Sunday, November 08, 2009 Last Update:11:25 am ET

Education|Tue, Jun. 17 2008 05:40 PM EDT

La. Senate Approves Bill Promoting Critical Analysis of Evolution

By Nathan Black|Christian Post Reporter

Louisiana's state senate unanimously voted to pass a landmark academic freedom bill that would protect the right of teachers to discuss scientific theories supporting and critiquing evolution.

"This is great news for the science teachers in public school classrooms in Louisiana, and it's great news for science education in the whole State of Louisiana," said Wade Warren, professor of Biology and Cavanaugh Chair in Biology at Louisiana College, according to the U.S. think tank Discovery Institute. "Not all DNA and fossil evidence support a Darwinian view of life. This bill gives teeth to the freedom of a public school science teacher to ask their students to objectively analyze the scientific data."

The state senate on Monday approved the Louisiana Science Education Act 36-0 after the bill passed the House of Representatives last week with a 94-3 vote. The bill encourages "critical thinking skills, logical analysis, and open and objective discussion of scientific theories being studied including, but not limited to, evolution, the origins of life, global warming, and human cloning."

Teachers would also be allowed to use supplemental textbooks and other instructional materials to help students "understand, analyze, critique, and review scientific theories in an objective manner."

As the bill awaits final approval by Gov. Bobby Jindal, opponents are protesting the measure, claiming it is a "disguised attempt" to get intelligent design and creationism into public school science classes, as the Louisiana Coalition for Science alleges.

Alan Lesher, CEO of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the world’s largest scientific society, challenged the academic bill, saying it implies there is a controversy about evolution among scientists.

"But there is virtually no controversy about evolution among the overwhelming majority of researchers," Lesher, also executive publisher of Science journal, wrote earlier. "The science of evolution underpins all of modern biology and is supported by tens of thousands of scientific studies in fields that include cosmology, geology, paleontology, genetics and other biological specialties.”

Lesher also noted that the U.S. Supreme Court already declared a Louisiana "creation science" law unconstitutional in 1987.

As the academic freedom bill made its way through the house and senate this month, the Discovery Institute, which advocates intelligent design, has cautioned against "false claims" that the academic freedom bill would permit the use of religious materials in science classes.

The measure specifically states that it "shall not be construed to promote any religious doctrine, promote discrimination for or against a particular set of religious beliefs, or promote discrimination for or against religion or nonreligion."

Opponents at the Louisiana Coalition for Science still say the proposed law is in clear violation of the Establishment Clause contained in the Constitution, which prohibits sectarian doctrine, and that the aforementioned disclaimer "sidesteps" that violation.

Casey Luskin, an attorney and program officer for public policy and legal affairs at Discovery Institute, defended the bill's constitutionality, noting that "the U.S. Supreme Court has made clear that it is permissible for schools to teach scientific critiques of prevailing scientific theories."

Sort by: Newest | Oldest | Agree | Disagree
All comments on this page are subject to our Terms of Use and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Christian Post or its staff.
1 | 2 | 3 | 4
  • Tue Jul 01, 2008 3:57 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    ccccccc
    Please know that first I respect your service to our country. Secondly know that such service does not give you the right to call others (many who have also served) disloyal just because they disagree with you.
    Also please know that I am sorry for what ever pain and anguish you have suffered in your life that has driven you to such in your own words "hatred".
    Perhaps you could actually read the posts your reacting to and find that not everyone is your enemy. You might also think about how effective it has been in your life when people have attempted to convince you of something by belittling and insulting you. As a person who accepts the scientific validity of the theory of evolution and simultaneously the existence of a transcendent reality I find that your comments only serve to eliminate the possibility of open discourse and the acceptance of the theory of evolution.
    It is unfortunate that the actions you take clearly harm the chances of acceptance of the position you claim to advocate.

  • Tue Jul 01, 2008 3:26 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    cccc... despite your perpetual ranting I will take the risk of once again posting to you as if you were a rational person. It seems that in making your posts you do not even take the time to read what is written before you lash out. You may note that as soon as I saw that your posts to me had been flagged I posted to you on the 29th at 2:01 am stating my position on censorship and in fact urging others not to flag your comments.
    You may also note that I have persistently defended science, the scientific method and the theory of evolution. Further you will note if you bothered to check that on multiple other threads I have persistently defended the right of individuals to freedom of speech and all other constitutionally protected rights.
    My point in stating this is not to assert my virtue but rather to point out as others have that your wild generalizations and emotional outbursts are proven as unfounded and inconsistent with (ironic as it might seem) an evidence based belief system. Maybe you could spend some time reflecting on what drives you to abandon rational discussion and scientific methodology in this debate about a scientific subject.

  • Mon Jun 30, 2008 10:03 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    cccccc,
    If you are not going to contribute to the intelligent discussion (such as between steveh2o + viking, why post? When you continue to repeat the same childish venom + foolish claims ("Every biologist in the world would agree with me.") after being given proof to contrary, you only make yourself look bad.

  • Mon Jun 30, 2008 4:41 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 2

    The creationists who flag my comments accomplish two things. They prove to me that they are idiots, and they make me hate them even more than I did before.

  • Mon Jun 30, 2008 4:38 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 4

    The existence of creationists is an insult to hundreds of thousands of scientists. To be a creationist, a person has to believe all scientists are liars. The creationists owe scientists an apology.

    viking, what would you call a flat-earther? Probably you would just ignore him. What if there were millions of flat-earthers and they demanded that science teachers teach their students the earth is flat. That's might make you mad enough to call them morons, and of course they are morons.

