheses. That's what is being debated and so it's a false response to creationists and Iders to try to switch to debating "evolution" as defined by mere heritable change, but that's the underlying tactic, imo. Take this for example:
Biologists consider the existence of biological evolution to be a fact. It can be demonstrated today Evolution is a Fact and a Theory What can be demonstrated? They are conflating the idea of evolution as heritable change with universal common descent and using one definition, the one that is demonstratable, to suggest the other disputed idea is demonstratable. Imo, that's wrong and clouds the mind. It's propaganda. Note:
This often leads to fruitless debate since the experts are thinking about evolution from a different perspective. When someone claims that they don't believe in evolution they cannot be referring to an acceptable scientific definition of evolution because that would be denying something which is easy to demonstrate. It would be like saying that they don't believe in gravity! Recently I read a statement from a creationist who claimed that scientists are being dishonest when they talk about evolution. This person believed that evolution was being misrepresented to the public. The real problem is that the public, and creationists, do not understand what evolution is all about. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-definition.html Note where they are basically saying creationists are wrong because evolution is "easy to demonstrate." Did you catch that? It's propaganda because creationists are not arguing over the idea of heritable change, they are arguing over universal common descent and macroevolution. So what the evo here is saying is that, hey, the creationist criticisms are wacko and ill-informed because they are arguing against something easily demonstrated. But is that true? Is that what creationists are taking issue with? Moreover, how can a site that cannot even give a consistent definition of evolution accuse the public, biologists, and creationists and IDers of being ignorant? Edited by randman, : No reason given. Edited by randman, : No reason given. Edited by randman, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
molbiogirl Member (Idle past 2642 days) Posts: 1909 From: MO Joined: |
In case you're interested, this guy has the goods.
pharyngula | ScienceBlogs And you can betcher bottom dollar he's tellin it to you straight. Try these too: evolgen | ScienceBlogs evolvingthoughts | ScienceBlogs strangerfruit | ScienceBlogs gnxp | ScienceBlogs That last one is a bit technical.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
anglagard Member (Idle past 837 days) Posts: 2339 From: Socorro, New Mexico USA Joined: |
molbiogirl writes: Try these too: evolgen | ScienceBlogs evolvingthoughts | ScienceBlogs strangerfruit | ScienceBlogs gnxp | ScienceBlogs That last one is a bit technical. What a gold mine! And the second leads to even more treasures. Signing off now, have some reading to catch up on. See you in a few days...or is that decades? Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider - Francis Bacon The more we understand particular things, the more we understand God - Spinoza
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 12998 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
Hi Randman,
Suspended again already, I see. The goal of EvC Forum is to provide a venue where the two sides in the creation/evolution controversy can engage in dispassionate and constructive discussion that leads to a better understanding. We can't achieve that goal if we allow threads to descend into raucous, rancorous and contumely chaos. It isn't impossible to get along with people you disagree with. Seek the best in people, you'll find it. Try to find some middle ground. Follow the Forum Guidelines and moderator requests.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024