    Now maybe you understand why I have no respect for creationists, especially creationists who want to force their stupidity into science education.

    Every biologist in the world would agree with me. Creationists and flat-earthers are equal, equally stupid.

    If you have a problem with that, instead of complaining about it, for God's sake why don't you educate yourself? Your belief in magical creation is disgraceful and you should be ashamed of yourself.

  • Mon Jun 30, 2008 4:29 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 2

    viking: "It is unfortunate that the level of debate and discussion that some can muster consists of a retreat into name calling when they encounter things that are beyond their knowledge, or experience. apparently its difficult for some to discern the difference between the easter bunny and Descartes."

    viking, it's unfortunate that creationists (was it you?) like to censor people who they disagree with. What's the problem? Why are creationists so cowardly? What are they afraid of? I thought here in America we have freedom of speech. The creationists don't respect any part of the First Amendment, do they? They don't respect the Establishment Clause and they don't respect freedom of speech. I didn't serve in the US Army so some creationist traitor could censor my comments.

    By the way, viking, there is absolutely no difference between the easter bunny and your magical sky fairy. They both have an equal amount of evidence, none. And they both are ideas for children or for adults who don't want to grow up.

  • Mon Jun 30, 2008 4:21 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    200 years ago it was normal to be a creationist, but today creationism is a mental illness. A creationist has to have no desire to learn anything. He has to have no desire to think. He has to have a strong desire to live in a fantasy world. A creationist has to be too cowardly to accept reality. A creationist has to be brainwashed. To be a creationist it helps a lot to be stupid. And definitely a creationist has to be insane. These people think a magical fairy made millions of different creatures out of nothing. They are willing to ignore mountains of evidence to believe this childish insanity. I just can't imagine anyone more hopelessly out of their minds than the creationists.

    Another problem creationists have is their strange desire to stick their breathtaking stupidity into science education. It's obvious these people are terrified of evolution. In Florida where I live we have brand new science standards for our public schools that make evolution one of the big ideas of science. Before the word "evolution" wasn't even in the science standards. We used to have the worst science standards in the nation, and now we have perhaps the best science standards in the nation. This is good, right? Of course it's good, but the creationists in Florida went nuts. They couldn't stand the idea that biology was going to be properly taught for the first time in Florida's history. Throughout Florida pastors and preachers and other religious idiots complained constantly about the new science standards. The Florida State Board of Education unsuccessfully tried to destroy the new standards, then our moron Florida politicians unsuccessfully tried to destroy the new standards with the same kind of bill which was passed in Louisiana.

    What's the problem with creationists? Why are they so afraid of science? And why are they so proud of their stupidity? When will they learn to respect the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment? Will creationists ever grow up? I doubt it.

    Another problem creationists have is their love for censorship. Nobody loves to censor the truth more than the creationists, which is exactly what I would expect from the most cowardly people in the world.

  • Mon Jun 30, 2008 2:36 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    Thanks viking

    They seem quite consistant to me, our basis for understanding the world arises from evolutionary processes that have produces a brain which is able to understand the world about it in a way that for instance by cat does not. Its not a step up or anything like that, its just another step in the eveolutinry process.

    I think that philosophy whilst useful can sometimes tie itself up in knots, the world has moved on since Kant (how many catergories?) and Hegal but still philosphers (maybe not so much these days though) debate this subject.

    An earlier thought therefore is that the arguement for Gods existenece just gets more complex as time goes on, it is beyond the grasp of the "man in the street", why do you think that is.

    Steve

  • Sun Jun 29, 2008 7:26 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Hi Steve,
    I guess the way I think about this is that for everyday situations a common sense understanding of Mind and rationality works just fine in the same way that Newtonian physics works just fine most of the time. The problem is that when you push reductionist materialism to its logical conclusions in relation to Mind and Reason it becomes apparent that under this world view framework these concepts are illusionary. While the roots of this problem in recorded history go back to Aristotle things really got going in a formal analysis way with Hegel and Kant during the early 18th century. Of course there are significant bodies of scholarly study around the issue of the competing philosophical models of materialism and idealism. I am not suggesting that philosophy has a definitive proof of one understanding of reality over another. Rather I am pointing out that the fundamental assumptions of science and our common sense understanding of Mind and Reason break down and are ultimately not logically consistent with reductionist materialism.
    I am also pointing out that serious and rigorous philosophical study can lead to a logical conclusion that rejects materialism as an inadequate world view to understand such experienced phenomena as Mind and Reason. This means that far from being equivalent to a belief in the Easter Bunny a view of reality which admits something beyond nature is logically and rationally valid.

  • Sun Jun 29, 2008 2:01 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    ccc...,
    Just wanted you to know that I did not flag your comments. while I might deplore the level of discussion sunk to when name calling becomes the mode I never flag comments directed at me regardless of the content. While I may oppose the substance with all my power I defend the right of you or anyone to say it to me. The only exception I make is when illegal, racist, etc comments are made regarding innocents such as Children. Further I would urge others to leave such posts as ccc's unflagged in that the posts themselves are the best evidence of the paucity of the arguments of such a commentator.

  • Sat Jun 28, 2008 6:00 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    hi steve got to go right now will be back with I hope will be clearer speech on this later.

  • Sat Jun 28, 2008 5:02 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    It is unfortunate that the level of debate and discussion that some can muster consists of a retreat into name calling when they encounter things that are beyond their knowledge, or experience.
    apparently its difficult for some to discern the difference between the easter bunny and Descartes.

  • Sat Jun 28, 2008 4:23 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    It must just be me, but the way I see it is that the ability to understand the world to rationalise it is simply part of our evolution, with no need to appeal to anything outside of it. I know its a really simple statement but it seems really obvious to me when I think about it. As I wrote it must just be me.

    What I find really interesting is that arguaments for God seem to be so complicated these days.

    Steve

  • Sat Jun 28, 2008 3:19 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Hi steve,
    What these philosophers are demonstrating is that the logical extension of pure materialism or naturalism is a conclusion that what we refer to as mind and rationality is in actuality just an illusion. That the common sense understanding of such are in actuality just physiological states and have no inherent validity.
    This demonstrates that a purely naturalistic philosophy or belief system is fundamentally self defeating and internaly inconsistent. Since naturalism is exemplified by the scientific method (by the way no I support the SM strongly) the capacity for rationality is fundamentally necessary for naturalism to be valid. But naturalism itself taken to its logical end denies the capacity of rationalism as an illusion.
    The alternative is that rationalism itself is like the properties of numbers and fundamental rules of logic not a contingent phenomena. If human beings have the capacity for rationality (in a formal sense not just sensory informed self interest behavior patterns imitating rationality) then by the rules of naturalism this can not arise from nature. If it does not arise from nature then whence does it come. For convenience sake we call this source supernature (not meaning ghost and goblins etc. but rather beyond or outside of the natural universe). This demonstrates to many that Science far from being antithetical to a belief in something beyond nature actually requires it for its underlying assumptions to be valid (though as AO has repeatedly correctly point out science has no capacity for examining questions realated to Supernature such as the existence of God)

  • Sat Jun 28, 2008 1:49 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    viking

    I enjoy reading your posts but have to on this occasion ask if it would be possible to have the below in plain english, I can't make head or tail of it.

    Regards

    Steve

  • Fri Jun 27, 2008 9:00 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    AO, The issue of whether rationality is real or not is no a question of whether I personally could accept it as arising through evolutionary processes in the same way as a wing or eye. It is one of whether under different understandings of reality rationality as we understand it is theoretically possible. Unfortunately in a framework of pure materialism such as you posit rationality as we understand it would be an illusion. This is demonstrated when materialism is extended to its logical conclusions related to mind as demonstrated by the excerpt below.
    In articles such as “Mental Events and the Brain” (1963), Paul Feyerabend explicitly endorsed the idea that common-sense psychology might prove to be radically false. Indeed, Feyerabend held that practically any version of materialism would severely undermine common-sense psychology. Like many of his contemporaries, Feyerabend argued that common-sense mental notions are essentially non-physical in character. Thus, for him, any form of physicalism would entail that there are no mental processes or states as understood by common-sense (1963, p. 295). Like Feyerabend, Quine also endorsed the idea that mental notions like belief or sensation could simply be abandoned in favor of a more accurate physiological account. In a brief passage in Word and Object (1960), Quine suggests that terms denoting the physical correlates of mental states will be more useful and, as he puts it, “[t]he bodily states exist anyway; why add the others?” (p. 264). However, Quine goes on to question just how radical an eliminativist form of materialism would actually be, implying no significant difference between explicating mental states as physiological states, and eliminating mental state terms in favor of physical state terms. He asks, “Is physicalism a repudiation of mental objects after all, or a theory of them? Does it repudiate the mental state of pain or anger in favor of its physical concomitant, or does it identify the mental state with a state of the physical organism (and so a state of the physical organism with the mental state)” (p. 265)? Quine answers this question by rejecting it, suggesting there is no interesting difference between the two cases: “Some may therefore find comfort in reflecting that the distinction between an eliminative and an explicative physicalism is unreal” (p. 265).
    In true natural materialism “rationality” becomes no more than one more arbitrary physiological state.

  • Wed Jun 25, 2008 11:13 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    *In a purely naturalistic universe rationality is in fact only an illusion*

    Not so much an illusion, but something only found in highly intellgent (what we deem intelligent) sentient beings. Just like feathered wings are found in avian birds (aves). From this view both traits, rational and feathered wings, were selected b/c of their fitness advantage offered in the local population over others. Being rational and cooperative might go a long way, espeically if your surrounded by irrational lemmings.

    *The organism thinks it is rational because that is what nature through its intrinsic and intricate processes and dynamics has produced.*

    You're saying natural forces can't work towards forming a mind to see itself and act rationally and recognize this? Why not? So nature can coax species to evolve new adaptations, but you limit the mind and rationality...why?

    Our rational minds work as they do b/c they offered a fitness advantage over rivals, just like our other traits like our eyes, skin, and so on. Being rational and coooperative could have served as important indicators for determing successful reproduction.

    For all we know computers which use AI in the near future might have enough intelligence to make rational decisions mirroring our evolutionary derived ones.

  • Wed Jun 25, 2008 10:46 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    AO,
    yes I am familiar with this argument but do you not see why it can not be logically consistent with the assumptions of science.
    If as Parker and other material naturalists contend rationality is an artifact of evolution then all thoughts are deterministicly produced by those forces of nature. In a purely naturalistic universe rationality is in fact only an illusion. The organism thinks it is rational because that is what nature through its intrinsic and intricate processes and dynamics has produced. How can you say apes are rational or for that matter humans. All a naturalist can say with consistency is that the processes of nature have led him to believe he is rational but in reality since these thoughts by his own beliefs are determined by the non rational processes of nature he can not assert that he has any basis of surety that they are actually valid.

  • Wed Jun 25, 2008 10:29 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    *human rationality that science requires in order for it to be valid comes from*

    I said it earlier, rationality comes from our minds/brains....where else? I guess you've read some books on biology/evolution, so I take it you're also familar with notions of rataionality and other nervous responses being evolutionary dervied. Steven Pinker has written on this. Thus, evolution of a larger more specialized brain also involved the ability of rational thought and reflection (unlike smaller brained organisms) and like most things in evolution, if it aids in the survival of the organism, odds are it will be passed on. This might be why Neanderthals also buried their dead, as in their rationale this wasn't all there was. Simply manifestion of something doesn't make it real though.

    Are apes rational? To some degree, yes. They just can't as easily express their views behind their motives, but they do have certain views which show rational cooperative and consequental thought.

    Our rationality although chemically wired in our brains depends on cultural views though, on what is dangerous for instance. and based on such experiences and knowledge we construct our views on rational thinking further. It's inate, but not something a todler could use, they don't fully understand their world enough, let alone themselves to make such decisions.

  • Wed Jun 25, 2008 10:14 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    AO,
    Hi perhaps the best way I can explain what I mean is by asking a question. Where do you contend that human rationality that science requires in order for it to be valid comes from.
    I fully agree with you that science (and rationality also) prohibits the use of God as an easy explanation for any phenomena we find it difficult to understand. But that is irrelevant to the central question of the underpinning assumption of science that humans can be rational beings.
    If we accept this assumption of rationality what does it logically require of us in relation to the nature of existence. Thus the question from whence does rationality arise. In fact what is true rationality (not just the seeming that could be explained as an artifact of nature but would then have no inherent claim to validity)

  • Wed Jun 25, 2008 9:56 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    viking,

    *requires a belief in something beyond nature*

    What, how so?

    *science depends on at least a tacit acceptance of such a supernature*

    What, no it doesn't. science depends on understanding the natural world by a form of reductionism by testing it against itself. We use creation to test creation. Waht we don't do is explain X in the Creation by invoking some deity. How is it important to accept supernature to use science, explain.

    The rational assumption in science is we aren't allowed to invoke 'god dun it' as a decry from up high to explain how things work, they are only words, and unless they are tested and held to a strict standard, like the scienticic method, there is no way to falsify such a claim. Which is exactly why it's so utterly worthless. Is it any wonder why it has taken humanity this long to stumble across the fruits of science when simpletons and their lacking logic could invoke super natural agents in a whim? Hardly.

  • Wed Jun 25, 2008 9:38 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    AO,
    Hi first let me say I am sorry if you thought I was questioning the fundamental assumptions of science. I wasn't. Only pointing out that there are several and giving example of a couple.
    I am going to skip over much of that part of your response and go to the end where you state.
    The question is though, why are we so different? Providence from evolution set in course from a deity? And why not? Why can't evolution be part of the process in a gods creation process, why must it be reduced to instant poofing?
    In fact what you describe in brief is Theistic Evolution. The belief based on scientific evidence that evolution is a valid and efficacious explanation for observed phenomena married to a belief in a God of Nature who "created" the universe with all of its wonderous processes including evolution among other things.
    The belief in human rationality (by this I mean true rationality not just the seeming of rationality)requires a belief in something beyond nature. And a Belief in true rationality underpins the assumptions of science. Therefore paradoxically while science is not a tool that can be used to explore the issue of the existence of supernature the validity of science depends on at least a tacit acceptance of such a supernature otherwise reason itself which is needed for science can not be logically held to be available to the scientist.

  • Wed Jun 25, 2008 8:58 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    Mathetes,

    Sorry, thought you really meant something by the water thing…

    * Therefore a pure naturalist must logically conclude that his/her thoughts can not be relied on and are always suspect and of simply being (from an evolutionary point of view) what is convenient to the species success in the current environment.*

    Like I said, to assume this is only a VU, both for the naturalist and the highly religious isn’t even a proposition most are worth entertaining. It would trump the notion of god, not just science or evolution. How can you be sure YOUR thoughts, let alone the book(s) you read, are real if you live in a VU? Easy, you can’t, in such a hypothetical nothing would be real. So, the only logical deduction we can make is this IS real and our actions here have consequences and hold merit, so to assume otherwise would kill the whole idea most theists and non theists alike strive for – purpose/meaning.

    Don’t assume evolutionary theory holds to answers to all things, it can answer some questions, but certainly not all. I think it can show how/why our brains set to develop in a certain manner as other traits in other animals have evolved, but it’s hard to coax everything out of it before we even fully know how the brain works.

    *a naturalist that he is only an animal to be ironic*

    To say we are only an animal is not the question, it’s not even a question. We are indeed part of the animal kingdom. The question is though, why are we so different? Providence from evolution set in course from a deity? And why not? Why can't evolution be part of the process in a gods creation process, why must it be reduced to instant poofing?

  • Wed Jun 25, 2008 8:43 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    viking,

    *Amongst these are that the the universe is real*

    Well, I guess so, what’s the alternative....are we to suppose we live in something like The Matrix? Suppose we are in some Virtual Universe (VU) though, simply just running on some aliens VU disc which they booted to some Uber computer....this would no doubt negate both the scientific realm and the spiritual/religious realm as we define them. It would reduce, in a single instance, all theology and all science merit, b/c at its core it would all be ultimately fake and not based on an actual reality so all things derived from it, god, science, theology, evolution and all would be simply nothing more than mental masturbation if you will. And in this state within a VU we certainly can’t say we could be certain of anything, let alone the existence of god(s), or anything for that matter. We would have no real basis for reality.

    Religion and theology itself hinges off of that very same assumed fact that this IS real, so we are no better off either way. We have to assume all around us, that it is indeed the real deal and not some 50 year convoluted coma induced dream. To assume the alternative, is a non starter. So as you see, it’s not merely a problem for pure naturalists, but it’s a problem for all as implying a VU would mean nothing here is real, imagined or otherwise. This VU would also be the antithesis to the idea behind all religions, the ultimately meaning all grapple with in life – purpose. If it is a VU, then this whole time religion and its offerings behind worshipping X god would be in vain as it would mean this isn’t real, and no real purpose exists here, it lies elsewhere, beyond our innate ability to sense reality. Go ahead; invoke the VU, but most theists love and reveal in the idea that this IS real as it affirms their notion of purpose. If they were told this wasn’t real, but some VU, then the whole idea of purpose would be fallacious and hardly even worth having as a word at all.

    *(or at least can be rational beings).*

    The fact that we’re talking about human rationalism shows that evidently we humans, if nothing else are, or at least have the capacity to be rational, right? If I didn’t want to be rational I and others wouldn't be responding now would we?

    *If nature is all there is then what we call rationality must come from nature.*

    I would say more appropriately our sense of rationality comes from our nervous system and senses, namely our brain. (again nature) And why not? Our sense of all other things hinge off of other such receptors which feel out the makings of the universe, why should our brain and the feelings derived from it be any different?

  • Wed Jun 25, 2008 8:06 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Hi all,
    In reading these posts it seems at times people are talking past each other on different tangents. AO While I am not competent to judge completely I don't find any fault in your scientific evidence presentations. That being said it seems that you work hard to admit that science and the scientific method themselves are based on a set of assumptions. Amongst these are that the the universe is real, that we can come to know this universe and most importantly to this debate that human beings are (or at least can be rational beings). This is the existential problem for pure naturalists. From whence does rationality come. If nature is all there is then what we call rationality must come from nature. If this is so then it arises as an artifact of natural processes. As such this so called rationality would be a determined product of the universe and have no inherent claim to validity. Therefore a pure naturalist must logically conclude that his/her thoughts can not be relied on and are always suspect and of simply being (from an evolutionary point of view) what is convenient to the species success in the current environment.
    This is why I find the claim from a naturalist that he is only an animal to be ironic in that a purely natural being is inherently incapable of logically making any assertion of truly knowing reality including the nature of his own existence.

  • Wed Jun 25, 2008 5:33 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 1

    *I do believe He created a full-functioning universe with mature creatures in it - Adma was created as an adult, mature fruit trees (not seeds) were placed in the garden, etc*

    Right, he makes it all look old, and then in his supposed revealed word he leaves the indications of the earth only being some 6,000 years old. Mightily horrid logic there.

    *Do you have assumptions, AO? Iâ??m pretty convinced everyone starts with them.*

    Sure, we all do in a sense, but its important to leave assumptions at the door when science is concerned, everything for that matter. What is what is simply deemed by virtue of exhaustive repeated testing in science.

    *Science has no place for God, or science is compatible with a belief in God.*

    Science makes no claims about existence of god(s), it can only be used to study the material, physical world, which god theoretically isn’t. Science can neither say god exists, nor god does exist, it's simply indifferent to it. Science doesn’t allow the use of the super natural to make sense of things, this is why it's so useful as it demands actual verifiable and testing to qualify as a hypothesis for a given proposition. Simply asserting by fiat ‘god makes rainbows’ wont work, and it’s as intellectually bankrupt as invoking pixies to pull planets around. Science is the most pure way of knowing, as it forces us to not use such cop out answers like’ elves did it’.

  • Wed Jun 25, 2008 5:28 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Mathetes

    I forgat to mention that all through out the stratigraphic column in diffrent parts of the world we find deposts just like the ones deposited by St Helens. They are the result of pyroclastic flows and air fall from (Plinian etc..) eruption columns. we therefore have a good idea of how long it took for the strata to be deposited. One of the really interesting things to look for is how the gran size etc..changes in the strata as one moves away from the eruption site. There are some very interesting examples of this in the states around the super volcano at Yellow stone park.

    Steve

  • Wed Jun 25, 2008 5:25 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    "Fluid-born water"

    What? You never heard of that? That's what you get when a guy stays up too late, gets up to early, get run all over the tennis court by better players, then tries to type too fast.

    On second thought, there's no excuse. Mea culpa and good night.

  • Wed Jun 25, 2008 5:21 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    AO,
    Those hominids are interesting, to a point. Why not accept them as either extinct species of apes or extinct humans? Can you tell which one they belonged to from the bones alone? I’m always amused at artist’s depictions of so-called “ape-men” - they make them appear shaggy and stupid, barely more than apes. Then you find that they were working from part of a skull, a femur, and some toes. How detailed they make their pretty pictures!

    Where did they fit into the Bible? I do not know for sure, except that some of them must have lived pre-flood and were buried with the rest of mankind. Others may have lived after the flood, but became extinct through war or disease, just as many animals have become extinct.

  • Wed Jun 25, 2008 5:16 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 1

    *Sea creatures would be the first buried, with animals living inland or able to run faster from the rising water being buried later. Corpses would be deposited by currents in mass "graveyards Is this not what we find? *

    The deeper we dig we only find microorganisms, and trace fossils, nothing multi-cellular but only single celled. Why is this the case? The oldest fossils (the lowest ones) are sea creatures, but only specie single celled types. Then multi celled. Then things like trilobites. There is a deep succession of fossils here, and from layer to layer. Its not merely mixed as we would expect with all sea creatures in habituating the same terrain at the same time as you suggest. If all sea creatures all lived at the same time, why don’t we find trilobites and ichthyosaurs with dolphins in the same layers or other similar examples?

    We only find certain sea creatures from certain layers and the deeper we go, the less complex they all uniformly are. Why is this so? We do find some groups of species in clusters, but this is as easily as explainable by using a local flood in place of a global one. Besides, if a global flood had occurred, why are their some nearly a dozen geological layers and not a single huge one?

    “The origin of the strata themselves is not dependent on millions of years”

    For morphic or igneous rock it is. look at the Hawaiian island chains and how over millions of years they’ve formed. Simply use google earth and look at the satellite pics there.

    “fluid-born water naturally arranges itself’

    Huh….water born water….?

  • Wed Jun 25, 2008 5:11 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 1

    You know, you’re right in one sense - I probably can’t talk science as deeply as you; it’s not my specialty. Centromeres and telomeres were things I studied long ago or never studied, I don’t know which. At least I’ll admit where I might be wrong. You just don’t see it, and that makes me sad, truly. I like you and we do agree on a number of other things.

    Non sequitur? I though I would put it with all the other possible explanations. Isn’t that a logical place for it? B-)

    Do you have assumptions, AO? I’m pretty convinced everyone starts with them. There is a God or God does not exist. Science has no place for God, or science is compatible with a belief in God. All of us look at the same evidence - it’s our assumptions that make the difference on how we INTERPRET the evidence.

  • Wed Jun 25, 2008 5:03 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Mathetes

    Who told you that that geologists teach ALL strata take millions of years to be deposited, ? Its not something I have been taught in my geology class.

    I spent some time in the north of England last year studying the enviromental record of the rocks. My best day was in a quarry where we recorded cross stratified sand dunes from the Permian then on top of those were deposits where the sea had transgressed, on top of these deposits was further cross stratified sand dunes were the dessert had returned as sea levels fell this cycle of sea transgression and then return to dessert conditions occured a number of times through the Trissac and Jurassic. All very interesting, the rocks have such a story to tell.

    Steve, walking the walk.....

  • Wed Jun 25, 2008 4:56 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 2

    AO,
    "Why would he purposely make it as if common ancestry is in fact true, unless of course it actually was? Are you telling me a deceptive designer/god is one you�re open to then?"

    I don't believe God was deceptive. I do believe He created a full-functioning universe with mature creatures in it - Adma was created as an adult, mature fruit trees (not seeds) were placed in the garden, etc. Distant starlight theories are being formulated and refined, but center around the concept of a white hole rather than a big bang/explosion - time dilation on the boundary would help explain how we see the light of stars more distant than the current speed of light/10K years would allow.

    So no, I definitely do not think God was intending to deceive. Is He deceptive just because it doesn't fit man's ideas/theories about what we are seeing?

  • Wed Jun 25, 2008 4:50 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 1

    Steve,
    Not my explanation, but the explanation given in the Bible is the flood. Millions of creatures were buried in water-born silt. Sea creatures would be the first buried, with animals living inland or able to run faster from the rising water being buried later. Corpses would be deposited by currents in mass "graveyards." Is this not what we find? In Pre-Cambrian we find microorganisms, then suddenly in the Cambrian there's a multitude of invertebrates. Above that more complex animals, often en masse in certain areas. Fossils of pleiosaurs giving birth or eating speak of a rapid burial, as do the tree and animal fossils which cross multiple strata. The origin of the strata themselves is not dependent on millions of years; fluid-born water naturally arranges itself in strata based on the size of the granules. This has been tested in the lab as well as observed in nature (at Mt. St. Helens).

    I could go on, but I hope you can see that the common evolutionary explanation is not the only one that fits the evidence.

  • Wed Jun 25, 2008 4:42 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    *Evidence is a snapshot; we decide the backstory to explain the evidence*

    No, evidence is just that - evidence. But collective evidence AND continued testing of current and future evidence yields the story so to speak. Fortunatly, we have more than just a methaphorical baseball and broken window. We have DNA which works according to hereditary, which means it's quite literally a living record of the biological past. It would be like having a ball which is signed by your neighbors son, and knowing that he's baseball player, and that he commonly plays outside in his yard. Sure, you didn't see him do it, but it's obvious via deduction based on evidence. I think you’re in a little over your head here.

    *Neighbors that do not like him. Aliens. Evolution*

    Evolution huh, how exactly is that a plausible hypothesis for a broken window? Talk about a non sequitur.

    *window broken by earthquake.*

    If it were broken from an earthquake you’d have other evidence unrelated to your house by which you could deduce what caused the broken window. A single piece of evidence doesn’t confirm something, but collectively, when all point to the same thing, it’s obvious, well unless you’re a jury in the OJ murder case.

    *So it is with genetic snapshots or fossils evolutionists fit them into their assumed story, but they could also be explained by other stories, such as the God of the Bible.*

    Right, lets hear how and why all those hominid fossils exist within a biblical story. What, god wasn’t sure if he wanted to create all those other hominids? Why are they even around? Let’s hear the part in the bible where it describes god fusing the chromosomes and planting all those ERV’s in us, Chimps and other great apes showing common ancestry. Let’s hear the story where god let micro-organisms live since some 3.8 billion years ago, meanwhile complex life didn’t become apparent till some 600 million years ago.

  • Wed Jun 25, 2008 4:21 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 1

    ‘I don't think so. You assume evolution happened, then you see genetic code, then you say that it is evidence of evolution’

    No, we don’t have to assume evolution is true to know how DNA relates to hereditary from generation to generation, we know this is a fact as this is simply how DNA works. DNA is passed down each generation, this its use in paternity testing. The same principles of DNA hereditary apply to not only single generations, but also over the long term, over 1,000’s or millions of generations.

    Doubt me? Review ‘Aarons Y-chromosome’ then.

    http://www.cambridgedna.com/y-chromosomal-aaron-and-the-cohen-model-haplotype.php

    With the example of human chromosome 2 fusion, the evidence for it, the extra set of telomeres and Centromeres and the uniformity in karyotype banding patterns across 4 very genetically similar species isn’t dependent upon the theory itself, it simple IS as a matter of fact of observation. The extra sets of Centromeres and telomeres simply are, and their direct factual observation must be explained somehow, and fusion is the only way it could have occurred.

    We know chromosome fusions occur now as we’ve witnessed them in labs with other species (Google it), and based on this and the evidence for human chromosome 2, we can deduce it’s the result of a fusion.

    “Could the observed code not be evidence of alien engineering, or a creative Sumpreme Being?”

    The DNA code itself could be perhaps, but the hypothesis of super natural agent doing it is without question unfalsifiable. This is why ‘god dun it that way’ with regards to chromosome 2 or anything for that matter is entirely bankrupt, it explains no details.

    Lets for a second assume he did though, but then you have to ask yourself, why would a hypothetical designer go to such lengths to make a process they used look entirely naturally via fusion? Why make it appear as if a fusion had occurred rather than simply having the 2nd chromosome without the tell tale extra Centromere and Telomeres? Why would he purposely make it as if common ancestry is in fact true, unless of course it actually was? Are you telling me a deceptive designer/god is one you’re open to then?

  • Wed Jun 25, 2008 4:10 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Mathetes

    Lets run with what you said about the God of the bible (or at least one stream of Christanitys approach to the subject) being the explanation for the biostratigraphic column, what is that explanation?

    Cheers

    Steve

  • Wed Jun 25, 2008 3:53 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 1

    Part 2
    Evidence is a snapshot; we decide the backstory to explain the evidence. E.g., a man comes home from a weekend away to find a baseball + a rock on the floor of a room with a broken window. Examination yields no fingerprints or glass shards on the rock or ball. That is all the evidence since there were no witnesses.

    Explanations? Kids playing baseball. Neighbors that do not like him. Aliens. Evolution. Ball + rock had nothing to do with the window broken by earthquake. Who knows? The evidence is inconclusive in itself.

    So it is with genetic snapshots or fossils - evolutionists fit them into their assumed story, but they could also be explained by other stories, such as the God of the Bible.

  • Wed Jun 25, 2008 3:51 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 1

    Part 1
    "you can observe the genetic code and see evidence of evolution in that." I don't think so. You assume evolution happened, then you see genetic code, then you say that it is evidence of evolution. Is that not the definition of a circular argument? Could the observed code not be evidence of alien engineering, or a creative Sumpreme Being? Seems one's starting assumptions make all the difference.

  • Wed Jun 25, 2008 12:36 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 1

    Mathetes,

    Put the notion of macroevolution into the light of how places like AIG, ICR expect it to work. They say after the flood and animals of ‘each kind’ went back to the wild they begin to diversify and evolve, but for some odd reason the creationists think such super rapid evolution can occur over a period of only 4,000 years, but not billions or millions And no I am not joking, AIG’s ‘creation museum’ proudly displays it, as if it was actually supported by such observations in science. Quite ironic isn’t it. So having more time doesn’t make it plausible, but less time does in their eye….urrrm, mkay.

    And lets also look at the hominid fossils in light of what places like AIG says. So what exactly were all these hominids doing the garden of Eden then? Why so many quasi human/apes roaming around?

  • Wed Jun 25, 2008 11:42 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    I can only assume Star is around 'thumbing down' my comments. that is about par for her.

  • Wed Jun 25, 2008 11:41 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    "it had to be observable, testable, repeatable"

    But observations don't have to direct observations, they can be indirect. just like how no person has ever observed an atom, their existence is understood using math and indirect observations accordingly.

  • Wed Jun 25, 2008 11:36 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 1

    Mathetes,

    “but "macro-evolution" is something else.”

    But is it really? Creationists ask for the intermediates for A-Z evolution. They say, ‘hey, if primitive apes DID evolve into not only H. Sapiens, but others along the way, then we should see some fossil evidence for this’. And this is what the fossil record show. Review my vids on it.

    www.youtube.com/watch?v=gkM3iFn7eLc

    www.youtube.com/watch?v=tsZjCokzpJM

    The major transition from lobe finned fish is another such an example and again the result is the same, the fossils are there, and the collection keeps getting better and better and b/c of past finds we can deduce where and geologically when we should look to find other such intermediates. Case in point, Tiktaalik.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiktaalik

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetrapodomorpha

    http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/04/tiktaalik_makes_another_gap.php

    According to most/all creationists, such animals never existed, or certainly shouldn’t’ be anything like them, and yet we find fossils of them. A ½ fish ½ amphibious tetrapod, who’d a thunk it?

    How can such evidence like all the fossils, and genetic evidence like ERV’s and Human chromosome 2 fusion be understood any other way but by inferring ‘macro-evolution’ had occurred. Why does it in your mind sound ok for a given species to genetically diverge, but then this diverging can’t overtime result in more

    ‘but no one has observed "macro-evolution."”

    But speciation IS part of macro evolution, once a species diverges genetically you have now 2 independent gene pools, and they will evolve in their own trajectory based on mutations, selection, genetic drifting and so on. Once the gene pools become isolated, there is no going back. But, we have observed macroevolution even outside of this, but not directly, but indirectly, in the fossils and genetics, they are hallmarks for such evolutionary pathways organisms took in the past, it’s quite literally a living fossil record. You’re asking for an ape to give birth to a fully formed human, this doesn’t happen, and an understanding of meiotic division in biology explains why. Changes from generation to generation can only be slight, asking for such a dramatic change in a single generation is not what evolutionary theory or biology suggests is possible at all.

  • Wed Jun 25, 2008 11:04 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    Mathetes: There are lots of ways to "observe" things. For example, you can observe the genetic code and see evidence of evolution in that. It doesn't have to be an observation of an animal turning into something else completely different - as a matter of fact, if you ever did see something like that, it would invalidate some of evolution because it doesn't work that way.

  • Wed Jun 25, 2008 12:32 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    continued...
    Seems that standard is applied in other fields: astrophysics, chemistry, etc. But it seems less is required in biology these days. Changes to a species are extrapolated beyond what can be observed, tested, and repeated, + it's said to be proven.
    viking, thanks for helping in your normal calm manner.

  • Wed Jun 25, 2008 12:24 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    I was intending no trick question. Since my first science class in 5th grade, 3 principles underlying all science were pounded into me: it had to be observable, testable, repeatable. If an idea couldn't meet these standards, it might be a great idea but it's not science. Was all that changed when I wasn't looking?

  • Tue Jun 24, 2008 11:55 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 1

    Mathetes,
    I am wondering also if the same standards of evidence for acceptance of a scientific theory are applied to other topics. For example no human researcher has ever observed the core of the earth, or the center of the sun, or observed first hand the traveling of light across the vast distances of space between the distant celestial bodies and earth (nor lived long enough to do so) and yet there seems no controversy or difficulty in accepting the scientific theories related to these phenomena.???

  • Tue Jun 24, 2008 11:49 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    Mathetes,
    The other question I have regarding this is what is meant by "based on observation" Does this mean one researcher actually observing a process which by definition (if by macro evolution we mean multiple speciation including all intermediate species between some distant extinct common ancestor and two distinct descendant branch extant species representatives of the current era)takes extensive multiple generations and significant (sometimes millions of years) time. If this is the definition than it is essentially a trick question since no human researcher could live this long.

  • Tue Jun 24, 2008 11:42 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    Hi Mathetes,
    I think you know I am a Christian who accepts Theistic evolution as an integration of my religious faith and scientific understanding. This question regarding "observed macro-evolution" has come up several times. At first I thought that the dividing line in YEC advocates minds was adaptation to environment within a species vs. the emergence of a new distinct species from the antecedent species. Now I see I was mistaken. Something beyond the emergence of descendent species is meant by this term. I am wondering therefore what precisely is meant by "Macro evolution" as you use and understand the term.

  • Tue Jun 24, 2008 10:32 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    AO,

    I can't speak for the others, but I've watched most of the videos you've recommended. Interesting stuff. But where I have concerns is this, and no one has answered it yet: observed speciation is one thing, but "macro-evolution" is something else.

    In the past it has been said, it's the same thing, just the cumulative effect of many small changes over time. But that just it: perhaps we can see speciation (depending on which on the four definitions for "species" is used), but no one has observed "macro-evolution." Saying it's the same thing, just more of it, does not make it so.

    Not trying to be confusing here. I've asked this several times in several different ways, as has DP, but I haven't seen an answer based on observation yet.

    Thanks for your time.

Please help us to monitor our message boards by flagging comments that are unlawful, harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, defamatory, vulgar, obscene, libelous, hateful, or racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable.
Contact Us if you have any questions, comments, or concerns.
Comment on this story
ID Password

Don't have a Christian Post ID? Signing up is easy. Click Here

  • icon1
  • icon2
  • icon3
  • icon4
  • icon5
The Christian Post reserves the right to terminate the account of any User who violates our Terms of Use.
Advertisement
Advertisement
CP Shopping
  • Jewelry
  • Health
  • Gifts
  • DVD
  • Coins

Bracelets | Chains | Crosses | Earrings | Gemstone |

Featured contents & Giveaways
Zondervan

Struggling to succeed in the Nashville music scene, talented singer/songwriter Parker James finds the competition fierce even deadly. A young woman's murder, industry corruption, a

Featured Advertiser Links